Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47507 

Each year while the issue is outstanding, 40 

percent by volume and 45 percent by weight 

of the solid material that Company K 

processes in the conversion process is coal. 

The remainder of the solid material is either 

used material or residual material within the 

meaning of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. 

Sixty percent of the costs of the property 

used to perform the energy conversion 

process are allocable to a solid waste disposal 

function. 

Example 12. Mixed-function facility. 

Company L owns and operates a facility 

financed by an issue and uses the facility 

exclusively to sort damaged bottles from 

undamaged bottles that may be re-used. The 

damaged bottles are directly introduced into 

a process that melts them for use in the 

fabrication of an end product. The damaged 

bottles are solid waste within the meaning of 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and the 

melting process is a qualified solid waste 

disposal process as a recycling process 

within the meaning of paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. Refilling the bottles is not a qualified 

solid waste disposal process. Each year while 

the issue is outstanding, more than 50 

percent, by weight or volume, of all of the 

bottles that pass out of the sorting process are 

damaged bottles that are processed in a 

recycling process. The sorting facility 

performs a preliminary function, but it also 

performs another function. The costs of the 

sorting facility allocable to the preliminary 

function are determined using any reasonable 

method, based on all the facts and 

circumstances. 

(i) Effective Dates—(1) In general. 

This section applies to bonds to which 

section 142 applies that are sold on or 

after the date that is 60 days after 

publication of final regulations in the 

Federal Register. 

(2) Elective retroactive application. 

Issuers may apply this section to bonds 

sold before the date that is 60 days after 

publication of final regulations in the 

Federal Register. 

PART 17—TEMPORARY INCOME TAX 

REGULATIONS UNDER 26 U.S.C. 103C 

Par. 4. The authority citation for part 

17 continues to read in part as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

§ 17.1 [Removed] 

Par. 5. Section 17.1 is removed. 

Linda M. Kroening, 

(Acting) Deputy Commissioner for Services 

And Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–22258 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0431; FRL–8431–4] 

Mancozeb, Maneb, Metiram, and 

Thiram; Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the fungicides 

mancozeb and maneb. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the fungicides mancozeb, maneb, 

metiram, and thiram. In addition, EPA 

is proposing to establish new tolerances 

for the fungicides mancozeb, maneb, 

and metiram. The regulatory actions 

proposed in this document are in 

follow-up to the Agency’s reregistration 

program under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), and tolerance reassessment 

program under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), section 

408(q). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0431, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

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–2009– 

0431. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line 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 website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

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; e-mail address: 

nevola.joseph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47508 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 

111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit II.A. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency 

to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency 

Proposes to Revoke? 

This proposed rule provides a 

comment period of 60 days for any 

person to state an interest in retaining 

a tolerance proposed for revocation. If 

EPA receives a comment within the 60– 

day period to that effect, EPA will not 

proceed to revoke the tolerance 

immediately. However, EPA will take 

steps to ensure the submission of any 

needed supporting data and will issue 

an order in the Federal Register under 

FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The 

order would specify data needed and 

the timeframes for its submission, and 

would require that within 90 days some 

person or persons notify EPA that they 

will submit the data. If the data are not 

submitted as required in the order, EPA 

will take appropriate action under 

FFDCA. 

EPA issues a final rule after 

considering comments that are 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule. In addition to submitting 

comments in response to this proposed 

rule, 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, 

maneb, metiram, and thiram in or on 

commodities listed in the regulatory 

text. 

EPA is proposing these tolerance 

actions to implement the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of these 

processes, EPA is required to determine 

whether each of the amended tolerances 

meets the safety standard of FFDCA. 

The safety finding determination of 

‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm’’ is 

discussed in detail in each 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 

and Report of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance 

Reassessment Progress and Risk 

Management Decision (TRED) for the 

active ingredient. REDs and TREDs 

recommend the implementation of 

certain tolerance actions, including 

modifications to reflect current use 

patterns, meet safety findings, and 

change commodity names and 

groupings in accordance with new EPA 

policy. Printed copies of many REDs 

and TREDs may be obtained from EPA’s 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (EPA/ 

NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, 

OH 45242–2419; telephone number: 1– 

800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489– 

8695; Internet at 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 of 

REDs and TREDs are available on the 

Internet in public dockets; REDs for 

mancozeb (EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0176), 

maneb (EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0178), 

metiram (EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0177), 

and thiram (EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0183), 

at http://www.regulations.gov and also 

at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ 

reregistration/status.htm. 

The selection of an individual 

tolerance level is based on crop field 

residue studies designed to produce the 

maximum residues under the existing or 

proposed product label. Generally, the 

level selected for a tolerance is a value 

slightly above the maximum residue 

found in such studies, provided that the 

tolerance is safe. The evaluation of 

whether a tolerance is safe is a separate 

inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of 

a tolerance when data show that: 

1. Lawful use (sometimes through a 

label change) may result in a higher 

residue level on the commodity. 

2. The tolerance remains safe, 

notwithstanding increased residue level 

allowed under the tolerance. 

In REDs, Chapter IV on ‘‘Risk 

management, Reregistration, and 

Tolerance reassessment’’ typically 

describes the regulatory position, FQPA 

assessment, cumulative safety 

determination, determination of safety 

for U.S. general population, and safety 

for infants and children. In particular, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47509 

the human health risk assessment 

document which supports the RED 

describes risk exposure estimates and 

whether the Agency has concerns. In 

TREDs, the Agency discusses its 

evaluation of the dietary risk associated 

with the active ingredient and whether 

it can determine that there is a 

reasonable certainty (with appropriate 

mitigation) that no harm to any 

population subgroup will result from 

aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to 

harmonize tolerances with international 

standards set by the Codex Alimentarius 

Commission, as described in Unit III. 

Explanations for proposed 

modifications in tolerances and 

exemptions and/or establishments of 

tolerances and exemptions for 

mancozeb, maneb, metiram, and thiram 

can be found in the RED and TRED 

document and in more detail in the 

Residue Chemistry Chapter document 

which supports the RED and TRED. 

Copies of the Residue Chemistry 

Chapter documents are found in the 

Administrative Record and electronic 

copies for mancozeb, maneb, and 

metiram can be found under their 

respective public docket ID numbers, 

identified in Unit II.A. Electronic copies 

of support documents for thiram are 

available in public docket EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2004–0183. An electronic copy of 

the Residue Chemistry Chapter for 

thiram is available in the public docket 

for this proposed rule. Electronic copies 

are available through EPA’s electronic 

public 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–2009–0431, then 

click on that docket ID number to view 

its contents. 

EPA has determined that the aggregate 

exposures and risks are not of concern 

for the above-mentioned pesticide active 

ingredients based upon the data 

identified in the RED or TRED which 

lists the submitted studies that the 

Agency found acceptable. 

EPA has found that the tolerances that 

are proposed in this document to be 

modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residues, in accordance with 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that 

changes to tolerance nomenclature do 

not constitute modifications of 

tolerances). These findings are 

discussed in detail in each RED or 

TRED. The references are available for 

inspection as described in this 

document under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revoke certain specific tolerances 

because either they are no longer 

needed or are associated with food uses 

that are no longer registered under 

FIFRA. Those instances where 

registrations were canceled were 

because the registrant failed to pay the 

required maintenance fee and/or the 

registrant voluntarily requested 

cancellation of one or more registered 

uses of the pesticide. It is EPA’s general 

practice to propose revocation of those 

tolerances for residues of pesticide 

active ingredients on crop uses for 

which there are no active registrations 

under FIFRA, unless any person in 

comments on the proposal indicates a 

need for the tolerance to cover residues 

in or on imported commodities or 

legally treated domestic commodities. 

1. Mancozeb. Currently, tolerances for 

mancozeb are established in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) for residues of the fungicide 

mancozeb, a coordination product of 

zinc ion and maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) and 

calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (zineb). 

Mancozeb is a member of the class of 

dithiocarbamates, whose decomposition 

releases carbon disulfide (CS2). In order 

to allow harmonization of U.S. 

tolerances with Codex Maximum 

Residue Limits (MRLs), the Agency 

determined that for the purpose of 

tolerance enforcement, residues of 

mancozeb should be calculated as 

carbon disulfide. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revise the introductory text 

containing the tolerance expression in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

mancozeb (a coordination product of zinc ion 

and maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), 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 

mancozeb residues convertible to and 

expressed in terms of the degradate carbon 

disulfide. 

Also, the Agency determined that the 

change in tolerance expression should 

also apply to the other dithiocarbamates 

that are determined by the carbon 

disulfide common moiety and have 

current tolerances. (That document is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule). Currently, according to 40 CFR 

180.3(d)(5), total dithiocarbamate 

residue on the same raw agricultural 

commodity shall not exceed that 

permitted by the highest tolerance for 

any one member of the class, calculated 

as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate 

(zineb). Therefore, in the interim, until 

all tolerance expressions can be changed 

for dithiocarbamates with the carbon 

disulfide moiety and current tolerances, 

EPA is proposing to revise the text in 40 

CFR 180.3(d)(5) by adding carbon 

disulfide as part of the calculated 

residues, to read as follows: 

Where tolerances are established for more 

than one member of the class of 

dithiocarbamates listed in paragraph (e)(3) of 

this section on the same raw agricultural 

commodity, the total residue of such 

pesticides shall not exceed that permitted by 

the highest tolerance established for any one 

member of the class, calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate and carbon 

disulfide. 

Oat bran is no longer considered to be 

a significant food/feed item by the 

Agency, and therefore is no longer 

regulated as a commodity in accordance 

with ‘‘Table 1. Raw Agricultural and 

Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs 

Derived from Crops,’’ which is found in 

Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines 

OPPTS 860.1000 dated August 1996, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm; 

consequently, the Agency has 

determined that the tolerance for 

mancozeb on oat, bran at 20 ppm is no 

longer needed. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.176(a) on oat, bran. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues on apples as 

high as 0.55 parts per million (ppm) and 

on pears as high as 0.13 ppm (for a prebloom treatment schedule), and 0.65 

ppm (for an extended treatment 

schedule), EPA determined that the 

tolerances should be decreased from 7.0 

ppm and 10.0 ppm, respectively, to 1 

ppm, 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. The Agency determined that 

data for apple should be translated to 

crabapple because the registered use 

patterns (application method, maximal 

single application rate, maximal 

seasonal rate, and preharvest interval) 

associated with given formulations for 

mancozeb are identical for crabapple 

and apple, and data for pear should be 

translated to quince because the 

registered use patterns associated with 

given formulations for mancozeb are 

identical for quince and pear, and 

therefore the tolerances on crabapple 

and quince should each be decreased 

from 10.0 ppm to 0.6 ppm. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on apple, crabapple, pear, 

and quince, each to 0.6 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1.0 ppm in or on bananas harvested 0 

days following the last foliar application 

at 1.3X the maximum single application 

rate and for bagged and unbagged 

bananas as high as 0.13 ppm and 1.18 

ppm, respectively, on whole banana 

fruit including peel harvested 0 days 

following the last foliar application at 

1X the maximum single application 

rate, and to harmonize with a Codex 

MRL of 2 expressed as milligrams (mg) 

carbon disulfide/kilogram (kg) for 

dithiocarbamates, EPA determined that 

the tolerance should be decreased from 

4.0 ppm to 2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on banana to 2 ppm. 

In addition, because banana pulp is 

covered by the tolerance for banana at 

the proposed level, a separate tolerance 

for the obsolete commodity term 

banana, pulp is no longer needed and 

should be revoked. Consequently, EPA 

is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on banana, pulp. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

1.5 ppm and 99.5 ppm for sugar beet 

roots and tops, respectively, EPA 

determined that tolerances should be set 

at 2 ppm and 100 ppm, respectively, 

which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X are calculated 

as 1.2 ppm and 60 ppm, respectively. 

Also, based on available processing data 

that showed mancozeb residues 

concentrated 3X in sugar beet dried 

pulp and a highest average field trial 

(HAFT) of <1.529 ppm, the Agency 

expected residues as high as 4.59 ppm, 

the Agency determined that a tolerance 

should be established at 5.0 ppm, which 

when converted to carbon disulfide is 

calculated at 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on beet, sugar, roots 

to 1.2 ppm and beet, sugar, tops to 60 

ppm, and establish a tolerance on beet, 

sugar, dried pulp at 3.0 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

6.72 ppm on cranberry, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance should be 

set at 7 ppm, which when converted to 

carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X, and 

to harmonize with a Codex MRL of 5 

expressed as mg carbon disulfide/kg for 

dithiocarbamates, is calculated as 5 

ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on cranberry to 5 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

2.1 ppm on cucumber, 4.7 ppm on 

melons treated at 1.3X (expect 3.6 ppm 

at 1X), and 1.75 ppm on summer 

squash, the Agency determined that 

individual tolerances should be set at 

3.0 ppm, 4.0 ppm, and 2 ppm, 

respectively, which when converted to 

carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X is 

calculated as 1.8 ppm, 2.2 ppm and 1.2 

ppm, respectively. Because the 

representatives for crop group 9 include 

cucumber, muskmelon, and summer 

squash, EPA believes that these 

tolerances should be combined into a 

single crop group tolerance and 

decreased from their current individual 

tolerance levels of 4 ppm to 2 ppm. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on cucumber, melon, and 

squash, summer to 2 ppm and combine 

them into the group tolerance termed 

vegetable, cucurbit, group 9. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

57.4 ppm for field corn forage, 15.2 ppm 

for field corn stover, 87.5 ppm for sweet 

corn forage, 59.3 ppm for sweet corn 

stover, and translation of sweet corn 

stover data to pop corn stover, EPA 

determined that tolerances should be 

increased from 5 ppm each to 65 ppm, 

20 ppm, 120 ppm, 70 ppm, and 70 ppm, 

respectively, which when converted to 

carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X is 

calculated as 40 ppm, 15 ppm, 70 ppm, 

40 ppm, and 40 ppm, respectively. (The 

Agency also determined that mancozeb 

registrations for corn use should remove 

existing feeding/grazing restrictions for 

all types of corn). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revise the terminology of 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.176(a) for 

corn, forage to corn, field, forage and 

corn, sweet, forage; and corn, stover to 

corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; and 

corn, sweet, stover; and to increase corn, 

field, forage to 40 ppm, corn, field, 

stover to 15 ppm, corn, sweet, forage to 

70 ppm; corn, pop, stover to 40 ppm; 

and corn, sweet, stover to 40 ppm. The 

Agency determined that the increased 

tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues at <0.05 

ppm on sweet corn (kernel plus cob 

with husks removed), the Agency 

determined that the tolerance should be 

decreased from 0.5 ppm to 0.1 ppm in 

order to harmonize with a Codex MRL 

of 0.1 expressed as mg carbon disulfide/ 

kg for dithiocarbamates. Also, the 

Agency determined that the data for 

sweet corn can be translated to popcorn 

grain, and therefore the tolerance for 

popcorn grain should be decreased from 

0.5 ppm to 0.1 ppm, which after 

conversion is calculated as 0.06 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.176(a) on 

corn, pop, grain to 0.06 ppm and corn, 

sweet, kernel plus cob with husks 

removed to 0.1 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

1.79 ppm for dry bulb onions, EPA 

determined that the tolerance should be 

increased from 0.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm, 

which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X is calculated 

as 1.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on onion, bulb to 1.5 ppm. 

The Agency determined that the 

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

a reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. 

Based on available field trial data for 

sorghum seed treatment at 1.1–1.2X the 

maximum rate that showed mancozeb 

residues as high as 0.32 ppm in or on 

grain and 0.12 ppm in or on straw, EPA 

determined that tolerances should be 

established at 0.4 ppm for grain, 0.2 

ppm for stover, and because the data on 

straw could be translated to forage, 0.2 

ppm for forage, which when converted 

to carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X are 

calculated as 0.25 ppm, 0.15 ppm, and 

0.15 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing to establish tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on sorghum, grain, 

grain at 0.25 ppm, sorghum, grain, 

forage at 0.15 ppm, and sorghum, grain, 

stover at 0.15 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data for 

flax seed treatment at 0.7–0.8X the 

maximum rate that showed mancozeb 

residues as high as 0.13 ppm in or on 

flax grain, EPA determined that a 

tolerance should be established at 0.2 

ppm for flax seed, which when 

converted to carbon disulfide 

equivalents using a rounded conversion 

factor of 0.6X is calculated as 0.15 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish 

a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.176(a) on flax, 

seed at 0.15 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data for 

rice seed treatment at 1.2–1.3X the 

maximum rate that showed mancozeb 

residues as high as <0.05 ppm (nondetectable) in or on rice grain and 0.15 

ppm in or on rice straw, EPA 

determined that tolerances should be 

established at 0.1 ppm for rice grain and 

0.2 ppm for rice straw, which when 

converted to carbon disulfide 

equivalents using a rounded conversion 

factor of 0.6X are calculated as 0.06 ppm 

and 0.15 ppm, respectively. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to establish tolerances 

in 40 CFR 180.176(a) on rice, grain at 

0.06 ppm and rice, straw at 0.15 ppm. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47511 

Based on available field trial data at 

1X the maximum rate that showed 

mancozeb residues as high as 0.017 ppm 

in or on peanut nutmeat and 1.5X the 

maximum rate that showed mancozeb 

residues as high as 5.1 ppm in or on 

tomatoes, EPA determined that the 

tolerance on peanut should be 

decreased from 0.5 ppm to 0.1 ppm and 

the tolerance on tomato should remain 

at 4 ppm, which when converted to 

carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X are 

calculated as 0.1 ppm (unchanged, but 

in harmony with Codex MRL of 0.1 

expressed as mg carbon disulfide/kg for 

dithiocarbamates) and 2.5 ppm, 

respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) on peanut to 0.1 ppm 

and tomato to 2.5 ppm. 

On March 2, 1992 (57 FR 7484) (FRL– 

4045–8), EPA published a Conclusion of 

the Special Review for Ethylene 

bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs PD4), and 

among its actions, the Agency 

disallowed mancozeb use on carrots and 

celery. However, the Mancozeb Task 

Force requested the reinstatement of 

mancozeb use on carrots grown in FL, 

MI, and WI, and celery grown in FL. 

The available data showed mancozeb 

residues applied at 1X the maximum 

proposed single and seasonal rate were 

as high as 0.709 ppm on carrots. EPA 

determined that the data for carrots are 

sufficient to support a regional tolerance 

and the tolerance should be 

redesignated from 180.176(a) to 

180.176(c), and after conversion to 

carbon disulfide equivalents, should be 

decreased from 2 ppm to 1 ppm. Also, 

the available data showed mancozeb 

residues applied at 2X the maximum 

proposed seasonal rate were as high as 

2.19 ppm on celery. The Agency 

concluded that the submitted data are 

not fully adequate because the field 

trials were conducted at 2X the 

maximum proposed seasonal rate, and 

as a condition for full registration 

recommended the submission of 

additional field trials at 1X and 2X rates 

in each FL trial location. However, there 

have been no active registrations in the 

United States for mancozeb use on 

celery since 1992, and therefore, the 

celery tolerance is no longer needed and 

should be revoked. Consequently, EPA 

is proposing to revoke the mancozeb 

tolerance on celery in 40 CFR 180.176(a) 

and redesignate the tolerance on carrot, 

roots from 40 CFR 180.176(a) to (c), and 

decrease it to 1 ppm. In addition, 

because that section is currently 

reserved, EPA is proposing to add 

introductory text for the tolerance 

expression in 40 CFR 180.176(c) to read 

as follows: 

A tolerance with regional registrations is 

established for residues of the fungicide 

mancozeb, (a coordination product of zinc 

ion and maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodity in the table in this paragraph. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified in this paragraph is to be 

determined by measuring only those 

mancozeb residues convertible to and 

expressed in terms of the degradate carbon 

disulfide. 

Because data for celery treated with 7 

to 17 foliar applications of mancozeb at 

1X the maximum single application rate 

harvested at 14 days following the last 

application are available, EPA 

determined that the data can be 

translated to fennel, and no additional 

residue data for fennel, a very minor 

crop use, are required. Based on the data 

translated from celery, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance for fennel 

should be decreased from 10 ppm to 4 

ppm, which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents, is calculated as 

2.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on fennel to 2.5 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data at 

1X the maximum single and 0.8X the 

maximum seasonal application rate that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

1.83 ppm in or on grapes, EPA 

determined that the tolerance on grape 

should be decreased from 7 ppm to 2 

ppm, which when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents using a rounded 

conversion factor of 0.6X are calculated 

as 1.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) on grape to 1.5 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed mancozeb residues as high as 

0.2 ppm in or on potatoes, EPA 

determined that there are now sufficient 

data to reassign the tolerance on potato 

from interim to permanent and that it 

should be decreased from 1.0 ppm to 0.2 

ppm when converted to carbon 

disulfide equivalents. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the interim 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.319 for residues 

of the coordination product of zinc ion 

and maneb (mancozeb) in or on potato 

at 1.0 ppm (calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) and 

establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.176(a) for residues of mancozeb 

(calculated as carbon disulfide) on 

potato at 0.2 ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology to 

conform to current Agency practice in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) as follows: 

‘‘asparagus (negligible residue)’’ to 

‘‘asparagus’’; ‘‘barley, milled feed 

fractions’’ to ‘‘barley, bran,’’ ‘‘barley, 

flour,’’ and ‘‘barley, pearled barley’’; 

‘‘kidney’’ to ‘‘cattle, kidney,’’ ‘‘goat, 

kidney,’’ ‘‘hog, kidney,’’ ‘‘horse, 

kidney,’’ ‘‘poultry, kidney,’’ and ‘‘sheep, 

kidney’’; ‘‘liver’’ to ‘‘cattle, liver,’’ ‘‘goat, 

liver,’’ ‘‘hog, liver,’’ ‘‘horse, liver,’’ 

‘‘poultry, liver,’’ and ‘‘sheep, liver’’; 

‘‘papaya (whole fruit with no residue 

present in the edible pulp after the peel 

is removed and discarded)’’ to 

‘‘papaya’’; ‘‘oat, milled feed fractions’’ to 

‘‘oat, flour’’ and ‘‘oat, groats/rolled 

oats’’; ‘‘wheat, milled byproducts’’ to 

‘‘wheat, bran,’’ ‘‘wheat, flour,’’ ‘‘wheat, 

germ,’’ ‘‘wheat, middlings,’’ and ‘‘wheat, 

shorts.’’ 

In the mancozeb RED, certain plant 

commodity tolerances are recommended 

to be decreased concomitant with 

product label changes to their use 

patterns. No mitigation is required to 

address either acute or chronic dietary 

risks from food alone. Acute dietary 

exposure from food alone are below the 

Agency’s level of concern at the 99.9th 

percentile of exposure; i.e., exposure is 

<1% of the Acute Population Adjusted 

Dose (aPAD) for females 13–49 years 

old, the most highly exposed population 

subgroup. Chronic dietary exposure 

from food alone are below the Agency’s 

level of concern; i.e., exposure is <1% 

of the Chronic Population Adjusted 

Dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population and 

all population subgroups, including 

children 1–2 years old, the most highly 

exposed population subgroup. However, 

because the Agency is still in the 

process of obtaining the needed 

amended mancozeb product labels, their 

associated plant tolerances will not be 

proposed to be decreased at this time. 

The RED for mancozeb recommended a 

decrease in the tolerance for field corn 

grain (from 0.1 ppm to 0.06 ppm) 

contingent upon limiting use of 

mancozeb on hybrid seed corn type 

only. However, the Agency has not yet 

verified that all active mancozeb 

registrations for field corn grain are 

limited to hybrid seed corn type only. 

Therefore, EPA will not propose action 

on the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.176(a) 

for corn, field, grain at this time. In 

addition, except for the tolerance on oat 

bran which was recommended for 

revocation, the RED for mancozeb 

recommended tolerance reassessment 

actions for papaya and the grains, 

milled feed fractions, and straw of 

barley, oat, rye, and wheat that are 

contingent upon label revisions. 

However, the Agency has not yet 

verified that all mancozeb registrations 

for them have been revised. Therefore, 

EPA will not propose action on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.176(a) for 

barley, grain; barley, straw; oat, grain; 

oat, straw; rye, grain; rye, straw; and 

wheat, grain at this time. With the 

exception of proposing to revise the 

tolerance nomenclatures for papaya 

(whole fruit with no residue present in 

the edible pulp after the peel is removed 

and discarded) and the milling feed 

fractions of barley, oat, and wheat, as 

described herein, no other action will be 

taken on them in 40 CFR 180.176(a) at 

this time. Also, although the Agency 

determined that the available processing 

data for wheat bran and flour may be 

translated to barley bran and flour, 

bridging processing data on pearled 

barley are still required. When 

appropriate mancozeb product label 

changes for specific plant commodity 

uses are provided to and approved by 

the Agency, EPA expects to follow up 

and propose the recommended 

tolerance decreases in a future 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Also, the Mancozeb Task Force 

requested removal of the foliar use on 

cotton and EPA has determined that use 

of mancozeb as a seed treatment on 

cottonseed is a non-food use (document 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rule). However, the Agency has not yet 

verified that all active mancozeb 

registrations for cotton do not have a 

foliar use on cotton. Therefore, EPA will 

not propose action on the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.176(a) for cotton, 

undelinted seed at this time. 

There are MRLs for dithiocarbamates 

which are determined as carbon 

disulfide mg/kg. The tolerance 

definition for mancozeb proposed 

herein would be harmonized with that 

for Codex MRLs with respect to residue 

determination as carbon disulfide. 

However, the Codex limits are listed for 

total dithiocarbamates, which also 

include dithiocarbamates other than 

mancozeb. 

2. Maneb. Currently, tolerances for 

maneb are established in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) for residues of the fungicide 

maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), calculated 

as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate. 

Maneb is a member of the class of 

dithiocarbamates, whose decomposition 

releases a common moiety, carbon 

disulfide (CS2). In order to allow 

harmonization of U.S. tolerances with 

Codex MRLs, the Agency determined 

that for the purpose of tolerance 

enforcement, residues of maneb should 

be calculated as carbon disulfide. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise 

the introductory text containing the 

tolerance expression in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), 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 maneb 

residues convertible to and expressed in 

terms of the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Maneb use on certain crops were 

disallowed for reregistration by EPA, as 

announced in a notice published in the 

Federal Register of March 2, 1992 (57 

FR 7484) (FRL–4045–8). In that notice, 

the Agency announced its conclusion of 

Special Review (PD4) regarding 

ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs), 

including maneb, and its intent to 

cancel any EBDC product registrations 

bearing food uses that included, among 

others, apricots, succulent beans, 

carrots, celery, nectarines, and peaches. 

There have been no U.S. registrations 

for maneb use associated with apricots, 

succulent beans, nectarines, and 

peaches since 1992, and carrots and 

celery since 1994. Therefore, the maneb 

tolerances on these commodities are no 

longer needed and should be revoked. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) for maneb residues of 

concern in or on apricot; bean, 

succulent; carrot, roots; celery; 

nectarine; and peach. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed maneb residues as high as <4.0 

ppm for dry beans, 10.0 ppm for 

broccoli, <4.0 ppm for cucumber, <4.0 

ppm for tomato, and calculation of 2.93 

ppm for melon at 1X (based on maneb 

residues as high as of 4.39 ppm for 

melon treated at 1.5X), EPA determined 

that the tolerances should be decreased 

for dry beans from 7 ppm to 4 ppm, 

maintained for broccoli at 10 ppm, 

maintained for both cucumber and 

tomato at 4 ppm, and maintained for 

melon at 4 ppm, which when converted 

to carbon disulfide equivalents using a 

rounded conversion factor of 0.6X are 

calculated as 2.5 ppm, 6 ppm, 2 ppm, 

2.5 ppm, and 3 ppm, respectively. In 

addition, the Agency determined that 

the broccoli data could be translated to 

Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and 

kohlrabi, and that the tolerances on 

Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and 

kohlrabi should, after conversion, be 

decreased from 10 ppm to 6 ppm. Also, 

the Agency determined that the melon 

data could be translated to pumpkin and 

winter squash, and that the tolerances 

on pumpkin and winter squash should, 

after conversion, be decreased from 7 

ppm to 3 ppm and 4 ppm to 3 ppm, 

respectively. Moreover, the Agency 

determined that the cucumber data 

could be translated to summer squash, 

and that the tolerance on summer 

squash, after conversion, be decreased 

from 4 to 2 ppm. Furthermore, the 

Agency determined that the tomato data 

could be translated to eggplant, and that 

the tolerance on eggplant, after 

conversion, be decreased from 7 ppm to 

2.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) on bean, dry, seed to 2.5 

ppm, broccoli to 6 ppm, Brussels 

sprouts to 6 ppm, cauliflower to 6 ppm, 

cucumber to 2 ppm, eggplant to 2.5 

ppm, kohlrabi to 6 ppm, melon to 3 

ppm, pumpkin to 3 ppm, squash, 

summer to 2 ppm, squash, winter to 3 

ppm, and tomato to 2.5 ppm. 

Geographic representation of data for 

green onion was incomplete and not 

conducted according to the maximum 

registered use pattern. However, based 

on available field trial data for dry bulb 

onion that showed maneb residues of 

concern as high as 10.1 ppm (in or on 

one sample harvested 7 days following 

treatments at 0.5–0.8X the maximal 

seasonal rate), the Agency determined 

that the current tolerance for onion 

should be separated into onion, bulb 

and onion, green, and that the tolerance 

on onion, bulb should be increased from 

7 ppm to approximately 10.1 ppm, but 

which after the 0.6X conversion to 

carbon disulfide, should be decreased to 

6 ppm. Therefore, EPA is revising the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.110(a) on onion 

into onion, green and onion, bulb, and 

decreasing the tolerance on onion, bulb 

to 6 ppm, maintaining the tolerance on 

onion, green at 7 ppm at this time, while 

reiterating that additional data are 

required for green onions. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed maneb residues of concern as 

high as 36.8 ppm on untrimmed cabbage 

at 1.2X the seasonal rate allowed by 

PD4, the Agency determined that the 

tolerance for cabbage should be 

increased from the current level of 10 

ppm, which after a 0.6X conversion to 

carbon disulfide is 21 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to increase the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.110(a) for 

cabbage to 21 ppm. The Agency 

determined that the increased tolerance 

is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed maneb residues of concern as 

high as 154 ppm, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance for sugar 

beet tops should be increased from 45 

to 200 ppm, which after a 0.6X 

conversion to carbon disulfide is 120 

ppm. Also, based on available field trial 

data that showed maneb residues of 

concern as high as 1.72 ppm, the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47513 

Agency determined that a tolerance 

should be established on sugar beet 

roots at 2 ppm, which after a 0.6X 

conversion to carbon disulfide is 1.2 

ppm. In addition, based on available 

processing data that showed a 

concentration factor of 2X for dried 

pulp, and a HAFT of 1.72 ppm for sugar 

beet roots, EPA determined that the 

expected maneb residues of concern in 

dried sugar beet pulp are 3.44 ppm, 

which is greater than the reassessed 

tolerance for sugar beet roots of 2.0 

ppm, and therefore a tolerance should 

be established for dried sugar beet pulp 

at 4 ppm, which after a 0.6X conversion 

to carbon disulfide is 2.5 ppm. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) for beet, sugar, roots at 1.2 

ppm and beet, sugar, dried pulp at 2.5 

ppm, and increase the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.110(a) for beet, sugar, tops to 

120 ppm. The Agency determined that 

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

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide chemical residue. 

Based on available poultry and 

ruminant metabolism data, the Agency 

determined that tolerances should be 

established on livestock commodities at 

the limit of quantitation of the analytical 

method. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.110(a) on 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; 

poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat 

byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; 

sheep, meat byproducts; egg; and milk; 

each at 0.02 ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology to 

conform to current Agency practice in 

40 CFR 180.110(a) as follows: ‘‘banana 

(not more than 0.5 parts per million) 

shall be in the pulp after peel is 

removed and discarded (preharvest 

application only)’’ to ‘‘banana, 

preharvest’’; and ‘‘cabbage, chinese’’ to 

‘‘cabbage, chinese, bok choy’’ and 

‘‘cabbage, chinese, napa.’’ 

Although the RED for maneb 

recommended tolerance revocation 

based on requests for voluntary 

cancellation of registrations associated 

with certain commodities, EPA is still in 

the process of verifying whether active 

registrations currently exist for them 

and therefore will not propose action on 

tolerances for apple; fig; grape; corn, 

sweet, kernel plus cob with husks 

removed; or turnip, roots at this time. 

There are Codex MRLs for 

dithiocarbamates which are determined 

as carbon disulfide mg/kg. The tolerance 

definition for maneb proposed herein 

would be harmonized with that for 

Codex MRLs with respect to residue 

determination as carbon disulfide. 

However, the Codex limits are listed for 

total dithiocarbamates, which also 

include dithiocarbamates other than 

maneb. 

3. Metiram. Currently, tolerances for 

metiram are established in 40 CFR 

180.217(a) for residues of the fungicide 

metiram, a mixture of 5.2 parts by 

weight of ammoniates of (ethylenebis 

(dithiocarbamato)) zinc with 1 part by 

weight ethylenebis (dithiocarbamic 

acid) bimolecular and trimolecular 

cyclic anhydrosulfides and disulfides, 

calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate. Metiram is 

a member of the class of 

dithiocarbamates, whose decomposition 

releases a common moiety, carbon 

disulfide (CS2). In order to allow 

harmonization of U.S. tolerances with 

Codex MRLs, the Agency determined 

that for the purpose of tolerance 

enforcement, residues of metiram 

should be calculated as carbon 

disulfide. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to revise the section heading from its 

chemical name to metiram and also 

revise the introductory text containing 

the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 

180.217(a) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

metiram (a mixture of 5.2 parts by weight of 

ammoniates of (ethylenebis 

(dithiocarbamato)) zinc with 1 part by weight 

ethylenebis (dithiocarbamic acid) 

bimolecular and trimolecular cyclic 

anhydrosulfides and disulfides), 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 metiram 

residues convertible to and expressed in 

terms of the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.217 to revise the section heading 

from the chemical name ‘‘ammoniates of 

[ethylenebis (dithiocarbamato)] zinc and 

ethylenebis [dithiocarbamic acid] 

bimolecular and trimolecular cyclic 

anhydrosulfides and disulfides’’ to 

‘‘metiram.’’ 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed combined metiram residues of 

concern as high as <0.53 ppm in or on 

apples, and <0.03 ppm in or on 

potatoes, the Agency determined that 

tolerances should be decreased, which 

when converted to carbon disulfide 

equivalents using a rounded conversion 

factor of 0.6X, should be decreased from 

2.0 ppm to 0.5 ppm for apple and from 

0.5 ppm to 0.2 ppm for potato. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.217(a) on 

apple to 0.5 ppm and on potato to 0.2 

ppm. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed metiram residues of 

concern concentrated 5X in wet apple 

pomace and a HAFT of 0.53 ppm, the 

Agency expected residues as high as 

2.65 ppm, and the Agency determined 

that a tolerance should be established, 

which when converted to carbon 

disulfide is calculated at 2 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish 

a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.217(a) on 

apple, wet pomace at 2 ppm. 

There are Codex MRLs for 

dithiocarbamates which are determined 

as carbon disulfide mg/kg. The tolerance 

definition for metiram proposed herein 

would be harmonized with that for 

Codex MRLs with respect to residue 

determination as carbon disulfide. 

However, the Codex limits are listed for 

total dithiocarbamates, which also 

include dithiocarbamates other than 

metiram. 

4. 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 (CS2). 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 read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

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 the Federal Register of September 

12, 2008 (73 FR 53007) (FRL–8380–7), 

EPA issued a notice regarding EPA’s 

announcement of the receipt of requests 

from registrants to voluntarily cancel 

certain pesticide registrations, including 

cancellation of the last apple use from 

thiram registrations. EPA approved the 

cancellation for the thiram registration 

with the last apple use and made it 

effective on March 11, 2009, and 

permitted the registrant to sell and 

distribute product under the previously 

approved labeling until September 11, 

2009. The Agency believes that end 

users will have had sufficient time to 

exhaust existing stocks and for thiramtreated apple commodities to have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

cleared the channels of trade by 

September 11, 2010. Also, based on 

available field trial data that showed 

thiram residues of concern as high as 

8.65 ppm on apples, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance for apple 

should be 9 ppm, but which after a 0.6X 

conversion to carbon disulfide is 

determined by the Agency to be 

appropriate at 6.0 ppm. Therefore, 

during the interim period prior to its 

expiration, the tolerance should be 

decreased from 7.0 ppm to 6.0 ppm. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.132(a) for apple with an expiration/ 

revocation date of September 11, 2010, 

and decrease the tolerance level to 6.0 

ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed thiram residues of concern at <9 

ppm on strawberries, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance for 

strawberry should be 9 ppm, but which 

after a 0.6X conversion to carbon 

disulfide is determined by the Agency 

to be appropriate at 6.0 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to decrease the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.132(a) on 

strawberry to 6.0 ppm. 

There are Codex MRLs for 

dithiocarbamates which are determined 

as carbon disulfide mg/kg. The tolerance 

definition for thiram proposed herein 

would be harmonized with that for 

Codex MRLs with respect to residue 

determination as carbon disulfide. 

However, the Codex limits are listed for 

total dithiocarbamates, which also 

include dithiocarbamates other than 

thiram. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the 

maximum level for residues of pesticide 

chemicals legally allowed in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

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

346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996, 

Public Law 104–170, authorizes the 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerance requirements, 

modifications in tolerances, and 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Without a tolerance or 

exemption, food containing pesticide 

residues is considered to be unsafe and 

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section 

402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such 

food may not be distributed in interstate 

commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed, 

the pesticide must not only have 

appropriate tolerances under the 

FFDCA, but also must be registered 

under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Food-use pesticides not registered in the 

United States must have tolerances in 

order for commodities treated with 

those pesticides to be imported into the 

United States. 

EPA is proposing these tolerance 

actions to implement the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of these 

processes, EPA is required to determine 

whether each of the amended tolerances 

meets the safety standard of FQPA. The 

safety finding determination is 

discussed in detail in each post-FQPA 

RED and TRED for the active ingredient. 

REDs and TREDs recommend the 

implementation of certain tolerance 

actions, including modifications to 

reflect current use patterns, to meet 

safety findings, and change commodity 

names and groupings in accordance 

with new EPA policy. Printed and 

electronic copies of the REDs and 

TREDs are available as provided in Unit 

II.A. 

EPA has issued REDs for mancozeb, 

maneb, metiram, and thiram. REDs and 

TREDs contain the Agency’s evaluation 

of the database for these pesticides, 

including requirements for additional 

data on the active ingredients to confirm 

the potential human health and 

environmental risk assessments 

associated with current product uses, 

and in REDs state conditions under 

which these uses and products will be 

eligible for reregistration. The REDs and 

TREDs recommended the establishment, 

modification, and/or revocation of 

specific tolerances. RED and TRED 

recommendations such as establishing 

or modifying tolerances, and in some 

cases revoking tolerances, are the result 

of assessment under the FFDCA 

standard of ‘‘reasonable certainty of no 

harm.’’ However, tolerance revocations 

recommended in REDs and TREDs that 

are proposed in this document do not 

need such assessment when the 

tolerances are no longer necessary. 

EPA’s general practice is to propose 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide active ingredients on crops for 

which FIFRA registrations no longer 

exist and on which the pesticide may 

therefore no longer be used in the 

United States. EPA has historically been 

concerned that retention of tolerances 

that are not necessary to cover residues 

in or on legally treated foods may 

encourage misuse of pesticides within 

the United States. Nonetheless, EPA 

will establish and maintain tolerances 

even when corresponding domestic uses 

are canceled if the tolerances, which 

EPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are 

necessary to allow importation into the 

United States of food containing such 

pesticide residues. However, where 

there are no imported commodities that 

require these import tolerances, the 

Agency believes it is appropriate to 

revoke tolerances for unregistered 

pesticides in order to prevent potential 

misuse. 

Furthermore, as a general matter, the 

Agency believes that retention of import 

tolerances not needed to cover any 

imported food may result in 

unnecessary restriction on trade of 

pesticides and foods. Under section 408 

of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be 

established or maintained if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is safe 

based on a number of factors, including 

an assessment of the aggregate exposure 

to the pesticide and an assessment of 

the cumulative effects of such pesticide 

and other substances that have a 

common mechanism of toxicity. In 

doing so, EPA must consider potential 

contributions to such exposure from all 

tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such 

that the tolerances in aggregate are not 

safe, then every one of these tolerances 

is potentially vulnerable to revocation. 

Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are 

included in the aggregate and 

cumulative risk assessments, the 

estimated exposure to the pesticide 

would be inflated. Consequently, it may 

be more difficult for others to obtain 

needed tolerances or to register needed 

new uses. To avoid potential trade 

restrictions, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke tolerances for residues on crops 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47515 

products (for example, grain or hay) 

containing pesticide residues (40 CFR 

180.6). When considering this 

possibility, EPA can conclude that: 

1. Finite residues will exist in meat, 

milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 

2. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will exist. 

3. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will not exist. If 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

finite pesticide residues in or on meat, 

milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not 

need to be established for these 

commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). 

C. When Do These Actions Become 

Effective? 

With the exception of the thiram 

tolerance for apple for which EPA is 

proposing a specific expiration/ 

revocation date, the Agency is 

proposing that the actions herein 

become effective on the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. With the exception of 

the proposed revocation of the thiram 

tolerance for apple, tolerances that are 

considered by EPA to no longer be 

significant food/feed items, and 

tolerances whose commodity use is 

covered by another tolerance, the 

Agency believes that existing stocks of 

pesticide products labeled for the uses 

associated with the tolerances proposed 

for revocation in this document have 

been completely exhausted and that 

treated commodities have cleared the 

channels of trade. EPA is proposing an 

expiration/revocation date of September 

11, 2010, for the thiram tolerance for 

apple. The Agency believes that this 

revocation date allows 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 Unit I.B. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposed rule 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. Are the Proposed Actions 

Consistent with International 

Obligations? 

The tolerance actions in this proposed 

rule are not discriminatory and are 

designed to ensure that both 

domestically produced and imported 

foods meet the food safety standards 

established by FFDCA. The same food 

safety standards apply to domestically 

produced and imported foods. 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international MRLs established by the 

Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food 

and Agriculture Organization/World 

Health Organization food standards 

program, and it is recognized as an 

international food safety standardssetting organization in trade agreements 

to which the United States is a party. 

EPA may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level in a notice 

published for public comment. EPA’s 

effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is 

summarized in the tolerance 

reassessment section of individual REDs 

and TREDs, and in the Residue 

Chemistry document which supports 

the RED and TRED, as mentioned in 

Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in 

this proposed rule and how they 

compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are 

discussed in Unit II.A. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to establish tolerances under 

FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify 

and revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions (e.g., establishment and 

modification of a tolerance and 

tolerance revocation for which 

extraordinary circumstances do not 

exist) from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

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) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations as required by 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994); or OMB review or 

any other Agency action under 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

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

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

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

previously assessed whether 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerances, raising of tolerance 

levels, expansion of exemptions, or 

revocations might significantly impact a 

substantial number of small entities and 

concluded that, as a general matter, 

these actions do not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These analyses 

for tolerance establishments and 

modifications, and for tolerance 

revocations were published on May 4, 

1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 

17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), 

respectively, and were provided to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Taking into 

account this analysis, and available 

information concerning the pesticides 

listed in this proposed rule, the Agency 

hereby certifies that this proposed rule 

will not have a significant negative 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In a 

memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA 

determined that eight conditions must 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

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: September 4, 2009. 

Debra Edwards, 

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 180.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(5), to read as 

follows: 

§180.3 Tolerances for related pesticide 

chemicals. 

(d)(5) Where tolerances are 

established for more than one member 

of the class of dithiocarbamates listed in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section on the 

same raw agricultural commodity, the 

total residue of such pesticides shall not 

exceed that permitted by the highest 

tolerance established for any one 

member of the class, calculated as zinc 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate and carbon 

disulfide. 

3. Section 180.110 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§180.110 Maneb; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of maneb 

(manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate), 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 maneb residues 

convertible to and expressed in terms of 

the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond ...................................... 0.1 

Apple ......................................... 2 

Banana, preharvest .................. 4 

Bean, dry, seed ........................ 2.5 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ............. 2.5 

Beet, sugar, roots ..................... 1.2 

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 120 

Broccoli ..................................... 6 

Brussels sprouts ....................... 6 

Cabbage ................................... 21 

Cabbage, chinese, bok choy .... 10 

Cabbage, chinese, napa .......... 10 

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.02 

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.02 

Cattle, meat byproducts ........... 0.02 

Cauliflower ................................ 6 

Collards ..................................... 10 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 5 

Cranberry .................................. 7 

Cucumber ................................. 2 

Egg ........................................... 0.02 

Eggplant .................................... 2.5 

Endive ....................................... 10 

Fig ............................................. 7 

Goat, fat .................................... 0.02 

Goat, meat ................................ 0.02 

Goat, meat byproducts ............. 0.02 

Grape ........................................ 7 

Hog, fat ..................................... 0.02 

Hog, meat ................................. 0.02 

Hog, meat byproducts .............. 0.02 

Horse, fat .................................. 0.02 

Horse, meat .............................. 0.02 

Horse, meat byproducts ........... 0.02 

Kale ........................................... 10 

Kohlrabi ..................................... 6 

Lettuce ...................................... 10 

Melon ........................................ 3 

Milk ........................................... 0.02 

Mustard greens ......................... 10 

Onion, bulb ............................... 6 

Onion, green ............................. 7 

Papaya ...................................... 10 

Pepper ...................................... 7 

Potato ....................................... 0.1 

Poultry, fat ................................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat ............................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0.02 

Pumpkin .................................... 3 

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.02 

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.02 

Sheep, meat byproducts .......... 0.02 

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

Squash, winter .......................... 3 

Tomato ...................................... 2.5 

Turnip, greens .......................... 10 

Turnip, roots ............................. 7 

* * * * * 

4. Section 180.132 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47517 

measuring only those thiram residues 

convertible to and expressed in terms of 

the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

Revocation 

Date 

Apple ................. 6.0 9/11/10 

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

Strawberry ........ 6.0 None 

* * * * * 

5. Section 180.176 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of mancozeb (a 

coordination product of zinc ion and 

maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), 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 mancozeb 

residues convertible to and expressed in 

terms of the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Apple ......................................... 0.6 

Asparagus ................................. 0.1 

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

Barley, bran .............................. 20 

Barley, flour .............................. 20 

Barley, grain ............................. 5 

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

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

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ............. 3.0 

Beet, sugar, roots ..................... 1.2 

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

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0.5 

Cattle, liver ................................ 0.5 

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

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.1 

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

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.06 

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 

Fennel ....................................... 2.5 

Flax, seed ................................. 0.15 

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 

Oat, flour ................................... 20 

Oat, grain .................................. 5 

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

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

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Onion, bulb ............................... 1.5 

Papaya ...................................... 10 

Peanut ...................................... 0.1 

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

Pear .......................................... 0.6 

Potato ....................................... 0.2 

Poultry, kidney .......................... 0.5 

Poultry, liver .............................. 0.5 

Quince ...................................... 0.6 

Rice, grain ................................ 0.06 

Rice, straw ................................ 0.15 

Rye, bran .................................. 20 

Rye, grain ................................. 5 

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

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0.5 

Sheep, liver ............................... 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 0.15 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.25 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0.15 

Tomato ...................................... 2.5 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 .... 2 

Wheat, bran .............................. 20 

Wheat, flour .............................. 20 

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

Wheat, grain ............................. 5 

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

Wheat, shorts ........................... 20 

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

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. A tolerance with regional 

registrations is established for residues 

of the fungicide mancozeb, (a 

coordination product of zinc ion and 

maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), including 

its metabolites and degradates, in or on 

the commodity in the table in this 

paragraph. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in this 

paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only those mancozeb 

residues convertible to and expressed in 

terms of the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

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

* * * * * 

6. Section 180.217 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§180.217 Metiram; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of metiram (a 

mixture of 5.2 parts by weight of 

ammoniates of (ethylenebis 

(dithiocarbamato)) zinc with 1 part by 

weight ethylenebis (dithiocarbamic 

acid) bimolecular and trimolecular 

cyclic anhydrosulfides and disulfides], 

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 metiram residues 

convertible to and expressed in terms of 

the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Apple ......................................... 0.5 

Apple, wet pomace ................... 2 

Potato ....................................... 0.2 

* * * * * 

§ 180.319 [Amended] 

7. Section 180.319 is amended by 

removing the entry for the substance 

‘‘Coordination product of zinc ion and 

maneb’’ from the table. 

[FR Doc. E9–22302 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 457 

[CMS–2291–P] 

RIN 0938–AP53 

Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP); Allotment Methodology and 

States’ Fiscal Year 2009 CHIP 

Allotments 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule describes 

the implementation of certain funding 

provisions under title XXI of the Social 

Security Act (the Act), the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as 

amended by the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 

of 2009 (CHIPRA), by the Medicare, 

Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 

2007 (MMSEA), and by other related 

CHIP legislation. Specifically, this 

proposed rule addresses methodologies 

and procedures for determining States’ 

FY 2009 through FY 2013 allotments 

and payments in accordance with 

sections 2104 and 2105 of the Act, as 

amended by CHIPRA. 

DATES: To be assured consideration, 

comments must be received at one of 

the addresses provided below, no later 

than 5 p.m. eastern standard time (e.s.t.) 

on November 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer 

to file code CMS–2291–P. Because of 

staff and resource limitations, we cannot 

accept comments by facsimile (FAX) 

transmission. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS