28912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0261; FRL–8130–8] 

Methamidophos, Oxydemeton-methyl, 

Profenofos, and Trichlorfon; Proposed 

Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the insecticides 

methamidophos and oxydemetonmethyl. Also, EPA is proposing to 

modify certain tolerances for the 

insecticides methamidophos, 

oxydemeton-methyl, profenofos, and 

trichlorfon. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to establish new tolerances 

for the insecticides methamidophos and 

profenofos. 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 July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0261, 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’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–

0261. 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 Federal 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 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 

in regulations.gov. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

web site to view the docket index or 

access available documents. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at 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, Special Review and 

Reregistration Division (7508P), Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (703) 308–8037; 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 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). 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28913 

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 time frames 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, remove, 

modify, and establish specific tolerances 

for residues of the insecticides 

methamidophos, oxydemeton-methyl, 

profenofos, and trichlorfon 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 the 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: 1 (800) 

490–9198; fax: 1 (513) 489–8695; 

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

ncepihom/ and from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 

22161, telephone: 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. The methamidophos, 

oxydemeton-methyl, and profenofos 

REDs and triclorfon TRED are found 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, the human 

health risk assessment document which 

supports the RED describes risk 

exposure estimates and whether the 

Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the 

Agency discusses its evaluation of the 

dietary risk associated with the active 

ingredient and whether it can determine 

that there is a reasonable certainty (with 

appropriate mitigation) that no harm to 

any population subgroup will result 

from aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks 

to harmonize tolerances with 

international standards set by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission, as described 

in Unit III. 

Explanations for proposed 

modifications in tolerances can be 

found in the RED and TRED document 

and in more detail in the Residue 

Chemistry Chapter document which 

supports the RED and TRED. Copies of 

the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

documents are found in the 

Administrative Record and paper copies 

for methamidophos, oxydemetonmethyl, profenofos, and trichlorfon are 

available in the public docket for this 

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 docket number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2007–0261, then click on that 

docket 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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 

domestic commodities legally treated. 

1. Methamidophos. Because 

methamidophos is a metabolite of 

acephate, EPA determined that residues 

of methamidophos resulting from the 

application of acephate should be 

included under the tolerance 

regulations for methamidophos as a 

pesticide. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to recodify the tolerances for 

methamidophos from 40 CFR 180.315(a) 

into (a)(1) for permanent tolerances for 

residues of methamidophos (O,Sdimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or 

on food commodities as a result of the 

application of the insecticide 

methamidophos and (a)(2) for residues 

of methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl 

phosphoramidothioate) in or on food 

commodities as a result of the 

application of the insecticide acephate. 

Currently, 40 CFR 180.3, the section 

on tolerances for related pesticide 

chemicals, contains a paragraph (d)(8) 

stating that where tolerances are 

established for residues of O,S-dimethyl 

phosphoramidothioate, resulting from 

the use of acephate (O,S-dimethyl 

acetylphos-phoramidothioate) and/or 

O,S-dimethylphosphoramidothioate on 

the same agricultural commodity, the 

total amount of O,S-dimethylphosphoramidothioate shall not yield 

more residue than that permitted by the 

higher of the two tolerances. However, 

with the proposed change to include 

tolerances for methamidophos that 

result from the application of acephate 

under the methamidophos tolerance 

regulations in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2), 

there is no longer a need for the related 

pesticide chemical regulation under 40 

CFR 180.3(d)(8); and therefore, EPA is 

proposing to remove existing paragraph 

(d)(8). 

With the exception of uses on cotton 

and potatoes, EPA canceled all 

methamidophos FIFRA section 3 

registrations and, with the exception of 

uses on tomatoes, all section 24(c) 

regional registrations (62 FR 67071, 

December 23, 1997) (FRL–5764–2). 

Because there are no active registrations 

for uses of either methamidophos or 

acephate on broccoli, cabbage, 

cucumber, eggplant, and melon, the 

associated tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315 

are no longer needed and should be 

revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315 

on broccoli, cabbage, cucumber, 

eggplant, and melon. Also, on July 31, 

2002 (67 FR 49606)(FRL–7191–4), EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register in which it responded to the 

Canadian Horticultural Council’s 

comment asking that certain tolerances 

in 40 CFR 180.315, including those on 

broccoli and cabbage, not be revoked. At 

that time, the Agency responded that it 

would not revoke the tolerances on 

broccoli and cabbage in 40 CFR 180.315, 

but would follow-up to see that data 

requirements were met should an 

interested party support those 

tolerances for import purposes. 

However, in the interim period, no 

interested party has declared an interest 

and committed in writing to do the 

required data to support the broccoli 

and cabbage tolerances for import 

purposes. 

However, because there are registered 

acephate uses on Brussels sprouts, 

cauliflower, celery, and head lettuce, 

EPA is proposing to recodify the 

tolerances for Brussels sprouts, 

cauliflower, and lettuce from 40 CFR 

180.315(a) into (a)(2) and celery from (b) 

into (a)(2). Also, in order to reflect 

active registered use of acephate on 

head lettuce, EPA is proposing in 40 

CFR 180.315(a)(2) to revise ‘‘lettuce’’ to 

‘‘lettuce, head.’’ In addition, because 

there is an existing tolerance for 

acephate use on cauliflower, which has 

been reassessed in the acephate RED at 

the same level, such that residues from 

metabolism to methamidophos are 

expected to be no greater than 0.5 parts 

per million (ppm), EPA is proposing to 

decrease the tolerance on cauliflower in 

40 CFR 180.315(a)(2) from 1.0 to to 0.5 

ppm. Also, this proposed level will 

harmonize with the Codex MRL of 0.5 

mg/kg on cauliflower. 

At the time of the completion of the 

methamidophos IRED, a registrant 

submitted an import tolerance petition 

for peppers, strawberries, and squash. 

This petition has not been reviewed. 

Because there is an existing tolerance 

for acephate use on peppers, which in 

the acephate RED has been reassessed at 

the same level, such that residues from 

metabolism to methamidophos are 

expected to be no greater than 1.0 ppm, 

EPA is proposing to recodify the 

tolerance on pepper from 40 CFR 

180.315(a) to (a)(2) at 1.0 ppm. Also, 

this proposed level will harmonize with 

the Codex MRL of 1.0 mg/kg on sweet 

peppers. 

Because there are registered 

methamidophos uses on potato, EPA is 

proposing to recodify the tolerance at 

0.1 ppm on potato from 40 CFR 

180.315(a) into (a)(1). There is a Codex 

MRL of 0.05 ppm on potato, but 

harmonization is not possible because of 

differences in agricultural practices. 

Based on available data that showed 

methamidophos residues as high as 

0.191 ppm on cottonseed, EPA 

determined that the tolerance on 

cottonseed should be increased from 0.1 

to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to recodify the tolerance on 

cotton, undelinted seed from 40 CFR 

180.315(a) to (a)(1) and increase the 

tolerance to 0.2 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. Also, this proposed 

level will harmonize with the Codex 

MRL of 0.2 mg/kg on cottonseed. 

Based on available data that showed 

methamidophos residues as high as 8.03 

ppm on cotton gin byproducts, EPA 

determined that a tolerance on cotton 

gin byproducts should be established at 

10.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to establish a tolerance on 

cotton, gin byproducts in 40 CFR 

180.315(a)(1) at 10.0 ppm. 

Based on available data that showed 

methamidophos residues as high as 1.4 

ppm on tomatoes, EPA determined that 

the tolerance on tomato should be 

increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm. Because 

there are only active FIFRA section 

24(c) registrations for use of 

methamidophos on tomatoes and no 

active registrations for use of acephate 

on tomatoes, the Agency has determined 

that the tolerance should be recodified 

as a regional tolerance. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing to recodify 40 CFR 

180.315(b) as (c) and the tolerance on 

tomato from 40 CFR 180.315(a) to (c), 

and increase the tolerance to 2.0 ppm. 

The Agency determined that the 

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

a reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. Also, EPA is 

proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression in newly recodified 40 CFR 

180.315(c), as follows: 

Tolerances with regional registration, 

as defined in 40 CFR 180.1(m), are 

established for residues of 

methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl 

phosphoramidothioate) in or on the 

following food commodities as a result 

of the application of the insecticide 

methamidophos. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 180.315 by adding 

separate paragraphs (b) and (d), and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28915 

reserving those sections for tolerances 

with section 18 emergency exemptions, 

and indirect or inadvertent residues, 

respectively. 

Because there are existing tolerances 

for use of acephate on dry and succulent 

beans and cranberries, which in the 

acephate RED have been reassessed at 

the same level, such that residues from 

metabolism to methamidophos are 

expected to be no greater than 1.0 ppm 

and 0.1 ppm, respectively, EPA is 

proposing to establish tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.315(a)(2) for residues of 

methamidophos as a result from the 

application of acephate on bean, dry, 

seed at 1.0 ppm, bean, succulent at 1.0 

ppm, and cranberry at 0.1 ppm. 

Because there is an existing tolerance 

for use of acephate on mint hay, which 

in the acephate RED has been reassessed 

to be increased from 15.0 to 27.0 ppm, 

such that residues from metabolism to 

methamidophos are expected to be 

increased from no greater than 1.0 to 2.0 

ppm, EPA is proposing to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.315(a)(2) for 

residues of methamidophos as a result 

from the application of acephate on 

mint, hay at 2.0 ppm and revise it to 

‘‘peppermint, tops’’ and ‘‘spearmint, 

tops.’’

2. Oxydemeton-methyl. Currently, the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 are 

expressed for residues of oxydemetonmethyl and its cholinesterase-inhibiting 

metabolites. Based on the Agency’s 

determination that only residues of 

oxydemeton-methyl and its metabolite 

oxydemeton-methyl sulfone are of 

concern in plants, the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.330 should be recodified for 

plant commodities from 40 CFR 

180.330(a) to (a)(1) and animal 

commodities from 40 CFR 180.330(a) to 

(a)(2). Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

recodify plant tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.330(a)(1) and animal tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.330(a)(2) and revise the 

tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.330 

as follows: 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are established 

for the combined residues of the insecticide 

oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)- 

ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) and 

its metabolite oxydemeton-methyl sulfone in 

or on the following food commodities. 

(2) Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of the insecticide 

oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)- 

ethyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) and 

its cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in or 

on the following food commodities. 

Because certain registered uses have 

product labels which prohibit harvest 

within one year of application, so that 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

residues on food commodities, the 

Agency considers them to be nonfood 

uses of oxydemeton-methyl. As a result, 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 for 

these nonfood uses are no longer needed 

and should be revoked for apple, 

apricot, grape, and plum, prune, fresh. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.330(a) on apple, grape, and plum, 

prune, fresh and in 40 CFR 180.330(c) 

on apricot. 

Because bean, lima, forage; clover, 

seed screenings; and sorghum milled 

fractions (except flour) are no longer 

considered by the Agency to be 

significant animal feed items, their 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 are no 

longer needed and should be revoked. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 

on bean, lima, forage; clover, seed 

screenings; and sorghum, milled 

fractions (except flour). 

In 1994, the technical registrant for 

oxydemeton-methyl (ODM) agreed not 

to market ODM on snap beans, field 

corn, popcorn, pears, and turnips but 

retained them on registrations with the 

possibility of requesting to reinstate 

them on marketing labels after EPA’s 

review of needed ODM data and 

completion of dietary and worker risk 

assessments. In a letter to the Agency 

dated February 4, 2004, the technical 

registrant requested to amend the 

registrations for both a technical and 

end-use registration and delete those 

uses. In the Federal Register of 

November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67167) (FRL–

7744–7), EPA published a notice 

announcing the receipt of requests for 

amendments to delete uses in certain 

pesticide registrations, including 

deletion for ODM use on snap beans, 

field corn, popcorn, pears, and turnips 

concerning registrations for one 

technical and one end use product. That 

notice had an effective date of December 

5, 2005 and allowed the registrant to sell 

or distribute product under the 

previously approved labelling for a 

period of 18 months after approval of 

the revision. There have been no end 

use marketing labels for ODM use on 

these commodities since September 18, 

1995. However, there has been one 

active technical registration with these 

uses from 1995 through the December 5, 

2005 effective date that amended its 

label. Nevertheless, despite the 

allowance by EPA that existing stocks 

for the technical and end use 

registrations could be sold or distributed 

by the registrant for 18 months, the 

Agency believes that no end users have 

used ODM on snap beans, field corn, 

popcorn, pears, and turnip commodities 

since 1995. Therefore, EPA believes that 

existing stocks of end use product was 

exhausted years ago and that such ODM 

treated-snap beans, field corn, popcorn, 

pears, and turnip commodities passed 

through channels of trade long ago and 

that sufficient time has passed. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.330 

on bean, snap, succulent; bean, snap, 

forage; corn, grain; pear; turnip; and 

turnip, greens; all on the date of 

publication of the final rule. 

Based on available data that showed 

combined oxydemeton-methyl residues 

of concern as high as 0.9 ppm in or on 

corn forage, EPA determined that the 

tolerance on corn forage should be 

decreased from 3.0 to 1.0 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.330 to decrease the 

tolerance on corn, forage to 1.0 ppm and 

revise it to corn, sweet, forage. No 

tolerance on field corn forage is needed. 

Based on available data that showed 

combined oxydemeton-methyl residues 

of concern as high as 9.84 ppm in or on 

clover hay grown for seed, EPA 

determined that the tolerance on clover 

hay grown for seed should be decreased 

from 11.0 to 10.0 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.330 

to decrease the tolerance on clover, hay, 

grown for seed to 10.0 ppm and revise 

it to clover, hay. 

Based on available data that showed 

combined oxydemeton-methyl residues 

of concern as high as 0.15 ppm in or on 

lima beans, 0.2 ppm in or on melons, 

less than 0.1 ppm in or on pumpkins, 

and less than 0.05 ppm in or on 

walnuts, EPA determined that the 

tolerances on lima beans, cottonseed, 

melons, pumpkins, and walnuts should 

be decreased from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm, 0.1 

to 0.02 ppm, 0.3 to 0.2 ppm, 0.3 to 0.2 

ppm, and 0.3 to 0.05 ppm, respectively. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.330 to decrease the 

tolerances on bean, lima to 0.2 ppm, 

cotton, undelinted seed to 0.02 ppm, 

melon to 0.2 ppm, pumpkin to 0.2 ppm, 

and walnut to 0.05 ppm. 

Based on available data that showed 

combined oxydemeton-methyl residues 

of concern as high as 1.22 ppm in or on 

cabbage, EPA determined that the 

tolerance on cabbage should be 

increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.330 to increase the tolerance 

on cabbage to 2.0 ppm. The Agency 

determined that the increased tolerance 

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

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. Also, because there is 

one active FIFRA section 24(c) 

registration for foliar use of 

oxydemeton-methyl on broccoli raab, 

EPA determined that data could be 

translated from cabbage and broccoli to 

broccoli raab, and therefore a tolerance 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28916 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

should be established on broccoli raab 

at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to establish a regional tolerance on 

broccoli raab in 40 CFR 180.330(c) at 2.0 

ppm and revise the tolerance expression 

in 40 CFR 180.330(c) as follows: 

(c) Tolerances with regional registrations, 

as defined in 40 CFR 180.1(m), are 

established for the combined residues of the 

insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2- 

(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl 

phosphorothioate) and its metabolite 

oxydemeton-methyl sulfone in or on the 

following food commodities. 

Based on a poultry metabolism study 

at the 6x feeding level that showed no 

residues of toxicological concern in 

poultry commodities and an earlier 

poultry metabolism study that showed 

residues were present in eggs and 

tissues, EPA determined that egg and 

poultry tolerances should be established 

at the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 

ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to establish tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.330(a)(2) on egg; poultry, fat; 

poultry, meat; and poultry, meat 

byproducts at 0.01 ppm. 

Also, EPA is proposing to revise 

commodity terminology in 40 CFR 

180.330 to conform to current Agency 

practice as follows: ‘‘alfalfa, green’’ to 

‘‘alfalfa, forage;’’ ‘‘alfalfa, hay, grown for 

seed’’ to ‘‘alfalfa, hay;’’ ‘‘beet, sugar’’ to 

‘‘beet, sugar, roots;’’ ‘‘corn, stover’’ to 

‘‘corn, sweet, stover’’ (no tolerances are 

needed on field corn stover or popcorn 

stover) ‘‘mint, hay’’ to ‘‘peppermint, 

tops’’ and ‘‘spearmint, tops;’’ ‘‘onion, 

dry bulb’’ to ‘‘onion, bulb;’’ ‘‘orange, 

sweet’’ to ‘‘orange;’’ ‘‘sorghum, forage’’

to ‘‘sorghum, forage, forage’’ and 

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

grain’’ to ‘‘sorghum, grain, grain.’’

There are no Codex MRLs for 

oxydemeton-methyl. 

3. Profenofos. Currently, the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.404(a) are 

expressed for residues of profenofos and 

its metabolites converted to 4-bromo-2- 

chlorophenyl and calculated as 

profenofos. Based on the Agency’s 

determination that only residues of 

profenofos per se are of toxicological 

concern, the tolerance expression in 40 

CFR 180.404 should be revised to reflect 

that profenofos per se is the only 

regulated residue. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression in 40 CFR 180.404(a) as 

follows: 

(a) General. Tolerances are established for 

residues of the insecticide profenofos (O-(4- 

bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-O-ethyl-S-propyl 

phosphorothioate) in or on the following 

food commodities. 

Based on available data that showed 

profenofos residues were as high as 1.1 

ppm on cottonseed, EPA determined 

that the tolerance should be decreased 

from 3.0 to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing to decrease the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.404 on cotton, 

undelinted seed to 2.0 ppm. Also, this 

proposed level will harmonize with the 

Codex MRL of 2 mg/kg on cottonseed. 

Based on available data that showed 

profenofos residues as high as 53 ppm, 

EPA determined that a tolerance of 55.0 

ppm should be established for cotton 

gin byproducts. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.404 for the residues of 

profenofos on cotton, gin byproducts at 

55.0 ppm. 

4. Trichlorfon. There are no active 

registrations for the use of the 

insecticide trichlorfon for cattle 

commodities in the United States. 

However, trichlorfon is used as a dermal 

pour-on application for cattle for import 

purposes. Based on cattle metabolism 

data from dermal application of 

trichlorfon which showed residues of 

trichlorfon as high as 0.2 ppm in muscle 

and less than 0.5 ppm in fat, EPA 

determined that the tolerances on cattle 

meat and cattle fat should be increased 

from 0.1 ppm to 0.2 ppm and 0.1 to 0.5 

ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.198 to increase 

the tolerances on cattle, meat to 0.2 ppm 

and cattle, fat to 0.5 ppm. The Agency 

determined that the increased tolerances 

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

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. Dichlorvos is a 

degradate of trichlorfon. However, as 

stated in the 2006 Dichlorvos RED, nondetectable dichlorvos residues in 

livestock commodities are expected as a 

result of trichlorfon use, and dichlorvos 

was not a significant metabolite in the 

trichlorfon dermal metabolism data. 

Therefore, dietary (food) exposure to 

dichlorvos residues resulting from use 

of trichlorfon is considered by the 

Agency to be negligible. 

Also, in 40 CFR 180.198, EPA is 

proposing to remove the ‘‘(N)’’

designation from all entries to conform 

to current Agency administrative 

practice, where the ‘‘(N)’’ designation 

means negligible residues. In addition, 

in order to conform to current Agency 

practice, EPA is proposing to revise 40 

CFR 180.198 and establish subparts (a) 

through (d), recodify general tolerances 

under 40 CFR 180.198(a) and reserve 

sections (b) for tolerances with section 

18 emergency exemptions, (c) for 

regional registrations, and (d) for 

indirect or inadvertent residues. 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

trichlorfon. 

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 the 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 the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). 

Such food may not be distributed in 

interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). 

For a food-use pesticide to be sold and 

distributed, the pesticide must not only 

have appropriate tolerances under the 

FFDCA, but also must be registered 

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 in follow-up to the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). The safety finding 

determination under section 408 of the 

FFDCA standard is discussed in detail 

in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for 

the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs 

recommend the implementation of 

certain tolerance actions, including 

modifications to reflect current use 

patterns, to meet safety findings, and 

change commodity names and 

groupings in accordance with new EPA 

policy. Printed and electronic copies of 

the REDs and TREDs are available as 

provided in Unit II.A. 

EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for 

methamidophos, oxydemeton-methyl, 

and profenofos, and a TRED for 

trichlorfon, whose RED was completed 

prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain 

the Agency’s evaluation of the data base 

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, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28917 

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 the 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. 

EPA has developed guidance 

concerning submissions for import 

tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 

2000) (FRL–6559–3). This guidance will 

be made available to interested persons. 

Electronic copies are available on the 

internet at http://www.epa.gov/. On the 

Home Page select ‘‘Laws, Regulations, 

and Dockets,’’ then select Regulations 

and Proposed Rules and then look up 

the entry for this document under 

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental 

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to 

the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

When EPA establishes tolerances for 

pesticide residues in or on raw 

agricultural commodities, consideration 

must be given to the possible residues 

of those chemicals in meat, milk, 

poultry, and/or eggs produced by 

animals that are fed agricultural 

products (for example, grain or hay) 

containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 

180.6). When considering this 

possibility, EPA can conclude that: 

1. Finite residues will exist in meat, 

milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 

2. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will exist. 

3. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will not exist. If 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

finite pesticide residues in or on meat, 

milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not 

need to be established for these 

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

EPA has evaluated certain specific 

meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances 

proposed for revocation in this rule and 

has concluded that there is no 

reasonable expectation of finite 

pesticide residues of concern in or on 

those commodities. 

C. When do These Actions Become 

Effective? 

EPA is proposing that the actions 

herein become effective on the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, because their 

associated uses have been canceled for 

several years. 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 had sufficient 

time for passage through the channels of 

trade. However, if EPA is presented 

with information that existing stocks 

would still be available and that 

information is verified, the Agency will 

consider 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 section, 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 proposal 

are not discriminatory and are designed 

to ensure that both domestically 

produced and imported foods meet the 

food safety standards established by the 

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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

international Maximum Residue Limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission, as required 

by section 408(b)(4) of the FFDCA. 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, 

section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA 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 rule and how they compare to 

Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in 

Unit II.A. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to establish tolerances under 

FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify 

and revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions (e.g., establishment and 

modification of a tolerance and 

tolerance revocation for which 

extraordinary circumstances do not 

exist) from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations as required by 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994); or OMB review or 

any other Agency action under 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

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

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

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

previously assessed whether 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerances, raising of tolerance 

levels, expansion of exemptions, or 

revocations might significantly impact a 

substantial number of small entities and 

concluded that, as a general matter, 

these actions do not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These analyses 

for tolerance establishments and 

modifications, and for tolerance 

revocations were published on May 4, 

1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 

17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), 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 action will 

not have a significant negative economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In a memorandum dated May 

25, 2001, EPA determined that eight 

conditions must all be satisfied in order 

for an import tolerance or tolerance 

exemption revocation to adversely affect 

a significant number of small entity 

importers, and that there is a negligible 

joint probability of all eight conditions 

holding simultaneously with respect to 

any particular revocation. (This Agency 

document is available in the docket of 

this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 

pesticide named in this proposed rule, 

the Agency knows of no extraordinary 

circumstances that exist as to the 

present proposal that would change the 

EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments 

about the Agency’s determination 

should be submitted to the EPA along 

with comments on the proposal, and 

will be addressed prior to issuing a final 

rule. In addition, the Agency has 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

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: May 16, 2007. 

Debra Edwards, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28919 

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. 

§180.3 [Amended] 

2. Section 180.3 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d)(8) and 

redesignationg paragraphs (d)(9) 

through (d)(14) as paragraphs (d)(8) 

through (d)(13). 

3. Section 180.198 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.198 Trichlorfon; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide trichlorfon (dimethyl (2,2,2- 

trichloro-1-hydroxyethyl) phosphonate) 

in or on the following food 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat 1 ..................... 0.5 

Cattle, meat 1 ................. 0.2 

Cattle, meat byproducts 1 0.1 

1There are no U.S. registrations for cattle 

commodities as of June 24, 1999. 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

4. Section 180.315 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.315 Methamidophos; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of 

methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl 

phosphoramidothioate) in or on the 

following food commodities as a result 

of the application of the insecticide 

methamidophos. 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 10.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 

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

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of methamidophos (O,Sdimethyl phosphoramidothioate) in or 

on the following food commodities as a 

result of the application of the 

insecticide acephate. 

Commodity Parts per million 

Bean, dry, seed .............. 1.0 

Bean, succulent .............. 1.0 

Brussels sprouts ............. 1.0 

Cauliflower ...................... 0.5 

Celery ............................. 1.0 

Cranberry ........................ 0.1 

Commodity Parts per million 

Lettuce, head .................. 1.0 

Pepper ............................ 1.0 

Peppermint, tops ............ 2.0 

Spearmint, tops .............. 2.0 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with regional 

registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are 

established for residues of 

methamidophos (O,S-dimethyl 

phosphoramidothioate) in or on the 

following food commodities as a result 

of the application of the insecticide 

methamidophos. 

Commodity Parts per million 

Tomato 2.0 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

5. Section 180.330 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.330 S-(2-(Ethylsulfinyl)ethyl) O,Odimethyl phosphorothioate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S- 

(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl 

phosphorothioate) and its metabolite 

oxydemeton-methyl sulfone in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Alfalfa, forage ................. 5.0 

Alfalfa, hay ...................... 11.0 

Bean, lima ....................... 0.2 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.3 

Beet, sugar, tops ............ 0.5 

Broccoli ........................... 1.0 

Brussels sprouts ............. 1.0 

Cabbage ......................... 2.0 

Cauliflower ...................... 1.0 

Clover, forage ................. 5.0 

Clover, hay ..................... 10.0 

Corn, sweet, forage ........ 1.0 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus 

cob with husks removed ......................... 0.5 

Corn, sweet, stover ........ 3.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.02 

Cucumber ....................... 1.0 

Eggplant .......................... 1.0 

Filbert .............................. 0.05 

Grapefruit ........................ 1.0 

Lemon ............................. 1.0 

Lettuce, head .................. 2.0 

Melon .............................. 0.2 

Onion, bulb ..................... 0.05 

Orange ............................ 1.0 

Pepper ............................ 0.75 

Peppermint, tops ............ 12.5 

Pumpkin .......................... 0.2 

Safflower, seed ............... 1.0 

Sorghum, forage, forage 2.0 

Sorghum, grain, forage ... 2.0 

Commodity Parts per million 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 0.75 

Spearmint, tops .............. 12.5 

Squash, summer ............ 1.0 

Squash, winter ................ 0.3 

Strawberry ...................... 2.0 

Walnut ............................. 0.05 

(2) Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of the insecticide 

oxydemeton-methyl (S-(2- 

(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl 

phosphorothioate) and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in 

or on the following food commodities. 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.01 

Cattle, meat .................... 0.01 

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.01 

Egg ................................. 0.01 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.01 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.01 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.01 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.01 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.01 

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.01 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.01 

Horse, meat .................... 0.01 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.01 

Milk ................................. 0.01 

Poultry, fat ...................... 0.01 

Poultry, meat .................. 0.01 

Poultry, meat byproducts 0.01 

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.01 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.01 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.01 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with regional 

registrations, as defined in 180.1(m), are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide oxydemeton-methyl (S- 

(2-(ethylsulfinyl)-ethyl) O,O-dimethyl 

phosphorothioate) and its metabolite 

oxydemeton-methyl sulfone in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Broccoli raab ................... 2.0 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

6. Section 180.404, paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§180.404 Profenofos; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide profenofos (O-(4-bromo-2- 

chlorophenyl)-O-ethyl-S-propyl 

phosphorothioate) in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.05 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
28920 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, meat .................... 0.05 

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 55.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 2.0 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.05 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.05 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.05 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.05 

Horse, meat .................... 0.05 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 

Milk ................................. 0.01 

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.05 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.05 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 

* * * * * 

FR Doc. 07–2561 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0766; FRL–8126–1] 

[RIN 2070–AJ28] 

Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping 

Program; Proposed Expansion 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing revisions to 

its pesticide tolerance crop grouping 

regulations, which allow establishment 

of tolerances for multiple related crops, 

based on data from a representative set 

of crops. The present revision would 

create a new crop group for edible fungi 

(mushrooms), expand existing crop 

groups by adding new commodities, 

establish new crop subgroups, and 

revise the representative crops in some 

groups. Additionally, EPA is revising 

the generic crop group regulation to add 

a subsection explaining how the Agency 

will implement revisions to crop 

groups. EPA expects these revisions to 

promote greater use of crop groupings 

for tolerance-setting purposes and, in 

particular, will assist in retaining or 

making available pesticides for minor 

crop uses. This is the first in a series of 

planned crop group updates expected to 

be proposed over the next several years. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0766, 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 Building), 2777 S. 

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket telephone number is (703) 305–

5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–

0766. 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 Federal 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 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. 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 

Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 

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 

telephone number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rame` Cromwell, Field and External 

Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–9068; fax number: 

(703) 305–5884; e-mail address: 

cromwell.rame@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. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, 

dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed 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 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS