24198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation. This 

proposed rule establishes a regulated 

navigation area and as such is covered 

by this paragraph. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ and ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether this rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T09–014 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–014 Safety zone; Baileys 

Harbor Fireworks, Baileys Harbor, WI. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: all waters of 

Lake Michigan, Baileys Harbor, within 

the arc of a circle with a 600-foot radius 

from the fireworks launch site located in 

position 45[deg]04’03’’ N, 

087[deg]06’08’’ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 

5, 2007. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or 

his designated on-scene representative. (2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. (3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–8445 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0036; FRL–8120–3] 

Chloroneb, Cypermethrin, 

Methidathion, Nitrapyrin, Oxyfluorfen, 

Pirimiphos-methyl, Sulfosate, 

Tebuthiuron, Thiabendazole, 

Thidiazuron, and Tribuphos; Proposed 

Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the fungicides 

chloroneb and thiabendazole; the 

herbicide sulfosate; the defoliant 

thidiazuron; the insecticides 

cypermethrin, methidathion, and 

pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil 

microbiocide nitrapyrin. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the fungicides chloroneb and 

thiabendazole; the herbicides 

oxyfluorfen and tebuthiuron; the 

defoliants thidiazuron and tribuphos; 

the insecticides cypermethrin, 

methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; 

and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to establish 

new tolerances for the fungicides 

chloroneb and thiabendazole; the 

herbicide oxyfluorfen; the defoliants 

thidiazuron and tribuphos; the 

insecticides cypermethrin, 

methidathion, and pirimiphos-methyl; 

and the soil microbiocide nitrapyrin. 

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 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0036, by 

one of the following methods: 

<bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

<bullet≤ 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 telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

0036. 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 emmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24199 

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 

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 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: 

<bullet≤ Crop production (NAICS 

code 111). 

<bullet≤ Animal production (NAICS 

code 112). 

<bullet≤ Food manufacturing (NAICS 

code 311). 

<bullet≤ 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 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 fungicides chloroneb 

and thiabendazole; the herbicides 

oxyfluorfen, sulfosate, and tebuthiuron; 

the defoliants thidiazuron and 

tribuphos; the insecticides 

cypermethrin, methidathion, and 

pirimiphos-methyl; and the soil 

microbiocide nitrapyrin 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 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24200 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 for 

chloroneb, cypermethrin, nitrapyrin, 

oxyfluorfen, tebuthiuron, and 

thidiazuron in public dockets EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2004–0369, EPA–HQ–OPP–2005– 

0293, EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0283, EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2002–0255, EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2002–0146, and EPA–HQ–OPP–2004– 

0382, respectively, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ and for 

methidathion, pirimiphos-methyl, 

thiabendazole, and tribuphos at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/ 

status.htm. A RED for sulfosate was not 

needed because it was registered after 

November 1, 1984 and not subject to 

reregistration eligibility, and because its 

tolerances were reassessed at the time of 

the addition of a tolerance for a new 

use, as described below in Unit II.A., a 

TRED document was no longer needed 

for the purpose of tolerance 

reassessment. 

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: 

<bullet≤ Lawful use (sometimes 

through a label change) may result in a 

higher residue level on the commodity; 

and 

<bullet≤ 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 chloroneb, cypermethrin, nitrapyrin, 

tebuthiuron, and thidiazuron can be 

found under their respective public 

docket numbers, identified in Unit II.A. 

Paper copies for methidathion, 

oxyfluorfen, pirimiphos-methyl, 

thiabendazole, and tribuphos 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–2007–0036, 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 

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. Chloroneb. Currently, chloroneb 

tolerances are set forth in 40 CFR 

180.257(a) for residues of chloroneb and 

its metabolite 2,5-dichloro-4- 

methoxyphenol, calculated as 

chloroneb. The Agency determined, as 

described in the Residue Chemistry 

Chapter document, that residues of 

concern include the conjugate of 2,5- 

dichloro-4-methoxyphenol. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression to include the conjugated as 

well as free metabolite in 40 CFR 

180.257(a) as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

the fungicide chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5- 

dimethoxybenzene) and its metabolite 2,5- 

dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (free and 

conjugated), calculated as chloroneb, in or on 

the following raw agricultural commodities. 

Also, in 40 CFR 180.257(a), 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. 

The tolerance in 40 CFR 180.257(a) 

for chloroneb residues of concern in or 

on cotton, forage should be revoked 

because the Agency no longer considers 

this commodity to be a significant 

livestock feed item, and therefore, is no 

longer needed. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.257(a) on cotton, forage. 

Based on available data from beans, 

undelinted cottonseed, soybeans, 

sugarbeet roots and sugarbeet tops that 

showed combined chloroneb residues of 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24201 

concern at <0.1 ppm, EPA determined 

that these tolerances should be 

increased from 0.1 ppm and set at the 

limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.2 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.257(a) to increase the 

tolerances to 0.2 ppm for the following: 

Bean and revise to bean, dry, seed and 

bean, succulent; beet, sugar, roots; beet, 

sugar, tops; cotton, undelinted seed; and 

soybean and revise to soybean, seed. 

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 the translation of available 

data from cowpea forage and soybean 

forage that showed combined chloroneb 

residues of concern as high as <2.0 ppm, 

EPA determined that the expected 

residues on cowpea hay and soybean 

hay would be <2.0 ppm and tolerances 

on cowpea hay and soybean hay should 

be established at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.257(a) to establish tolerances on 

cowpea, hay and soybean, hay, each at 

2.0 ppm. 

Based on cotton metabolism data that 

showed combined chloroneb residues of 

concern from cottonseed treatment were 

as high as 0.256 ppm on cotton gin 

byproducts, EPA determined that a 

tolerance on cotton gin byproducts 

should be established at 1.0 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.257(a) to establish a 

tolerance on cotton, gin byproducts at 

1.0 ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology in newly 

recodified 40 CFR 180.257(a) to conform 

to current Agency practice as follows: 

‘‘bean, forage’’ to ‘‘cowpea, forage.’’ 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

chloroneb. 

2. Cypermethrin. Based on available 

cattle exaggerated feeding data (0.83x 

and 2.8x maximum theoretical dietary 

burden or MTDB) for cypermethrin, 

EPA calculated that the maximum 

expected residues in muscle, fat, 

kidney, liver, whole milk and milk 

cream at 1x MTDB to be 0.084 ppm, 

0.699 ppm, 0.025 ppm, <0.0036 ppm, 

0.084 ppm, and 0.378 ppm, 

respectively. Therefore, the Agency 

determined that tolerances for the meat 

of cattle, goats, horses and sheep should 

be increased from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm in 

order to harmonize with Codex, and 

tolerances for the fat of cattle, goats, 

horses, and sheep should be increased 

from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm. In addition, the 

Agency determined that the tolerance 

level in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2) for zetacypermethrin on milk fat (reflecting 0.10 

in whole milk) at 2.5 ppm (based on a 

slightly higher theoretical dietary 

burden for cattle than cypermethrin) is 

also appropriate for cypermethrin and 

therefore the tolerance on milk should 

be revised to milk fat and increased 

from 0.05 to 2.5 ppm. Consequently, 

EPA is proposing to increase the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1) on 

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

sheep, meat to 0.2 ppm; cattle, fat; goat, 

fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat to 1.0 ppm; 

and milk to 2.5 ppm and revise the 

commodity terminology to milk, fat 

(reflecting 0.10 in whole milk). 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 cattle exaggerated 

feeding data and a 10-fold lower MTDB 

of cypermethrin for swine in 

comparison with cattle, EPA calculated 

that the maximum expected residues in 

muscle, fat, kidney, and liver of swine 

at 1x MTDB to be 0.0084 ppm, 0.0699 

ppm, 0.0025 ppm, and <0.00036 ppm, 

respectively. Therefore, the tolerances 

on hog fat should be increased from 0.05 

to 0.1 ppm in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1) and 

decreased from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm in 40 

CFR 180.418(a)(2). Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.418(a)(1) on hog, fat to 0.1 ppm 

and decrease the tolerance on hog, fat in 

40 CFR 180.418(a)(2) to 0.1 ppm. Also, 

while the Agency determined that the 

tolerance on hog meat is adequate at 

0.05 ppm in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1), it 

believes that it should be decreased 

from 0.2 to 0.05 ppm in 40 CFR 

180.418(a)(2). Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance on 

hog, meat in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2) to 

0.05 ppm. In addition, because the 

Agency expects cypermethrin residues 

on kidney and liver to be below the 

livestock method LOQ of 0.05 ppm, it 

believes that there is no reasonable 

expectation of detecting finite residues 

of cypermethrin or zeta-cypermethrin 

residues in or on hog, meat byproducts 

and therefore the tolerances are no 

longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). 

Consequently, the Agency is proposing 

to revoke the tolerances on hog, meat 

byproducts in both 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1) 

and (a)(2). 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 

exaggerated feeding data (14.3x MTDB) 

of cypermethrin, EPA calculated that 

the maximum expected residues in 

kidney, liver, and muscle of poultry at 

1x MTDB is each at <0.0007 ppm, 

which is below the livestock method 

LOQ of 0.05 ppm and LOD of 0.01 ppm, 

0.02 ppm in poultry fat, and 0.0086 ppm 

in egg. Therefore, EPA determined that 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

detecting finite residues of 

cypermethrin in poultry meat or meat 

byproducts and the poultry meat 

byproducts tolerance in 180.418(a)(2) is 

no longer needed under 40 CFR 

180.6(a)(3). However, the Agency 

believes that tolerances of 0.05 ppm 

should be established on egg, poultry 

fat, and poultry meat in order to 

harmonize with Codex. Consequently, 

the Agency is proposing to revoke the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2) on 

poultry, meat byproducts and establish 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1) on 

egg; poultry, fat; and poultry, meat at 

0.05 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

showed cypermethrin residues as high 

as 3.4 ppm in or on head lettuce, EPA 

determined that the tolerance should be 

decreased from 10.0 to 4.0 ppm. Also, 

since the use of zeta-cypermethrin on 

head lettuce is covered by the tolerance 

on leafy vegetables except Brassica, the 

Agency has determined that the 

tolerance on head lettuce is no longer 

needed in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2). 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.418(a)(1) to decrease the 

tolerance on lettuce, head to 4.0 ppm 

and revoke the tolerance on lettuce, 

head in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2). 

Based on data that showed 

cypermethrin residues as high as 8.84 

ppm in or on cotton gin byproducts, 

EPA determined that a tolerance on 

cotton gin byproducts should be 

established at 11.0 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.418(a)(1) to establish a tolerance on 

cotton, gin byproducts at 11.0 ppm. 

Because the tolerance expired on June 

30, 2005, EPA is proposing to remove 

the entry for the time-limited tolerance 

on mustard seed from 40 CFR 

180.418(b). 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology to 

conform to current Agency practice as 

follows: in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(1), 

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

in 40 CFR 180.418(a)(2), ‘‘dried, shelled 

pea and bean, except soybean (Crop 

subgroup 6C)’’ to ‘‘pea and bean, dried 

shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C;’’ 

‘‘edible podded legume vegetables (Crop 

subgroup 6A)’’ to ‘‘vegetable, legume, 

edible podded, subgroup 6A;’’ ‘‘leafy 

vegetables except Brassica’’ to 

‘‘vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 

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

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

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

grain, grain;’’ ‘‘succulent, shelled pea 

and bean (Crop subgroup 6B)’’ to ‘‘pea 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24202 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 

6B;’’ and ‘‘vegetable, fruiting, except 

cucurbits (Crop group 8)’’ to ‘‘vegetable, 

fruiting, group 8.’’ Because there is an 

existing tolerance on grass forage, in this 

case via a group tolerance, there is no 

need to include sorghum, forage, forage 

in the revision of the commodity 

terminology for sorghum forage. 

In the Federal Register of December 

13, 2006 (71 FR 74802) (FRL–8064–3), 

EPA published a direct final rule which 

finalized certain pesticide tolerance 

nomenclature changes. In both 40 CFR 

180.418(a)(1) and (a)(2), the changes 

from ‘‘Brassica leafy’’ to ‘‘Vegetable, 

brassica, leafy group 5’’ were not correct 

because there are existing tolerances for 

subgroup 5A and therefore the 

terminology ‘‘Brassica, leafy’’ should 

have been changed so as to denote 

subgroup 5B. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revise ‘‘Vegetable, brassica, 

leafy group 5’’ (formerly ‘‘Brassica, 

leafy’’) to ‘‘Brassica, leafy greens, 

subgroup 5B’’ in both 40 CFR 

180.418(a)(1) and (2). 

The proposed tolerance actions herein 

for cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin, to implement the 

recommendations of the cypermethrin 

RED, reflect use patterns in the U.S. 

which support a different tolerance than 

the Codex value on Brassica vegetables, 

cottonseed, head lettuce, and milk 

because of differences in good 

agricultural practices and determination 

of secondary residue levels in livestock 

commodities. However, compatibility 

exists for bulb onions and meat 

byproducts, and will exist between the 

proposed reassessed U.S. tolerances and 

Codex MRLs for cypermethrin residues 

in or on egg, poultry meat; and meat of 

cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. 

3. Methidathion. Because residues of 

methidathion in or on pecans and 

walnut at 0.05 ppm and peach at 0.05 

ppm are covered by the existing group 

tolerance on nut (0.05 ppm) and stone 

fruit (0.05 ppm), respectively, EPA 

determined that these individual 

tolerances are no longer needed, and 

therefore should be revoked. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.298(a) on peach, pecan, and walnut. 

Based on available data that showed 

residues of methidathion as high as 3.6 

ppm in or on oranges, EPA determined 

that the tolerance on citrus fruit (except 

mandarins) should be increased from 

2.0 to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.298(a) to revise 

the tolerance on fruit, citrus (except 

mandarins) to fruit, citrus, group 10, 

except tangerine and increase the 

tolerance to 4.0 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, based on available data that 

showed residues of methidathion 

concentrate an average of 118x in oil 

processed from methidathion-treated 

oranges, EPA determined that a 

tolerance on citrus oil should be 

established at 420.0 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.298(a) to establish a tolerance on 

citrus, oil at 420.0 ppm. 

The methidathion IRED 

recommended both recodifying the 

tolerances for alfalfa, alfalfa hay, grass, 

and grass hay (revising grass and grass 

hay to timothy and timothy hay) from 

40 CFR 180.298(a) into (c) as regional 

tolerances and decreasing them from 

12.0 to 5.0 ppm because section 24(c) 

FIFRA registrations had existed which 

allowed application to alfalfa and grass 

intended for haying, green chopping or 

grazing to be fed to livestock provided 

that the registrations were revised to 

impose a 21–day pre-harvest interval 

(PHI) and limited the amount of active 

ingredient per acre to timothy or 

timothy/alfalfa stands to 1 pound per 

cutting. From available data that 

showed residues of methidathion 

ranged from 0.13 to 25.0 ppm up to 12 

days post-application and field trial data 

which demonstrated that residues of 

methidathion decline rapidly with time, 

EPA calculated that residues would be 

<5.0 ppm with a 21–day PHI. However, 

while currently existing section 24(c) 

FIFRA registrations for use of 

methidathion on timothy and timothy 

hay have a 21–day PHI, a rate up to 1 

lb. per acre per cutting, and a restriction 

against the grazing or harvesting of 

treated timothy and timothy hay for 

feeding to any animal that may enter the 

human food chain, one registration in 

Idaho that expires on December 31, 

2007 does not specify a restriction 

against treated hay, seed, or seed 

screenings from entering the human 

food chain (unlike the other 

registrations). Therefore, the Agency 

believes that the grass and grass hay 

tolerances would no longer be needed 

shortly after December 31, 2007; i.e., 

after the Idaho registration expires. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

recodify the tolerances on grass and 

grass, hay from 40 CFR 180.298(a) to (c), 

revise their commodity terminology to 

timothy, forage and timothy, hay, 

respectively, decrease the tolerances 

from 12.0 to 5.0 ppm, and revoke them 

with an expiration/revocation date of 

March 31, 2008. 

In addition, section 24(c) FIFRA 

registrations exist for methidathion use 

on alfalfa grown for seed production, a 

non-food/non-feed use (that include 

restrictions against grazing/feeding on 

alfalfa, including seed, seed screenings 

and hay for human consumption or 

animal feed). However, while one of 

those registrations (for use on alfalfa 

with a 21–day PHI and rate up to 1 lb. 

per acre per cutting in Idaho that 

expires on December 31, 2007) has a 

restriction against the grazing or 

harvesting of treated alfalfa for feeding 

to any animal that may enter the human 

food chain, it does not specify a 

restriction against treated hay, seed, or 

seed screenings from entering the 

human food chain. Therefore, the 

Agency believes that the alfalfa and 

alfalfa hay tolerances would no longer 

be needed shortly after December 31, 

2007. Consequently, EPA is proposing 

to recodify the tolerances on alfalfa and 

alfalfa, hay from 40 CFR 180.298(a) to 

(c), decrease them to 5.0 ppm, revoke 

them with an expiration/revocation date 

of March 31, 2008, and revise the 

commodity terminology for alfalfa to 

alfalfa, forage. 

Also, EPA is proposing to revise 

commodity terminology in 40 CFR 

180.298(a) to conform to current Agency 

practice as follows: ‘‘fruit, pome’’ to 

‘‘fruit, pome, group 11;’’ ‘‘fruit, stone’’ to 

‘‘fruit, stone, group 12;’’ ‘‘nut’’ to ‘‘nut, 

tree, group 14;’’ and ‘‘sorghum, forage’’ 

to ‘‘sorghum, grain, forage’’ and 

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

grain’’ to ‘‘sorghum, grain, grain.’’ 

The proposed tolerance actions herein 

for methidathion, to implement the 

recommendations of the methidathion 

RED, reflect use patterns in the U.S. 

which support a different tolerance than 

the Codex value on citrus fruits (except 

tangerines), as well as tolerances on 

pome fruit, stone fruit, tangerines 

(mandarins), and safflower seeds, which 

are to be maintained at their existing 

levels. However, compatibility with 

Codex MRLs exists for U.S. tolerances 

on globe artichokes, grain sorghum, 

pecans, sunflower seeds, and walnuts. 

4. Nitrapyrin. Based on ruminant and 

poultry data feeding the maximum 

theoretical dietary burden of 6- 

chloropicolinic acid, EPA determined 

that there is no reasonable expectation 

of finite residues of nitrapyrin’s 

metabolite 6-chloropicolinic acid, free 

or conjugated, in any livestock or 

poultry commodities. (Because 6- 

chloropicolinic acid is the only residue 

expected in crops treated with 

nitrapyrin, it was appropriate to feed 6- 

chloropicolinic acid instead of 

nitrapyrin). Therefore, tolerances on the 

fat, meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, 

goats, hogs, horses, sheep, and poultry 

are no longer needed under 40 CFR 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24203 

180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is 

proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.350 for the combined residues 

of nitrapyrin and 6-chloropicolinic acid 

in or 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; 

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

byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; 

and poultry, meat byproducts. 

Based on available data showing 

combined nitrapyrin and 6- 

chloropicolinic acid residues as high as 

0.315 ppm on sorghum forage, EPA 

determined that the tolerance for 

sorghum forage should be increased 

from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.350(a) on sorghum, forage to 

0.5 ppm and revise it to ‘‘sorghum, 

forage, forage’’ and ‘‘sorghum, grain, 

forage.’’ 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 data showing 

combined nitrapyrin and 6- 

chloropicolinic acid residues as high as 

0.35 ppm on wheat grain, 1.436 ppm on 

wheat forage, and 4.8 ppm on wheat 

straw, EPA determined that the 

tolerances for wheat grain, forage, and 

straw should be increased from 0.1 to 

0.5 ppm, 0.5 to 2.0 ppm and 0.5 to 6.0 

ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to increase the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.350(a) on wheat, grain to 0.5 

ppm, wheat, forage to 2.0 ppm, and 

wheat, straw to 6.0 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 field trial data that 

supported an increased tolerance for 

wheat grain from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and 

processing data that showed 

concentration of 6-chloropicolinic acid 

in wheat bran by 5.5x and wheat shorts 

by 2.2x, but not in flour (nitrapyrin was 

not detectable in any processed wheat 

product), EPA determined that 

tolerances should be established for 

wheat bran at 3.0 ppm and wheat milled 

byproducts, except flour at 2.0 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.350(a) for combined residues of 

nitrapyrin and its metabolite 6- 

chloropicolinic acid in or on wheat, 

bran at 3.0 ppm, and wheat, milled 

byproducts, except flour at 2.0 ppm. 

Based on field trial data that 

supported a tolerance of 0.1 ppm for 

corn grain and processing data that 

showed concentration of 6- 

chloropicolinic acid in field corn 

screenings and grits after both dry and 

wet milling by 1.4x and 1.45x, 

respectively, but not in sweet corn 

fractions processed from sweet corn, 

EPA determined that a tolerance should 

be established for field corn milled 

byproducts at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.350(a) for 

combined residues of nitrapyrin and its 

metabolite 6-chloropicolinic acid in or 

on corn, field, milled byproducts at 0.2 

ppm. 

Also, in 40 CFR 180.350(a), 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 40 CFR 180.350(a), 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

commodity terminology for ‘‘corn, 

forage’’ to ‘‘corn, field, forage’’ and 

‘‘corn, sweet, forage;’’ ‘‘corn, grain’’ to 

‘‘corn, field, grain’’ and ‘‘corn, pop, 

grain;’’ ‘‘corn, stover’’ to ‘‘corn, field, 

stover,’’ ‘‘corn, pop, stover,’’ and ‘‘corn, 

sweet, stover;’’ and ‘‘sorghum, grain’’ to 

‘‘sorghum, grain, grain.’’ 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

nitrapyrin. 

5. Oxyfluorfen. Based on available 

data that showed residues of 

oxyfluorfen as high as 0.03 ppm in or on 

mint hay, EPA determined that the 

tolerance on mint hay (peppermint and 

spearmint) should be decreased from 0.1 

to 0.05 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.381(a) to revise 

the commodity terminology for mint 

hay into separate tolerances on 

peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops 

and decrease each tolerance to 0.05 

ppm. 

Based on available exaggerated (5x to 

7x MTDB) cattle feeding data that 

showed residues of oxyfluorfen as high 

as <0.003 ppm in milk, 0.007 ppm in 

fat, <0.003 ppm in meat, <0.003 ppm in 

kidney, and <0.003 ppm in liver, EPA 

expected residues below the LOQ (0.01 

ppm) in milk, fat, meat, and meat 

byproducts at the 1x MTDB for cattle. 

The Agency determined that the 

tolerances on milk and the fat, meat and 

meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, 

horses, and sheep should be set at the 

LOQ and decreased from 0.05 to 0.01 

ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 

CFR 180.381(a) to decrease the 

tolerances on milk; 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; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and 

sheep, meat byproducts to 0.01 ppm. 

Based on available exaggerated (2.0x 

MTDB) poultry feeding data that 

showed residues of oxyfluorfen as high 

as 0.024 ppm in eggs, 0.163 ppm in fat, 

0.004 ppm in meat, and 0.006 ppm in 

liver, EPA expected residues of 0.012 

ppm in egg, 0.082 ppm in fat, 0.002 ppm 

in meat, and 0.003 ppm in liver at the 

1x MTDB for poultry. The Agency 

determined that the tolerances should 

be decreased on egg from 0.05 to 0.03 

ppm, meat and meat byproducts from 

0.05 to 0.01 ppm, and increased on fat 

from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.381(a) to 

decrease the tolerances on egg to 0.03 

ppm, poultry, meat to 0.01 ppm, 

poultry, meat byproducts to 0.01 ppm, 

and increase the tolerance on poultry, 

fat 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. 

Based on available data that showed 

oxyfluorfen residues from use of 

oxyfluorfen on grass grown for seed in 

Oregon and Washington were not 

detectable (<0.03 ppm) in or on grass 

forage, hay, and seed screenings, EPA 

determined that the reassessed animal 

commodity tolerances are adequate to 

cover any residue contribution from 

regional registration uses of oxyfluorfen 

on grasses grown for seed and tolerances 

should be established on grass forage, 

hay, and seed screenings at 0.05 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.381(c) on grass, forage; grass, hay; 

and grass, seed screenings; each at 0.05 

ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology in 40 

CFR 180.381 to conform to current 

Agency practice as follows: ‘‘banana 

(including plantain)’’ to ‘‘banana;’’ 

‘‘coffee, bean’’ to ‘‘coffee, bean, green;’’ 

‘‘corn, grain’’ to ‘‘corn, field, grain’’ and 

‘‘corn, pop, grain;’’ ‘‘onion, dry bulb’’ to 

‘‘onion, bulb;’’ ‘‘taro, corm and leaves’’ 

to ‘‘taro, corm’’ and ‘‘taro, leaves. 

Moreover, it should be noted that use of 

oxyfluorfen on plantains is covered by 

the existing tolerance at 0.05 ppm for 

banana under 40 CFR 180.1(g), and 

there is no need to establish a separate 

tolerance on plantains at 0.05 ppm. 

Also, because use of oxyfluorfen on 

garlic is covered by the existing 

tolerance at 0.05 ppm for onion bulb 

under 40 CFR 180.1(g), there is no need 

to establish a separate tolerance on 

garlic at 0.05 ppm as had been 

recommended in the RED. 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

oxyfluorfen. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24204 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

6. Pirimiphos-methyl. Currently, 

pirimiphos-methyl tolerances are 

established in 40 CFR 180.409 and 

expressed for the combined residues of 

the insecticide parent and metabolite O- 

(2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-yl) 

O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate and, in 

free and conjugated form, the 

metabolites 2-diethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol, 2-ethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol, and 2-amino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol. However, because EPA 

has determined that the endpoint 

chosen for dietary risk assessment is 

cholinesterase inhibition, the noncholinesterase-inhibiting 

hydroxypyrimidine metabolites no 

longer need to be included for the 

purpose of tolerance regulation. Also, in 

an effort to harmonize with Codex, the 

Agency determined that the residue to 

be regulated in commodities is 

pirimiphos-methyl per se. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.409(a) 

to revise the tolerance expression to 

residues of pirimiphos-methyl per se as 

follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues of 

the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (O-(2- 

diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) O,Odimethyl phosphorothioate) in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities. 

Based on available exaggerated (4x to 

40x MTDB) cattle feeding data from 

which EPA determined that detectable 

residues are not reasonably expected in 

meat, and residues calculated at 1x 

MTDB would be expected at 0.01 ppm 

in fat, and <0.01 ppm in both kidney 

and liver, the Agency determined that 

tolerances should be decreased and set 

at the LOQ of 0.02 ppm for residues in 

the fat and meat byproducts of 

ruminants and fat in poultry. Because 

the tolerances on kidney and liver of 

cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep 

should be decreased from 2.0 to 0.02 

ppm and tolerances on meat byproducts 

of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep 

should be decreased from 0.2 to 0.02 

ppm, residues in or on liver and kidney 

will be covered by the reassessed 

tolerances on meat byproducts and 

separate tolerances on kidney and liver 

are no longer needed and should be 

revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 

40 CFR 180.409(a) to revoke the separate 

tolerances on cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; 

goat, kidney; goat, liver; hog, kidney; 

hog, liver; horse, kidney; horse, liver; 

sheep, kidney; and sheep, liver; and 

decrease the tolerances on cattle, fat; 

cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, 

meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat 

byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat 

byproducts; poultry, fat; sheep, fat; and 

sheep, meat byproducts to 0.02 ppm. 

Based on the cattle feeding data, with 

current registrations, the tolerance for 

cattle meat can be classified under 40 

CFR 180.6(a)(3); i.e. there is no 

reasonable expectation of finite 

residues, and therefore was 

recommended by the Agency in the 

pirimiphos-methyl RED to be revoked. 

In the Federal Register of July 31, 2002 

(67 FR 49606) (FRL–7191–4), EPA 

published a rule which finalized certain 

tolerance actions for a number of 

pesticide active ingredients, including 

pirimiphos-methyl. In a response to a 

comment from Schering-Plough Animal 

Health Corporation on cattle tolerances 

and pending registration of a pour-on 

product, the Agency announced that it 

would not take action on revoking the 

tolerance for cattle meat at that time. 

However, since then, the pending 

registration application for a pour-on 

product formulation was withdrawn by 

Schering-Plough Animal Health 

Corporation. Currently, there are still 

active ear tag registrations. The Agency 

has determined that the use of 

impregnated materials (ear tags) on nonlactating dairy cattle and beef cattle 

does not contribute to significant 

secondary residues in livestock 

(calculated contribution is a dietary 

equivalent to <0.01 ppm, which is less 

than the dietary LOQ of 0.02 ppm). 

Therefore, under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3), 

EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance 

in 40 CFR 180.409 on cattle, meat. 

While there is a Codex MRL for 

pirimiphos-methyl on meat at 0.01 mg/ 

kg, EPA notes that the definition of 

‘‘meat’’ under Codex is different than in 

U.S. tolerances and Codex has not 

established pirimiphos-methyl MRLs for 

fat or meat byproducts. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed residues of pirimiphosmethyl with an average concentration 

factor of 3.8x in aspirated grain fractions 

of corn and a highest average field trial 

(HAFT) of 4.87 ppm in or on corn grain, 

EPA determined that a tolerance should 

be established at 20.0 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a) on grain, 

aspirated fractions at 20.0 ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology in 40 

CFR 180.409 to conform to current 

Agency practice as follows: ‘‘corn’’ to 

‘‘corn, field, grain’’ and ‘‘corn, pop, 

grain.’’ 

7. Sulfosate. Because sulfosate was 

registered after November 1, 1984, it 

was not subject to eligibility for 

reregistration under FIFRA and 

therefore a RED was not needed. 

Existing tolerances were reassessed 

according to the FQPA standard when 

new tolerances were established on 

September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48597)(FRL– 

6026–6) and therefore a TRED was not 

needed. However, the last U.S. 

registrations for the herbicide sulfosate 

(sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N- 

(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1)) were 

canceled on October 15, 2004, due to 

non-payment of registration 

maintenance fees, and a notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62666)(FRL– 

7683–7). Therefore, the tolerances are 

no longer needed. In the Federal 

Register notice of October 27, 2004 (69 

FR 62666), EPA stated that cancellation 

orders generally permit registrants to 

continue to sell and distribute existing 

stocks of the canceled products until 

January 15, 2005. However, during 

follow-up communication, the registrant 

informed the Agency that it did not 

produce sulfosate after 2002 and sold 

the remaining existing stocks of 

sulfosate in 2003. Nor is the registrant 

supporting the import tolerance on 

banana. Therefore, the Agency believes 

that end users have had sufficient time 

to exhaust existing stocks and for 

treated commodities to have cleared the 

channels of trade. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.489 on 

the following: Almond, hulls (of which 

no more than 0.30 ppm is 

trimethylsulfonium (TMS)); banana 

(imported only); cattle, fat; cattle, 

kidney; cattle, meat byproducts, except 

kidney; cattle, meat; corn, field, forage; 

corn, field and pop, grain (of which no 

more than 0.10 ppm is TMS); corn, field 

and pop, stover (of which no more than 

0.20 ppm is TMS); corn, sweet, forage 

(of which no more than 5.0 ppm is 

TMS); corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with 

husks removed (of which no more than 

0.10 ppm is TMS); corn, sweet, stover 

(of which no more than 65 ppm is 

TMS); cotton, gin byproducts (of which 

no more than 35 ppm is TMS); cotton, 

undelinted seed (of which no more than 

10 ppm is TMS); crop group 2: Leaves 

of root and tuber vegetables (human 

food or animal feed (except radish) 

group (of which no more than 0.20 ppm 

is TMS); crop group 8: Vegetable, 

fruiting (except cucurbits) group; crop 

subgroup 1-A: Root vegetables (except 

radish) subgroup (of which no more 

than 0.10 ppm is TMS); crop subgroup 

1-C: Tuberous and corm vegetables 

subgroup (of which no more than 0.50 

ppm is TMS); crop subgroup 6-A: 

Edible-podded legume vegetables 

subgroup (of which no more than 0.3 

ppm is TMS); crop subgroup 6-B: 

Succulent shelled pea and bean 

subgroup (of which no more than 0.1 

ppm is TMS); crop subgroup 6C: Dried 

shelled pea and bean (except soybean 

and animal feed) subgroup (of which no 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24205 

more than 1.5 ppm is TMS); egg; fruit, 

citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; 

fruit, stone, group 12; goat, fat; goat, 

kidney; goat, meat byproducts, except 

kidney; goat, meat; grain, aspirated 

fractions (of which no more than 720 

ppm is TMS); grape; grape, raisin (of 

which no more than 0.05 ppm is TMS); 

hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, meat 

byproducts, except kidney; hog, meat; 

horse, fat; horse, kidney; horse, meat 

byproducts, except kidney; horse, meat; 

milk; nut, tree, group 14; pistachio; 

poultry, fat; poultry, meat byproducts; 

poultry, meat; prune (of which no more 

than 0.05 ppm is TMS); radish, roots (of 

which no more than 15 ppm is TMS); 

radish, tops (of which no more than 8.0 

ppm is TMS); sheep, fat; sheep, kidney; 

sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney; 

sheep, meat; sorghum, grain, forage (of 

which no more than 0.10 ppm is TMS); 

sorghum, grain, grain (of which no more 

than 15 ppm is TMS); sorghum, grain, 

stover (of which no more than 60 ppm 

is TMS); soybean, forage (of which no 

more than 1 ppm is TMS); soybean, hay 

(of which no more than 2 ppm is TMS); 

soybean, hulls (of which no more than 

25 ppm is TMS); soybean, seed (of 

which no more than 13 ppm is TMS); 

wheat, bran (of which no more than 6.0 

ppm is TMS); wheat, forage (of which 

no more than 30 ppm is TMS); wheat, 

grain (of which no more than 2.5 ppm 

is TMS); wheat, hay (of which no more 

than 0.50 ppm is TMS); wheat shorts (of 

which no more than 0.5 ppm is TMS); 

wheat, shorts (of which no more than 

5.0 ppm is TMS); wheat, straw (of 

which no more than 0.5 ppm is TMS); 

and wheat, straw (of which no more 

than 40 ppm is TMS). 

8. Tebuthiuron. Currently, the 

tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.390 

regulates for the herbicide tebuthiuron 

and its metabolites containing the 

dimethylethyl thiadiazole moiety. 

Because the Agency has determined that 

the residues of concern in plants are 

tebuthiuron and its metabolites N–(5-(2- 

hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’-dimethylurea, N– 

(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol2-yl)-N-methylurea, and N–(5-(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea, EPA is 

proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression for plant commodities from 

40 CFR 180.390 to 180.390(a)(1) with 

tolerances established for the combined 

residues of tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)- 

N,N’-dimethylurea) and its metabolites 

N–(5-(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’- 

dimethylurea, N–(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, and 

N–(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’-hydroxymethyl-Nmethylurea. 

Also, because the Agency has 

determined that the residues of concern 

in fat, meat, kidney, and liver are 

tebuthiuron and its metabolites N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)urea, 2-dimethylethyl-5-amino-1,3,4- 

thiadiazole, and N–(5-(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea, EPA is 

proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression for these animal 

commodities from 40 CFR 180.390 to 

180.390(a)(2) with tolerances 

established for the combined residues of 

tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’- 

dimethylurea) and its metabolites N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)urea, 2-dimethylethyl-5-amino-1,3,4- 

thiadiazole, and N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea. 

In addition, because the Agency has 

determined that the residues of concern 

in milk are tebuthiuron and its 

metabolites N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N– 

(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)urea, N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’-hydroxymethyl-Nmethylurea, and N–(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea, EPA is 

proposing to revise the tolerance 

expression for milk from 40 CFR 

180.390 to 180.390(a)(3) with a 

tolerance established for the combined 

residues of tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)- 

N,N’-dimethylurea) and its metabolites 

N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5–(2- 

hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)urea, N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’-hydroxymethyl-Nmethylurea, and N–(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea. 

Based on the MTDB for beef cattle and 

available exaggerated ruminant feeding 

data (2.07x), combined tebuthiuron 

residues of concern in the milk, fat, 

meat, kidney, and liver of cattle were 

expected by the Agency at 1x to be as 

high as 0.57 ppm, 0.39 ppm, 0.67 ppm, 

1.66 ppm, and 3.44 ppm, respectively. 

Therefore, tolerances on the fat and 

meat of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep 

should be decreased from 2.0 to 1.0 

ppm; tolerances on meat byproducts of 

cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should 

be increased from 2.0 to 5.0 ppm; and 

tolerance on milk should be increased 

from 0.3 to 0.8 ppm. Consequently, EPA 

is proposing in 40 CFR 180.390(a)(2) to 

decrease tolerances on cattle, fat; cattle, 

meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; horse, fat; 

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

to 1.0 ppm; and increase tolerances on 

cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat 

byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; 

and sheep, meat byproducts to 5.0 ppm. 

Also, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.390(a)(3) to increase the tolerance 

on milk to 0.8 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. 

Also, EPA is proposing to revise 40 

CFR 180.390 by adding separate 

paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and 

reserving those sections for tolerances 

with section 18 emergency exemptions, 

regional registrations, and indirect or 

inadvertent residues, respectively. 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

tebuthiuron. 

9. Thiabendazole. Currently, 

thiabendazole tolerances are established 

in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(1) and expressed 

for residues of the fungicide 

thiabendazole (2–(4- 

thiazolyl)benzimidazole in or on plant 

commodities. However, EPA has 

determined that for the purpose of 

tolerance regulation that its metabolite 

benzimidazole (free and conjugated) 

should be included as a residue of 

concern in or on plant commodities. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.242(a)(1) to revise the tolerance 

expression as follows: 

Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of the fungicide 

thiabendazole (2–(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) 

and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and 

conjugated) in or on the following raw 

agricultural commodities. 

Currently, thiabendazole tolerances 

are established in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) 

and expressed for combined residues of 

thiabendazole and its metabolite 5- 

hydroxythiabendazole in or on animal 

commodities. However, EPA has 

determined that for the purpose of 

tolerance regulation that its metabolites 

5-hydroxythiabendazole (free and 

conjugated) and benzimidazole should 

be included as residues of concern in 

animal commodities. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) to 

revise the tolerance expression as 

follows: 

Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of thiabendazole (2–(4- 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24206 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolites 

5-hydroxythiabendazole (free and 

conjugated) and benzimidazole in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities. 

Currently, time-limited thiabendazole 

tolerances for emergency exemptions 

are established in 40 CFR 180.242(b) 

and expressed for residues of 

thiabendazole. However, EPA has 

determined that for the purpose of 

tolerance regulation that its metabolite 

benzimidazole (free and conjugated) 

should be included as a residue of 

concern in plant commodities. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 

180.242(b) to revise the tolerance 

expression as follows: 

Time-limited tolerances are established for 

the combined residues of thiabendazole (2– 

(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its 

metabolite benzimidazole (free and 

conjugated), in connection with use of the 

pesticide under section 18 emergency 

exemptions granted by EPA. The tolerances 

are specified in the following table. The 

tolerances will expire on the dates specified 

in the table. 

Because thiabendazole residues of 

concern on postharvest banana pulp 

will be covered by the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.242(a)(1) on banana, 

postharvest at 3.0 ppm, a separate 

tolerance on postharvest banana pulp at 

0.4 ppm is no longer needed, and 

therefore that tolerance on postharvest 

banana pulp should be revoked. 

Furthermore, currently, the Agency 

considers the raw agricultural 

commodity to be the whole banana and 

not just the pulp. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.242(a)(1) for thiabendazole 

residues of concern in or on banana, 

pulp, postharvest. 

Because there have been no registered 

uses of thiabendazole for squash since 

1993 and rice since 1999, the tolerances 

on hubbard squash, rice hulls, rice 

rough, and rice straw are no longer 

needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.242(a)(1) for thiabendazole residues 

of concern in or on squash, hubbard; 

rice, hulls; rice, rough; and rice, straw. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed residues of thiabendazole 

do not concentrate in any regulated 

processed commodity of potato 

(granules/flakes, chips, or wet peel) or 

wheat (bran, flour, middlings, shorts, 

germ), the Agency determined that the 

tolerances on processing waste of potato 

and milled fractions (excluding flour) of 

wheat are no longer needed. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.242(a)(1) on potato, 

processing waste (pre- & post-H) and 

wheat, milled fractions (except flour). 

Based on available processing data 

that showed residues of thiabendazole 

concentrated in dried citrus pulp by a 

factor of 1.6x and a HAFT of 5.2 ppm 

for whole citrus fruits, EPA expected 

residues of 8.3 ppm, which is below the 

current and reassessed tolerance of 10.0 

ppm on whole citrus fruit. Therefore, 

the dried citrus pulp tolerance is no 

longer needed. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.242(a)(1) on citrus, dried pulp, 

postharvest. 

Based on the MTDB for poultry and 

available exaggerated (125x MTDB) 

poultry feeding data which showed 

combined thiabendazole residues of 

concern in poultry tissues at <0.109 

ppm and in egg yolks at 0.065 ppm, the 

Agency expects residues to be <0.027 

ppm in poultry tissues and 0.015 ppm 

in eggs. Because these levels are below 

the combined LOQs of 0.3 ppm in 

tissues and 0.15 ppm in eggs for the 

enforcement method, the Agency 

concluded that there is no reasonable 

expectation of finding finite 

thiabendazole residues of concern in 

poultry tissues and eggs resulting from 

the feeding of thiabendazole treated 

crops to poultry. Therefore, tolerances 

on poultry and eggs are no longer 

needed. Consequently, under 40 CFR 

180.6(a)(3), EPA is proposing to revoke 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) on 

poultry; poultry, meat byproducts; 

poultry, meat; and egg. 

Based on the MTDB for beef cattle and 

swine and available exaggerated 

ruminant feeding data (1.9x and 6.7x 

MTDB in fat and muscle, respectively), 

combined thiabendazole residues of 

concern in the fat and meat of cattle 

were as high as 0.030 and 0.023 ppm, 

respectively. Because each of these 

levels is below the combined LOQ (0.1 

ppm for each analyte), the Agency 

concluded that there is no reasonable 

expectation of finding finite 

thiabendazole residues of concern in the 

fat and meat of cattle, goats, hogs, 

horses, and sheep resulting from the 

feeding of thiabendazole treated crops to 

livestock. Therefore, tolerances on the 

fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and 

sheep are no longer needed. 

Consequently, under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3), 

EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) on cattle, fat; goat, 

fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat. 

The proposed changes to include the 

metabolite benzimidazole in the 

tolerance expression for thiabendazole 

when finalized could make U.S. 

tolerances and Codex MRLs 

incompatible because the Codex MRLs 

for thiabendazole are currently 

expressed in terms of the parent for 

plant commodities and sum of the 

parent and 5-hydroxythiabendazole for 

animal commodities. Because of the 

lack of Codex MRLs on the meat of 

goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; proposed 

change in the tolerance expression for 

animal commodities, and data that show 

no reasonable expectation of finding 

finite thiabendazole residues of concern 

in the meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, 

and sheep, the Agency determined that 

the meat tolerances of goats, hogs, 

horses, and sheep are no longer needed 

and therefore should be revoked. 

Consequently, under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3), 

EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) on goat, meat; hog, 

meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat. 

However, despite the expected 

difference in tolerance expression and 

undetectable residues, EPA is 

maintaining the tolerance on cattle meat 

at 0.1 ppm in order to harmonize as 

closely as possible with the Codex MRL 

of 0.1 mg/kg. 

Based on available ruminant feeding 

data (1x MTDB) that showed combined 

thiabendazole residues of concern as 

high as 0.028 ppm in milk, which is 

below the combined LOQ of 0.1 ppm for 

the enforcement method, EPA 

determined that the tolerances on milk 

should be decreased from 0.4 to 0.1 

ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to decrease the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) on milk to 0.1 

ppm. 

Based on available exaggerated (1.9x 

MTDB) ruminant feeding data that 

showed combined thiabendazole 

residues of concern as high as 0.28 ppm 

in liver and 0.687 ppm in kidney, EPA 

expected residues of 0.15 ppm in liver 

and 0.36 ppm in kidney at the 1x MTDB 

for beef cattle. The Agency determined 

that the tolerance for meat byproducts of 

cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should 

be increased from 0.1 to 0.4 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) 

on cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat 

byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; 

and sheep, meat byproducts to 0.4 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 exaggerated 

ruminant feeding data and 14.7x MTDB 

for swine that showed combined 

thiabendazole residues of concern as 

high as 0.28 ppm in liver and 0.687 ppm 

in kidney, the Agency determined that 

the tolerance for combined 

thiabendazole residues of concern on 

hog meat byproducts should be 

increased from 0.1 ppm and set at the 

combined LOQ of 0.3 ppm for the 

analytes in the enforcement method. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase 

the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(2) on 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24207 

hog, meat byproducts to 0.3 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 data showing 

combined thiabendazole residues of 

concern as high as <0.022 ppm on sweet 

potatoes grown from treated seed roots, 

EPA determined that the postharvest 

tolerance for sweet potato from treated 

seed should be increased from 0.02 to 

0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.242(a)(1) on sweet potato (post-H to 

sweet potato intended only for use as 

seed) to 0.05 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 data that showed 

combined thiabendazole residues of 

concern as high as 5.0 ppm in or on 

pears and a HAFT for 3.4 ppm for 

apples, EPA determined that the 

tolerances on apples and pears should 

be decreased from 10.0 to 5.0 ppm and 

combined into a group tolerance. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.242(a)(1) on apple, postharvest and 

pear, postharvest and combine them 

into a group tolerance for fruit, pome, 

group 11, postharvest at 5.0 ppm. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed residues of thiabendazole 

concentrated in wet apple pomace by a 

factor of 3.5x and a HAFT of 3.4 ppm 

for apples, EPA expected combined 

residues of 11.9 ppm in wet apple 

pomace. Therefore, the Agency 

determined that a tolerance on wet 

apple pomace should be established at 

12.0 ppm. Consequently, EPA is 

proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR 180.242(a)(1) on apple, wet pomace 

at 12.0 ppm. 

Based on available processing data 

that showed residues of thiabendazole 

concentrated in citrus oil by an average 

factor of 2.4x and a HAFT of 5.2 ppm 

for whole citrus fruits, EPA expected 

combined residues of 12.5 ppm in citrus 

oil. Therefore, the Agency determined 

that a tolerance on citrus oil should be 

established at 15.0 ppm. Consequently, 

EPA is proposing to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.242(a)(1) on 

citrus, oil at 15.0 ppm. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revise commodity terminology in 40 

CFR 180.242(a)(1) to conform to current 

Agency practice as follows: ‘‘fruit, 

citrus, postharvest’’ to ‘‘fruit, citrus, 

group 10, postharvest.’’ 

Currently, there is an active 

registration for thiabendazole use on 

sugar beets. The registrant does not 

intend to support the sugar beet 

tolerances. Consequently, EPA will not 

take action to revoke the sugar beet 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.242 at this 

time, but will follow-up with the 

registrant on amending the registration 

in order to delete the sugarbeet use and 

address the tolerances in a future 

publication in the Federal Register. 

10. Thidiazuron. Based on available 

processing data that show thidiazuron 

residues on cottonseed hulls 

concentrated slightly by a factor of 1.4x, 

EPA expects residues not to exceed the 

current recommended raw agricultural 

commodity tolerance of 0.3 ppm for 

cottonseed. Therefore, the tolerance on 

cottonseed hulls is no longer needed. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.403(a) on cotton, hulls. 

Cottonseed meal is a common feeding 

source for poultry. A cottonseed meal 

processing study at 5x application rate 

showed that thidiazuron residues were 

less than the LOQ (<0.05 ppm) and did 

not concentrate, and EPA determined 

that there is no reasonable expectation 

of finite residues in poultry and eggs. 

Therefore, the tolerances on poultry fat, 

meat, meat byproducts, and egg are no 

longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). 

Consequently, the Agency is proposing 

to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.403 for the combined residues of 

thidiazuron and its aniline containing 

metabolites in or on poultry, fat; 

poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; 

and egg. 

Based on available data showing 

thidiazuron residues were as high as 

0.21 ppm on cottonseed, EPA 

determined that the tolerance should be 

decreased from 0.4 to 0.3 ppm. 

Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 

decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.403(a) on cotton, undelinted seed to 

0.3 ppm. 

Pending storage stability and raw data 

to validate the ruminant feeding study, 

EPA determined that the tolerances for 

thidiazuron and its metabolites of 

concern are not expected to exceed 0.4 

ppm for fat, meat, and meat byproducts, 

and therefore should be increased from 

0.2 to 0.4 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is 

proposing to increase the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.403(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; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and 

sheep, meat byproducts to 0.4 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 

pestcide chemical residue. 

Based on available data that showed 

thidiazuron residues as high as 22.12 

ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance 

of 24.0 ppm should be established for 

cotton gin byproducts. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing to establish a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.403(a) for the 

combined residues of thidiazuron and 

its aniline containing metabolites in or 

on cotton, gin byproducts at 24.0 ppm. 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

thidiazuron. 

11. Tribuphos. EPA is proposing to 

remove the ‘‘negligible residue’’ 

designation from all entries in 40 CFR 

180.272 to conform to current Agency 

administrative practice. 

Based on the MTDB for cattle and 

available exaggerated ruminant feeding 

data (2.7x MTDB), tribuphos residues in 

milk and fat were expected by the 

Agency at 1x to be as high as 0.008 ppm 

and 0.13 ppm, respectively. Therefore, 

the Agency determined that the 

tolerance on milk should be increased 

from 0.002 ppm to the LOQ (0.01 ppm), 

and that tolerances on the fat of cattle, 

goats, and sheep should be increased 

from 0.02 to 0.15 ppm and tolerances on 

the fat of hogs and horses should be 

established at 0.15 ppm. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing in 40 CFR 180.272 to 

increase tolerances on cattle, fat; goat, 

fat; and sheep, fat to 0.15 ppm; and 

establish tolerances on hog, fat and 

horse, fat at 0.15 ppm. Also, EPA is 

proposing in 40 CFR 180.272 to increase 

the tolerance on milk to 0.01 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 the MTDB for cattle and 

available exaggerated ruminant feeding 

data (2.7x MTDB), tribuphos residues in 

meat and liver were expected by the 

Agency at 1x to be as high as 0.015 ppm 

and 0.019 ppm, respectively. Therefore, 

the Agency determined that the 

tolerances on meat and meat byproducts 

of hogs and horses should all be 

established at 0.02 ppm. Therefore, EPA 

is proposing in 40 CFR 180.272 to 

establish tolerances on hog, meat; hog, 

meat byproducts; horse, meat; and 

horse, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm. 

Based on available data (where sites 

had a 7–day PHI, with the exception of 

one site with a 9–day PHI) that showed 

tribuphos residues as high as 36.39 

ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance 

of 40.0 ppm should be established for 

cotton gin byproducts. Therefore, the 

Agency is proposing to establish a 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24208 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.272 on cotton, 

gin byproducts at 40.0 ppm. 

There are no Codex MRLs for 

tribuphos. 

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 

chloroneb, cypermethrin, methidathion, 

nitrapyrin, oxyfluorfen, pirimiphosmethyl, thiabendazole, thidiazuron, and 

tribuphos, and a TRED for tebuthiuron, 

whose RED was completed prior to 

FQPA. A RED for sulfosate was not 

needed because it was registered after 

November 1, 1984 and not subject to 

reregistration eligibility, and its 

tolerances were reassessed prior to 

completion of a TRED, such that a TRED 

for sulfosate was no longer needed 

because EPA made a safety finding 

which reassessed its tolerances 

according to the FFDCA standard, 

maintaining them when new tolerances 

were established as noted in Unit II.A. 

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, 

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. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24209 

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? 

With the exception of revocation of 

regional tolerances for methidathion on 

alfalfa forage, alfalfa hay, timothy 

forage, and timothy hay for which EPA 

is proposing specific expiration/ 

revocation dates, 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 revocation of these four regional 

tolerances for methidathion, 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. EPA is 

proposing an expiration/revocation date 

of March 31, 2008 for the methidathion 

tolerances on alfalfa forage, alfalfa hay, 

timothy forage, and timothy hay. The 

Agency believes that, because their 

regional registrations expire on 

December 31, 2007, the revocation date 

of March 31, 2008 allows sufficient time 

for passage of treated commodities 

through the channels of trade. However, 

if EPA is presented with information 

that existing stocks would still be 

available and that information is 

verified, the Agency will consider 

extending the expiration date of the 

tolerance. If you have comments 

regarding existing stocks and whether 

the effective date allows sufficient time 

for treated commodities to clear the 

channels of trade, please submit 

comments as described under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposal treated with the pesticides 

subject to this proposal, and in the 

channels of trade following the 

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to 

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

by FQPA. Under this 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 

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, 

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 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 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24210 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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: April 17, 2007. 

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 180.242 is amended as 

follows: 

i. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are revised. 

ii. The introductory text to paragraph 

(b) is revised to read as follows: 

§ 180.242 Thiabendazole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the fungicide thiabendazole (2–(4- 

thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its 

metabolite benzimidazole (free and 

conjugated) in or on the following raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Apple, wet pomace ......... 12.0 

Avocado 1 ....................... 10.0 

Banana, postharvest ....... 3.0 

Bean, dry, seed .............. 0.1 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ... 3.5 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.25 

Beet, sugar, tops ............ 10.0 

Cantaloupe 1 ................... 15.0 

Carrot, roots, postharvest 10.0 

Citrus, oil ......................... 15.0 

Fruit, citrus, group 10, 

postharvest .................. 10.0 

Fruit, pome, group 11, 

postharvest .................. 5.0 

Mango ............................. 10.0 

Mushroom ....................... 40.0 

Commodity Parts per million 

Papaya, postharvest ....... 5.0 

Potato, postharvest ......... 10.0 

Soybean .......................... 0.1 

Strawberry 1 .................... 5.0 

Sweet potato (POST-H to 

sweet potato intended 

only for use as seed) .. 0.05 

Wheat, grain ................... 1.0 

Wheat, straw ................... 1.0 

1 There are no U.S. registrations on the indicated commodity. 

(2) Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of thiabendazole (2– 

(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its 

metabolites 5-hydroxythiabendazole 

(free and conjugated) and benzimidazole 

in or on the following raw agricultural 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.4 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.4 

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.3 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.4 

Milk ................................. 0.1 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.4 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

Time-limited tolerances are established 

for the combined residues of 

thiabendazole (2–(4- 

thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its 

metabolite benzimidazole (free and 

conjugated), in connection with use of 

the pesticide under section 18 

emergency exemptions granted by EPA. 

The tolerances are specified in the 

following table. The tolerances will 

expire on the dates specified in the 

table. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 180.257 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.257 Chloroneb; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the fungicide 

chloroneb (1,4-dichloro-2,5- 

dimethoxybenzene) and its metabolite 

2,5-dichloro-4-methoxyphenol (free and 

conjugated), calculated as chloroneb, in 

or on the following raw agricultural 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Bean, dry, seed .............. 0.2 

Bean, succulent .............. 0.2 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.2 

Beet, sugar, tops ............ 0.2 

Cowpea, forage .............. 2.0 

Cowpea, hay ................... 2.0 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.2 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.2 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 1.0 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24211 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.2 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.2 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.2 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.2 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.2 

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.2 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.2 

Horse, meat .................... 0.2 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.2 

Milk ................................. 0.05 

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.2 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.2 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.2 

Soybean, forage ............. 2.0 

Soybean, hay .................. 2.0 

Soybean, seed ................ 0.2 

* * * * * 

4. Section 180.272 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.272 Tribuphos; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.15 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 40.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 4.0 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.15 

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

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.02 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.15 

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

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.02 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.15 

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

Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 

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

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.15 

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

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 

* * * * * 

5. Section 180.298 is amended by 

revising the tables in paragraphs (a) and 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.298 Methidathion; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Almond, hulls .................. 6.0 

Artichoke, globe .............. 0.05 

Citrus, oil ......................... 420.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.2 

Fruit, citrus, group 10, 

except tangerine ......... 4.0 

Fruit, pome, group 11 ..... 0.05 

Fruit, stone, group 12 ..... 0.05 

Mango ............................. 0.05 

Nut, tree, group 14 ......... 0.05 

Olive ................................ 0.05 

Safflower, seed ............... 0.5 

Sorghum, forage, forage 2.0 

Sorghum, grain, forage ... 2.0 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 0.2 

Sorghum, grain, stover ... 2.0 

Sunflower, seed .............. 0.5 

Tangerine ........................ 6.0 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date 

Alfalfa, forage ............................................................................................................................................... 5.0 3/31/2008 

Alfalfa, hay ................................................................................................................................................... 5.0 3/31/2008 

Kiwifruit ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 None 

Longan ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 None 

Starfruit ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.1 None 

Sugar apple ................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 None 

Timothy, forage ............................................................................................................................................ 5.0 3/31/2008 

Timothy, hay ................................................................................................................................................ 5.0 3/31/2008 

* * * * * 

6. Section 180.350 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.350 Nitrapyrin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Corn, field, forage ........... 1.0 

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

Corn, field, milled byproducts ...................... 0.2 

Corn, field, stover ........... 1.0 

Corn, pop, grain .............. 0.1 

Corn, pop, stover ............ 1.0 

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

Corn, sweet, kernel plus 

cob with husks removed ......................... 0.1 

Corn, sweet, stover ........ 1.0 

Sorghum, forage, forage 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, forage ... 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 0.1 

Sorghum, grain, stover ... 0.5 

Wheat, bran .................... 3.0 

Wheat, forage ................. 2.0 

Wheat, grain ................... 0.5 

Wheat, milled byproducts, except flour ......... 2.0 

Commodity Parts per million 

Wheat, straw ................... 6.0 

* * * * * 

7. Section 180.381 is amended by 

revising the tables in paragraphs (a) and 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.381 Oxyfluorfen; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Almond, hulls .................. 0.1 

Artichoke, globe .............. 0.05 

Avocado .......................... 0.05 

Banana ........................... 0.05 

Broccoli ........................... 0.05 

Cabbage ......................... 0.05 

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

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.01 

Cauliflower ...................... 0.05 

Cocoa bean, dried bean 0.05 

Coffee, bean, green ........ 0.05 

Corn, field, grain ............. 0.05 

Corn, pop, grain .............. 0.05 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.05 

Date ................................ 0.05 

Egg ................................. 0.03 

Commodity Parts per million 

Feijoa .............................. 0.05 

Fig ................................... 0.05 

Fruit, pome, group 11 ..... 0.05 

Fruit, stone, group 12 ..... 0.05 

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

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

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.01 

Grape .............................. 0.05 

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 

Horseradish .................... 0.05 

Kiwifruit ........................... 0.05 

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

Nut, tree, group 14 ......... 0.05 

Olive ................................ 0.05 

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

Peppermint, tops ............ 0.05 

Persimmon ...................... 0.05 

Pistachio ......................... 0.05 

Pomegranate .................. 0.05 

Poultry, fat ...................... 0.2 

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

Poultry, meat byproducts 0.01 

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

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

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.01 

Soybean .......................... 0.05 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24212 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per million 

Spearmint, tops .............. 0.05 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Blackberry ....................... 0.05 

Chickpea, seed ............... 0.05 

Grass, forage .................. 0.05 

Grass, hay ...................... 0.05 

Grass, seed screenings .. 0.05 

Guava ............................. 0.05 

Papaya ............................ 0.05 

Raspberry ....................... 0.05 

Taro, corm ...................... 0.05 

Taro, leaves .................... 0.05 

* * * * * 

8. Section 180.390 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.390 Tebuthiuron; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the herbicide tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)- 

N,N’-dimethylurea) and its metabolites 

N–(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’- 

dimethylurea, N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-Nmethylurea, and N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea in or on 

the following raw agricultural 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Grass, forage .................. 10.0 

Grass, hay ...................... 10.0 

(2) Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of the herbicide 

tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’- 

dimethylurea) and its metabolites N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)urea, 2-dimethylethyl-5-amino-1,3,4- 

thiadiazole, and N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea in or on 

the following raw agricultural 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 1.0 

Cattle, meat .................... 1.0 

Cattle, meat byproducts 5.0 

Goat, fat .......................... 1.0 

Goat, meat ...................... 1.0 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 5.0 

Horse, fat ........................ 1.0 

Horse, meat .................... 1.0 

Horse, meat byproducts 5.0 

Commodity Parts per million 

Sheep, fat ....................... 1.0 

Sheep, meat ................... 1.0 

Sheep, meat byproducts 5.0 

(3) A tolerance is established for the 

combined residues of the herbicide 

tebuthiuron (N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N,N’- 

dimethylurea) and its metabolites N–(5– 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2- 

yl)-N-methylurea, N–(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-Nmethylurea, N–(5–(1,1-dimethylethyl)- 

1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)urea, N–(5–(1,1- 

dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’- 

hydroxymethyl-N-methylurea, and N– 

(5–(2-hydroxy-1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4- 

thiadiazol-2-yl)-N’-hydroxymethyl-Nmethylurea in or on the following raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Milk ................................. 0.8 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

9. Section 180.403 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.403 Thidiazuron; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.4 

Cattle, meat .................... 0.4 

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.4 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 24.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.3 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.4 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.4 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.4 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.4 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.4 

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.4 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.4 

Horse, meat .................... 0.4 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.4 

Milk ................................. 0.05 

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.4 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.4 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.4 

* * * * * 

10. Section 180.409 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.409 Pirimiphos-methyl; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the 

insecticide pirimiphos-methyl (O–(2- 

diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) 

O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate) in or 

on the following raw agricultural 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.02 

Corn, field, grain ............. 8.0 

Corn, pop, grain .............. 8.0 

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

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.02 

Grain, aspirated fractions 20.0 

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

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.02 

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

Horse, meat byproducts 0.02 

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

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

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.02 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 8.0 

* * * * * 

11. Section 180.418 is amended by 

revising the tables in paragraphs (a)(1), 

(a)(2), and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 180.418 Cypermethrin and an isomer 

zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. (1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Brassica, head and stem, 

subgroup 5A ................ 2.0 

Brassica, leafy greens, 

subgroup 5B ................ 14.0 

Cattle, fat ........................ 1.0 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 

Cotton, gin byproducts ... 11.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.5 

Egg ................................. 0.05 

Goat, fat .......................... 1.0 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.2 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.05 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.1 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.05 

Horse, fat ........................ 1.0 

Horse, meat .................... 0.2 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 

Lettuce, head .................. 4.0 

Milk, fat (reflecting 0.10 

in whole milk) .............. 2.5 

Onion, bulb ..................... 0.1 

Onion, green ................... 6.0 

Pecan .............................. 0.05 

Poultry, fat ...................... 0.05 

Poultry, meat .................. 0.05 

Sheep, fat ....................... 1.0 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.2 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Alfalfa, hay ...................... 15.00 

Alfalfa, forage ................. 5.00 

Alfalfa, seed .................... 0.50 

Almond, hulls .................. 6 

Animal feed, nongrass, 

group 18, forage ......... 8 

Animal feed, nongrass, 

group 18, hay .............. 40 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 84 / Wednesday, May 2, 2007 / Proposed Rules 24213 

Commodity Parts per million 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.05 

Beet, sugar, tops ............ 0.20 

Berry, group 13 ............... 0.8 

Brassica, head and stem, 

subgroup 5A ................ 2.00 

Brassica, leafy greens, 

subgroup 5B ................ 14.00 

Cabbage ......................... 2.00 

Cattle, fat ........................ 1.00 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 

Cilantro, leaves ............... 10 

Corn, field, forage ........... 0.20 

Corn, field, grain ............. 0.05 

Corn, field, stover ........... 3.00 

Corn, pop, grain .............. 0.05 

Corn, pop, stover ............ 3.00 

Corn, sweet, forage ........ 15.00 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus 

cob with husks removed ......................... 0.05 

Corn, sweet, stover ........ 15.00 

Cotton, undelinted seed 0.5 

Egg ................................. 0.05 

Food/feed items (other 

than those covered by 

a higher tolerance as a 

result of use on growing crops) in food/feed 

handling establishments .......................... 0.05 

Commodity Parts per million 

Fruit, pome, group 11 ..... 2 

Fruit, stone, group 12 ..... 1 

Goat, fat .......................... 1.00 

Goat, meat ...................... 0.2 

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.05 

Grain, aspirated fractions 10.0 

Grape .............................. 2 

Grass, forage, group 17 10 

Grass, hay, group 17 ...... 35 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.1 

Hog, meat ....................... 0.05 

Horse, fat ........................ 1.00 

Horse, meat .................... 0.2 

Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 

Milk, fat (reflecting 0.10 

in whole milk) .............. 2.50 

Nut, tree, group 14 ......... 0.05 

Onion, bulb ..................... 0.10 

Onion, green ................... 3.00 

Pea and bean, dried 

shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C ..... 0.05 

Pea and bean, succulent 

shelled, subgroup 6B .. 0.1 

Peanut ............................ 0.05 

Pecan .............................. 0.05 

Poultry, fat ...................... 0.05 

Poultry, meat .................. 0.05 

Rapeseed ....................... 0.2 

Rice, grain ...................... 1.50 

Rice, hulls ....................... 6.00 

Commodity Parts per million 

Rice, straw ...................... 2.00 

Sheep, fat ....................... 1.00 

Sheep, meat ................... 0.2 

Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 

Sorghum, grain, forage ... 0.1 

Sorghum, grain, grain ..... 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, stover ... 5.0 

Soybean, seed ................ 0.05 

Sugarcane, cane ............ 0.60 

Sunflower ........................ 0.2 

Sunflower, refined oil ...... 0.5 

Turnip, greens ................ 14 

Vegetable, cucurbit, 

group 9 ........................ 0.2 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 

8 .................................. 0.2 

Vegetable, leafy, except 

brassica, group 4 ........ 10.00 

Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 

6A ................................ 0.5 

Vegetable, root and 

tuber, group 1, except 

sugar beet ................... 0.1 

Wheat, forage ................. 3.0 

Wheat, grain ................... 0.2 

Wheat, hay ..................... 6.0 

Wheat, straw ................... 7.0 

(b) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date 

Flax, meal .................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 6/30/2008 

Flax, seed .................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 6/30/2008 

* * * * * 

§ 180.489 [Removed] 

12. Section 180.489 is removed. 

[FR Doc. E7–8373 Filed 5–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 07–81; FCC 07–55] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees For Fiscal Year 2007 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission will revise 

its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order 

to recover the amount of regulatory fees 

that Congress has required it to collect 

for fiscal year 2007. Section 9 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, provides for the annual 

assessment and collection of regulatory 

fees under sections 9(b)(2) and 9(b)(3), 

respectively, for annual ‘‘Mandatory 

Adjustments’’ and ‘‘Permitted 

Amendments’’ to the Schedule of 

Regulatory Fees. 

DATES: Comments are due May 3, 2007, 

and reply comments are due May 11, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MD Docket No. 07–81, by 

any of the following methods: 

<bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

<bullet≤ Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

<bullet≤ E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include 

MD Docket No. 07–81 in the subject line 

of the message. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Commercial overnight 

mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 

Express Mail, and Priority Mail, must be 

sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, 

Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal 

Service first-class, Express, and Priority 

mail should be addressed to 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing 

Director at (202) 418–0444 or Rob 

Fream, Office of Managing Director at 

(202) 418–0408. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Adopted: April 16, 2007. 

Released: April 18, 2007. 

By the Commission: 

Table of Contents 

Heading Paragraph 

number 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

II. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

A. FY 2007 Regulatory Fee Assessment Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4 

1. Development of FY 2007 Regulatory Fees ........................................................................................................... 4 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB