Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28881 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this rule has 

been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this 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) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply 

to this rule. In addition, This rule does 

not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described under Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

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), Pub. L. 104–113, section 

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

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 15, 2007. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

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 180.587 is amended by 

revising the section heading; by 

alphabetically adding caneberry, 

Subgroup 13A and hop, dried cone to 

the table in paragraph (a) and removing 

grape from the table in paragraph (a); 

and adding text to paragraph (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.587 Famoxadone; tolerance for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Caneberry, Subgroup 

13A .............................. 10 

*****

Hop, dried cone .............. 80 

*****

1There are no U.S. registrations as of May 

15,2003. 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with a regional 

registrations. Tolerances with a regional 

registration as defined in Sec. 180.1(n) 

are established for the residues of the 

fungicide famoxadone, 3-anilino-5- 

methyl-5-(4-phenoxyphenyl)-1,3- 

oxazolidine-2,4-dione) in or on the raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Grape .............................. 2.5 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9823 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0586; FRL–8126–6] 

Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, 

and MCPA; Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain 

tolerances for the herbicides propanil, 

triallate, and MCPA. EPA is modifying 

certain tolerances for the herbicides 

propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and 

MCPA. In addition, EPA is establishing 

tolerances for the herbicides propanil, 

phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. 

The regulatory actions in this document 

are part of the Agency’s reregistration 

program under the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 

408(q), as amended by the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

23, 2007. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 23, 2007, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2006–0586. 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. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the docket index available in 

regulations.gov. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28882 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory 

Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of 

operation of this Docket Facility are 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Smith, 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–

0048; e-mail address: smith.janescott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111), 

e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

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

dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

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

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

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

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this ‘‘Federal Register’’ document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s pilot e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

You must file your objection or request 

a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2006–0586 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

on or before July 23, 2007. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit your 

copies, identified by docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0586, by one of 

the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

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

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

In the Federal Register of September 

27, 2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL–8089–5), 

EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, 

modify and establish specific tolerances 

for residues of the herbicides propanil, 

phenmedipham, triallate and MCPA. 

Also, the proposal of September 27, 

2006 (71 FR 56425) (FRL–8089–5) 

provided a 60–day comment period 

which invited public comment for 

consideration and for support of 

tolerance retention under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

standards. 

EPA is revoking, removing, 

modifying, and establishing specific 

tolerances for residues of the the 

herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, 

triallate and MCPA in or on 

commodities listed in the regulatory 

text. 

EPA is finalizing these tolerance 

actions in order to implement the 

tolerance recommendations made 

during the reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of 

reregistration and when taking action on 

tolerances and exemptions EPA is 

required to determine whether each of 

the amended tolerances meets the safety 

standards under the FQPA. The safety 

finding determination of ‘‘reasonable 

certainty of no harm’’ is found in detail 

in each Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) and Report on FQPA 

Tolerance Reassessment Progress and 

Interim Risk Management Decision 

(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs 

and TREDs recommend certain 

tolerance actions to be implemented to 

reflect current use patterns, to meet 

safety findings and change commodity 

names and groupings in accordance 

with new EPA policy. Printed copies of 

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 at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/ 

status.htm. and in public dockets EPA–


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28883 

HQ–OPP–2003–0348 and EPA–HQ–

OPP–2002–0033 (propanil); EPA–HQ–

OPP–2004–0384 (phenmedipham); and 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2004–0156 and EPA–

HQ–OPP–2004–0239 (MCPA) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

In this final rule, EPA is revoking 

certain tolerances and tolerance 

exemptions because these specific 

tolerances and exemptions correspond 

to uses no longer current or registered 

under FIFRA in the United States. The 

tolerances revoked by this final rule are 

no longer necessary to cover residues of 

the relevant pesticides in or on 

domestically treated commodities or 

commodities treated outside but 

imported into the United States. It is 

EPA’s general practice to revoke those 

tolerances and tolerance exemptions 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 or tolerance exemption to 

cover residues in or on imported 

commodities or domestic commodities 

legally treated. 

EPA’s policy is to issue a final rule 

revoking those tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals for which there are 

no active registrations under FIFRA, 

unless any person commenting on the 

proposal demonstrates a need for the 

tolerance to cover residues in or on 

imported commodities or domestic 

commodities legally treated. 

Generally, EPA will proceed with the 

revocation of these tolerances on the 

grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of 

the following conditions applies: 

1. Prior to EPA’s issuance of a section 

408(f) order requesting additional data 

or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) 

order revoking the tolerances on other 

grounds, commenters retract the 

comment identifying a need for the 

tolerance to be retained. 

2. EPA independently verifies that the 

tolerance is no longer needed. 

3. The tolerance is not supported by 

data that demonstrate that the tolerance 

meets the requirements under FQPA. 

This final rule does not revoke those 

tolerances for which EPA received 

comments stating a need for the 

tolerance to be retained. In response to 

the proposal published in the Federal 

Register of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 

56425) (FRL–8089–5), EPA received 

three comments during the 60–day 

public comment period, as follows: 

Comment. The MCPA Task Force 

Three submitted a comment requesting 

the published tolerance for ‘‘cattle, meat 

and meat byproducts’’ be changed from 

the proposed 0.1 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The 

Task force has conducted a new 

Magnitude of the Residues in Meat and 

Milk Study, according to the Agency 

guidelines, that supports a 0.5 ppm 

tolerance. The new study will be 

submitted to the Agency as soon as it is 

issued which, according to the MCPA 

Task Force Three, is well in advance of 

the due date requested by the Agency in 

the Data Call-In. The task force did not 

take issue with any of the proposed 

tolerances for revocation. 

Agency response. The Agency 

acknowledges the cooperation and effort 

the MCPA Task Force Three has put 

forth to fulfill the requirements of the 

reregistration Data Call-In Notice. When 

the Magnitude of the Meat and Milk 

Study is received, reviewed, a risk 

assessment conducted and safety 

finding is made, EPA will make a 

determination as to the whether the 

current tolerance of 0.1 ppm is still 

appropriate or should be changed. 

Comment. A comment was received 

from a private citizen that expressed 

concern with pesticide residues in 

general and that pesticide residue levels 

should be zero. Concern was also 

expressed for the number of chemicals 

found in the bodies of adults and 

children. 

Agency response. The private citizen’s 

comment did not take issue with the 

Agency’s conclusion that specific 

tolerances in this action should be 

revoked, established and/or modified. 

The Agency conducts a detailed risk 

assessment to determine whether 

establishing and/or increasing 

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

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. Also, it is 

EPA’s general practice to propose 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide active ingredients on crop uses 

for which FIFRA registrations no longer 

exist. 

Comment. A comment was received 

from the California Rice Commission 

(CRC). CRC expressed concern that the 

increased U.S. tolerance for propanil in/ 

on rice grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm 

could result in a trade irritant with 

Japan, a major importer of California 

rice whose Maximum Residue Limit 

(MRL) on rice grain is 2 ppm. According 

to the CRC propanil is the most 

important herbicide to the California 

rice industry; a significant percentage of 

the rice grown in California is exported 

to Japan; propanil residues on California 

grown rice are non-detectable for 

propanil; and the tolerance level of 10 

ppm is based on an outlier residue level 

of 8.7 ppm. 

Agency response. The CRC brought 

this important issue to the attention of 

the Agency when the RED Amendment 

was released in 2006. The U.S. tolerance 

is a national level based on uses and 

residue data generated on rice grown in 

Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and 

Texas showing multiple residue 

detections above 2 parts per million 

(ppm) up to 8.7 ppm supporting a 

tolerance level of 10 ppm. Avoiding 

potential trade irritants is of paramount 

interest, unfortunately, no new data 

have been generated or submitted to the 

Agency to change the basis of the 

tolerance level. If additional propanil 

field trial residue data on rice were 

generated and provided to the Agency, 

the tolerance level on rice grain would 

be reconsidered. 

1. Propanil. Currently, in 40 CFR 

180.274(a)(1) and (2), tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

propanil and its metabolites (calculated 

as propanil) in or on both raw 

agricultural commodities (RACs) and 

processed foods and feeds. EPA is 

revising the tolerance expression to 

specify the residues of concern and 

combine the RACs and processed foods 

and feed tolerances in accordance with 

FFDCA 408 as amended by FQPA (1996) 

in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of the herbicide 

propanil (3’, 4’-dichloropropionanilide) 

and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4- 

dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA). 

Tolerances currently exist for rice 

milling fractions and rice polishings. 

Rice milling fractions are no longer 

considered significant animal feed items 

as delineated in ‘‘Table 1. – Raw 

Agricultural and Processed 

Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived 

from Crops’’ which is found in Residue 

Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 

860.1000 dated August 1996, available 

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

publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_

Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/

Series/. Therefore, EPA is removing the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the 

combined residues of propanil in/on 

rice milling fractions and rice, 

polishings at 10 ppm. 

The registered uses on barley, oat, and 

wheat (small grains) have been 

voluntarily cancelled December 10, 

2003; 68 FR 68901, FRL–7332–5, June 

27, 2003; 68 FR 38328, FRL 7310–6. In 

the absence of registered uses, the 

tolerances associated with the small 

grains should be revoked. Therefore, 

EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.274(a) for the combined 

propanil residues of concern in/on 

barley, straw; oat, straw; and wheat, 

straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain at 0.2 

ppm; oat, grain at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, 

grain at 0.2 ppm. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28884 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Two studies depicting the magnitude 

of regulated propanil residues in/on rice 

grain exceeded the established tolerance 

of 2 ppm in/on treated rice grain 

samples demonstrating residues ranging 

from 0.03 ppm to 8.7 ppm. Based on 

these data, the EPA determined the 

tolerance should be 10 ppm on rice 

grain. Therefore, EPA is increasing the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the 

combined propanil residues of concern 

in/on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 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. 

A rice processing study showed no 

concentration of residues in polished 

rice and average concentration factors of 

3.5x for rice hulls and 4.6x for rice bran. 

The highest average field trial (HAFT) 

propanil residues found in rice were 8.7 

ppm. Based on this HAFT and the 

observed concentration factors, the 

maximum expected residues are 30.45 

ppm in/on rice hulls (8.7 ppm x 3.5) 

and 40.02 ppm in/on rice bran (8.7 ppm 

x 4.6). These expected residues are 

higher in the processed commodities 

than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm 

for rice, grain. Based on these data, EPA 

has determined that the tolerances 

should be 30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40 

ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is 

increasing tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.274(a) for the combined propanil 

residues of concern in or on rice, hulls 

from 10 to 30 ppm and rice, bran from 

10 to 40 ppm. The Agency determined 

that the increased tolerances are safe; 

i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue. 

The potential for secondary transfer of 

propanil residues to animal 

commodities exists because the 

herbicide is registered for use on rice, 

which may be used as animal feed. 

Based on a maximum theoretical dietary 

burden (x) and using the residue levels 

found in dairy cattle and milk fed 15 

ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of: 

0.035 ppm in milk, 0.31 ppm in liver, 

0.77 ppm in kidney, <0.05 ppm (nondetectable) in muscle, and 0.10 ppm in 

fat. Based on these data, the Agency 

determined the tolerances should be 

0.05 ppm in cattle, meat; goat, meat; 

hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat 

and 1.0 ppm in cattle, meat byproducts; 

goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat 

byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; 

and sheep, meat byproducts. In 

addition, the term ‘‘negligible residue’’

and its designation, ‘‘(N)’’ associated 

with the milk and animal tissue 

tolerances is being removed to conform 

to current Agency policy and practice. 

Therefore, EPA is maintaining and 

revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) 

for the combined propanil residues of 

concern in/on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to 

0.05 ppm and cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, 

fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.1(N) 

ppm to 0.10 ppm; decreasing and 

revising the tolerances in/on cattle, 

meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; 

and sheep, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 

ppm; and increasing and revising the 

tolerances in/on cattle, meat 

byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, 

meat byproducts; horse, meat 

byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts 

from 0.1(N) to 1.0 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. 

Maximum propanil residues were 

0.212, and 0.372 ppm, respectively, in 

eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15 

ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x). Residues 

in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x), 

and 50 ppm (3.1x) dose groups were 

0.183 - 0.236, and 0.824 - 1.755 ppm, 

respectively. Residues in muscle were 

<0.050 - 0.076 and 0.087 - 0.161 ppm 

from the 0.9x and 3.1x dose groups, 

respectively. In fat, propanil residues of 

concern were <0.05 ppm (<nondetectable) up to 0.9x feeding levels, 

and <0.139 - 0.348 ppm at 3.1x. Based 

on these data, the Agency has 

determined that the propanil tolerances 

should be 0.30 ppm for eggs, 0.50 ppm 

for meat byproducts, 0.05 ppm for 

poultry fat, and 0.10 ppm for poultry 

meat. In addition, the term ‘‘negligible 

residue’’ and its designation, ‘‘(N)’’

associated with the egg and animal 

tissue tolerances is being removed to 

conform to current Agency policy and 

practice. Therefore, EPA is revising 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the 

combined propanil residues of concern 

to increase and revise the tolerance for 

eggs from 0.05(N) to 0.30 ppm and 

poultry, meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 

0.50 ppm; to decrease and revise the 

tolerances in/on poultry, fat from 0.1(N) 

to 0.05 ppm; and revise tolerances in/on 

poultry, meat from 0.10(N) to 0.10 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. 

Residues of propanil and its 

metabolites, determined as basereleasable 3, 4-DCA and expressed as 

propanil equivalents, were <0.01 - 0.03 

ppm in/on the edible portions of 

crayfish (1x maximum season rate). 

Based on these data, the Agency 

determined the tolerance should be 0.05 

ppm on crayfish. Therefore, EPA is 

establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.274(a) for the combined propanil 

residues of concern in/on crayfish at 

0.05 ppm. 

In addition, the ‘‘N’’ (negligible 

residues) designation correlated with 

tolerances is being removed to conform 

to current Agency practice. Therefore, 

EPA is revising the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.278(a) for the combined propanil 

residues of concern in/on rice, straw 

from 75(N) ppm to 75 ppm. 

2. Phenmedipham. The current 

tolerance expression in 40 CFR 

180.278(a) refers to phenmedipham as 

methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate methyl 

carbanilate which should be changed to 

the more appropriate chemical name, 3- 

methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′- 

methylcarbanilate. Therefore, EPA is 

changing the chemical name in 40 CFR 

180.278(a) for residues of the herbicide 

phenmedipham to 3- 

methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′- 

methylcarbanilate. 

Spinach field trial residue data 

generated at the 1x seasonal application 

rate and 14-22 day pre-harvest interval 

(PHI) resulted in residues ranging from 

2.1 - 3.6 ppm. Additional trials 

conducted at similar rates and PHIs 

yielded residues ranging from <0.05 to 

0.17 ppm. Based on the more recent 

residue data and use pattern, EPA has 

determined the tolerance on spinach 

should be 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.278(a) for residues of 

phenmedipham in/on spinach from 0.5 

ppm 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. 

Sugar beet processing studies indicate 

that phenmedipham residues of concern 

concentrated 3x in dried pulp, 1.3x in 

molasses, and did not concentrate in 

sugar. Because of the concentration 

factors associated with dried pulp and 

molasses, the current tolerance of 0.1 

ppm for raw beet, sugar, roots and tops 

is not adequate to cover the dried pulp 

and molasses from sugar beets; 

therefore, the Agency has determined 

that tolerances should be established for 

beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and 

beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. EPA is 

establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.278(a) for residues of 

phenmedipham in/on beet, sugar, dried 

pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, 

molasses at 0.2 ppm. 

In addition, the ‘‘N’’ (negligible 

residues) designation that is correlated 

with some of the tolerances is being 

removed to conform to current Agency 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28885 

practice. Therefore, EPA is revising the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for 

residues of phenmedipham in/on beet, 

garden at 0.2(N) ppm to beet, garden, 

roots at 0.2 ppm and beet, garden, tops 

at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1(N) 

ppm to 0.1 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 

0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm. 

3. Triallate. The available data, 

reflecting the maximum registered use 

patterns, indicate that the maximum 

combined triallate residues of concern 

were 0.26 ppm in or on barley straw; 

0.12 ppm in or on the seed and pods of 

succulent peas; 0.39 ppm in or on the 

vines of succulent peas; 0.27 ppm in or 

on the vines of dried peas; 0.73 ppm in 

or on the straw (hay) of succulent peas; 

0.36 ppm in or on the straw of dried 

peas; and 0.94 ppm in or on wheat straw 

in the states of California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, 

the term ‘‘negligible residue’’ and its 

designation, ‘‘(N)’’ associated with the 

barley, grain tolerance is being removed 

to conform to current Agency policy and 

practice. Based on these data, the 

Agency determined the tolerances 

should be 0.3 ppm on barley, straw; 1.0 

ppm on pea, field, hay; 0.5 ppm on pea, 

field, vines; 0.2 ppm on pea, succulent; 

and 1.0 ppm on wheat, straw and 

recodified under 40 CFR 180.314(c) as 

regional tolerances. Therefore, EPA is 

increasing and recodifying the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(a) to 40 

CFR 180.314(c) for the combined 

triallate residues of concern in/on 

barley, straw from 0.05 to 0.3 ppm; pea, 

field, hay from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; pea, 

field, vines from 0.05 to 0.5 ppm; pea, 

succulent from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm; wheat, 

straw from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; and 

recodifying tolerances from 40 CFR 

180.314(a) to 40 CFR 180.314(c) for 

barley, grain at 0.05 ppm and wheat, 

grain at 0.05 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. 

Lentil hay is no longer considered 

significant livestock feed item and has 

been removed from Table 1 (OPPTS 

GLN 860.1000) and lentil, seed is 

covered by the established pea tolerance 

in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(g). As 

a result, EPA is removing the tolerances 

in 40 CFR 180.314(a) for the combined 

triallate residues of concern in/on lentil, 

hay at 0.05 ppm and lentil seed at 0.05 

ppm. 

Sugar beet processing studies were 

conducted on sugar beets treated at 5x 

the seasonal application rate resulting in 

maximum residues of 0.14 ppm in root, 

0.30 ppm in dried pulp and <0.03 ppm 

in sugar and molasses. Therefore, EPA 

is maintaining the tolerances and 

correcting the terminology for sugar 

beets to include roots in 40 CFR 

180.314(c) for the combined triallate 

residues of concern in or on beet, sugar, 

dried pulp at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots 

at 0.1 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 

ppm. 

The available data, reflecting the 

maximum registered use patterns, 

indicate that the maximum combined 

triallate residues of concern were <0.02 

ppm in/on the seed and pods of dry 

peas; and 0.94 ppm on wheat straw. 

Because of similar cultural practices and 

identical use rates, wheat straw data are 

used to support tolerances for barley 

hay and wheat hay. Based on these data, 

the Agency determined the tolerances 

should be 0.2 ppm for pea, dry and 1.0 

ppm for barley, hay and wheat, hay by 

translating the data from wheat straw. 

Therefore, EPA is establishing 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the 

combined triallate residues of concern 

in/on barley, hay at 1.0 ppm; pea, dry 

at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm. 

The Agency determined that the 

establishment of these tolerances is safe; 

i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the pesticide chemical 

residue. 

4. MCPA. The current tolerance 

expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a) 

regulates residues of the herbicide 2- 

methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid 

(MCPA) from application of the 

herbicide in acid form or in the form of 

its sodium, ethanolamine, 

diethanolamine, triethanolamine, 

isopropanolamine, diisopropanolamine, 

triisopropanolamine, or dimethylamine 

salts or isooctyl or butoxyethyl esters 

and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) tolerances are 

established for combined negligible 

residues (N) of the herbicide 2-methyl4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its 

metabolite 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol. 

Based on toxicity data for 2-methyl-4- 

chlorophenol, a currently regulated 

livestock metabolite, EPA determined 

that it is of significantly less concern 

than the parent compound and therefore 

can be excluded from the tolerance 

expression. Although the chemical 

name for MCPA has been presented as 

‘‘(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)acetic 

acid’’, under current chemical naming 

conventions the ‘‘(4-chloro-2- 

methylphenoxy)acetic acid’’ designation 

is preferred. EPA determined the 

residues to be regulated in plant 

commodities (40 CFR 180.339(a)) are 

parent, free and conjugated MCPA. 

When MCPA is applied in various forms 

(e.g. ethanolamine and other salts and 

esters), a single common moiety is 

released that is the pesticidally active 

component and serves as the basis for 

tolerance regulation. Therefore, EPA is 

changing the tolerance expression in 40 

CFR 180.339(a) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues 

of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2- 

methylphenoxy)acetic acid)], both free 

and conjugated, resulting from the 

direct application of MCPA or its 

sodium or dimethylamine salts or its 2- 

ethylhexyl ester and in 40 CFR 

180.339(b) to read as follows: 

Tolerances are established for residues 

of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2- 

methylphenoxy)acetic acid)] resulting 

from the direct application of MCPA or 

its sodium or dimethylamine salts or its 

2-ethylhexyl ester. EPA is revising 40 

CFR 180.339(a) and (b) to 180.339 (a)(1) 

and (2) for consistency. Lastly, the term 

‘‘negligible residue’’ and its designation, 

‘‘(N)’’, associated with some tolerances 

is being removed to conform to current 

Agency policy and practice. 

Currently, tolerances exist reflecting 

uses of MCPA on rice, sorghum, flax 

(straw) and canarygrass. The uses on 

rice, sorghum, and canarygrass are no 

longer registered uses June 30, 2004; 69 

FR 39467; FRL 7363–4, April 26, 2006; 

71 FR 24687; FRL 8059–2. EPA policy 

no longer requires tolerances be 

established for flax straw. Therefore, 

EPA is revoking tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.339(a)(1) for the combined MCPA 

residues of concern in or on flax, straw 

at 2 ppm; grass, canary, annual, hay at 

0.1 ppm; grass, canary, annual, seed at 

0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1(N) ppm; rice, 

straw at 2 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.1 

ppm; sorghum, forage at 20 ppm; and 

sorghum, grain, stover at 20 ppm. 

The crop field trial data indicate that 

the maximum combined residues of 

MCPA and its metabolites are <0.29 

ppm in or on alfalfa forage and <1.07 

ppm in or on alfalfa hay. Alfalfa forage 

and alfalfa hay data will also be used to 

satisfy crop field trial requirements for 

the clover, forage; clover, hay; 

lespedeza, clover; lespedeza, hay; 

trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; 

and vetch, hay. Ordinarily, the Agency 

would not translate data from alfalfa to 

support uses on clover, lespedeza, 

trefoil, and vetch; however, because the 

only supported use of MCPA on these 

crops is to the crops underseeded to 

small grains it is reasonable to use 

alfalfa forage and alfalfa hay data to 

support these uses. Based on these data, 

EPA has determined the tolerance 

should be 0.5 ppm in or on alfalfa, 

forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; 

trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage and 2.0 

ppm in or on alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, 

hay. Therefore, EPA is increasing and 

revising tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/ 

on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; 

lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and 

vetch, forage from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and 

alfalfa, hay; clover, hay; lespedeza, hay; 

trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay from 0.1 to 

2.0 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. 

The crop field trial data indicate that 

the maximum combined residues of 

MCPA and its metabolites are 0.72 ppm 

in or on wheat grain and 21.4 ppm in 

or on wheat straw. Based on the HAFT 

residue of 0.08 ppm for wheat grain, 

expected MCPA residues of concern in/ 

on wheat bran and germ will not exceed 

the established tolerance of 0.1 ppm for 

wheat grain and for wheat processed 

commodities. Because of similar 

cultural practices and identical use 

rates, wheat residue field trial data are 

used to support tolerances for barley, 

oat and rye. Based on these data, EPA 

has determined the tolerance should be 

1.0 ppm in/on barley, grain; oat, grain; 

rye, grain and wheat, grain and 25 ppm 

in or on barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, 

straw; and wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA 

is increasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.33(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in/on 

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

wheat, grain from 0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm and 

barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and 

wheat, straw from 2 to 25 ppm. The 

Agency determined that these increased 

tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. 

The crop field trial data indicate that 

the maximum combined residues of 

MCPA and its metabolites are 19.4 ppm 

(7 day PHI) in or on wheat forage, 39.5 

ppm and 111 ppm (7 and14 day PHIs, 

respectively) in or on wheat hay. Also 

these data are translated to support 

tolerances for barley, hay; oat, hay; oat, 

forage; and rye, forage. Based on these 

data, EPA determined the tolerances 

should be 20 ppm on oat, forage; rye, 

forage; and wheat, forage; 40 ppm on 

barley, hay; and 115 ppm in/on oat, hay; 

and wheat hay. EPA is establishing 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for 

residues of MCPA in/on wheat, forage at 

20 ppm; barley, hay at 40 ppm and oat, 

hay; and wheat, hay at 115 ppm. The 

Agency determined that these newly 

established tolerances are safe; i.e. there 

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide chemicals residue. 

In addition, EPA is revising 

commodity terminology and tolerances 

to conform to current Agency practice in 

40 CFR 180.339 as follows: ‘‘grass, 

pasture and grass, rangeland at 300 ppm 

to grass, forage at 300 ppm:’’ ‘‘peavines 

at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, field, vines at 0.1 

ppm;’’ ‘‘peavines, hay at 0.1(N) ppm to 

pea, field, hay at 0.1 ppm;’’ ‘‘vegetable, 

seed and pod at 0.1 ppm to pea, dry at 

0.1 ppm and pea, succulent at 0.1 ppm;’’

flax seed at 0.1(N) to 0.1 ppm; ‘‘cattle, 

fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and 

sheep, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, 

meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; 

horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, 

meat byproducts; and cattle, meat; goat, 

meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, 

meat at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm;’’ and 

milk at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

EPA may issue a regulation 

establishing, modifying, or revoking a 

tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). 

In this final rule, EPA is establishing, 

modifying, and revoking tolerances to 

implement the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes, and as followup on canceled uses of pesticides. As 

part of these processes, EPA is required 

to determine whether each of the 

amended tolerances meets the safety 

standards under the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA). The safety 

finding determination is found in detail 

in each Reregistration Eligibility 

Document (RED) and Tolerance 

Reassessment Document (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 

propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and 

MCPA, and a TRED for propanil. REDs 

and TREDs contain the Agency’s 

evaluation of the data base for these 

pesticides, including statements 

regarding additional data on the active 

ingredients that may be needed to 

confirm the potential human health and 

environmental risk assessments 

associated with current product uses, 

and 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 FQPA standard 

of ‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm.’’

However, tolerance revocations 

recommended in REDs and TREDs that 

are made final in this document do not 

need such assessment when the 

tolerances are no longer necessary. 

EPA’s general practice is to revoke 

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. 

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. 

When EPA establishes tolerances for 

pesticide residues in or on raw 

agricultural commodities, the Agency 

gives consideration to possible pesticide 

residues 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). If there is no reasonable 

expectation of finite pesticide residues 

in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, 

then tolerances do not need to be 

established for these commodities (40 

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

C. When Do These Actions Become 

Effective? 

These actions become effective on the 

date of publication of this final rule in 

the Federal Register because their 

associated uses have been canceled for 

several years. The Agency believes that 

treated commodities have had sufficient 

time for passage through the channels of 

trade. 

Any commodities listed in the 

regulatory text of this document that are 

treated with the pesticides subject to 

this final rule, and that are in the 

channels of trade following the 

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to 

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

by the 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: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28887 

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 that the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

III. Are There Any International Trade 

Issues Raised by this Final Action? 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international MRLs established by the 

Codex Alimentarius Commission, as 

required by section 408(b)(4) of 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 

standards-setting organization in trade 

agreements to which the United States 

is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance 

that is different from a Codex MRL; 

however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA 

requires that EPA explain the reasons 

for departing from the Codex level in a 

notice published for public comment. 

EPA’s effort to harmonize with Codex 

MRLs is summarized in the tolerance 

reassessment section of individual REDs 

and TREDs, and in the Residue 

Chemistry document which supports 

the RED and TRED, as mentioned in the 

proposed rule cited in Unit II.A. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this final rule, EPA establishes 

tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), 

and also modifies and revokes specific 

tolerances established under FFDCA 

section 408. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 

types of actions (i.e., 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 rule has 

been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 

significance, this 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 final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

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

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4). Nor does it require any special 

considerations as required by Executive 

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or OMB review or any other 

Agency action under Executive Order 

13045, entitled Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997). This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–13, 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 

rule, the Agency hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In a 

memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA 

determined that eight conditions must 

all be satisfied in order for an import 

tolerance or tolerance exemption 

revocation to adversely affect a 

significant number of small entity 

importers, and that there is a negligible 

joint probability of all eight conditions 

holding simultaneously with respect to 

any particular revocation. (This Agency 

document is available in the docket of 

this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 

pesticides named in this final rule, the 

Agency knows of no extraordinary 

circumstances that exist as to the 

present revocations that would change 

EPA’s previous analysis. 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 final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 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 

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 rule. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

Agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 16, 2007. 

Debra Edwards, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

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 180.274 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.274 Propanil; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the herbicide propanil (3′, 4′- 

dichloropropionanilide) and its 

metabolites convertible to 3, 4- 

dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA) in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.10 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 1.0 

Crayfish ........................... 0.05 

Egg ................................. 0.30 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.10 

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

Goat, meat byproducts ... 1.0 

Hog, fat ........................... 0.10 

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

Hog, meat byproducts .... 1.0 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.10 

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

Horse, meat byproducts 1.0 

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

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

Poultry, meat .................. 0.10 

Poultry, meat byproducts 0.50 

Rice, bran ....................... 40 

Rice, grain ...................... 10 

Rice, hulls ....................... 30 

Rice, straw ...................... 75 

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.10 

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

Commodity Parts per million 

Sheep, meat byproducts 1.0 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 180.278 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.278 Phenmedipham; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the herbicide phenmedipham (3- 

methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3′- 

methylcarbanilate) in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Beet, garden, roots ......... 0.2 

Beet, garden, tops .......... 0.2 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ... 0.5 

Beet, sugar, molasses .... 0.2 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.1 

Beet, sugar, tops ............ 0.1 

Spinach ........................... 4.0 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

■ 4. Section 180.314 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.314 Triallate; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. [Reserved] 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with a regional 

registration, as defined in 180.1(m),are 

established for residues of the herbicide 

(S-2, 3, 4-trichloroallyl 

diisopropylthiocarbamate) and its 

metabolite 2, 3, 3-trichloroprop-2- 

enesulfonic acid (TCPSA) in or on the 

following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Barley, grain ................... 0.05 

Barley, hay ...................... 1.0 

Barley, straw ................... 0.3 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ... 0.2 

Beet, sugar, roots ........... 0.1 

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

Pea, dry .......................... 0.2 

Pea, field, hay ................. 1.0 

Pea, field, vines .............. 0.5 

Pea, succulent ................ 0.2 

Wheat, grain ................... 0.05 

Wheat, hay ..................... 1.0 

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

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

■ 5. Section 180.339 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§180.339 MCPA; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of the herbicide 

MCPA ((4-chloro-2- 

methylphenoxy)acetic acid), both free 

and conjugated, resulting from the 

direct application of MCPA or its 

sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2- 

ethylhexyl ester in or on the following 

food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Alfalfa, forage ................. 0.5 

Alfalfa, hay ...................... 2.0 

Barley, grain ................... 1.0 

Barley, hay ...................... 40 

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

Clover, forage ................. 0.5 

Clover, hay ..................... 2.0 

Flax, seed ....................... 0.1 

Grass, forage .................. 300 

Grass, hay ...................... 20 

Lespedeza, forage .......... 0.5 

Lespedeza, hay .............. 2.0 

Oat, forage ...................... 20 

Oat, grain ........................ 1.0 

Oat, hay .......................... 115 

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

Pea, dry .......................... 0.1 

Pea, field, hay ................. 0.1 

Pea, succulent ................ 0.1 

Pea, field, vines .............. 0.1 

Rye, forage ..................... 20 

Rye, grain ....................... 1.0 

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

Trefoil, forage ................. 0.5 

Trefoil, hay ...................... 2.0 

Vetch, forage .................. 0.5 

Vetch, hay ....................... 2.0 

Wheat, forage ................. 20 

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

Wheat, hay ..................... 115 

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

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4- 

chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid) 

resulting from the direct application of 

MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine 

salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on 

the following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Cattle, fat ........................ 0.1 

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

Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 

Goat, fat .......................... 0.1 

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

Goat, meat byproducts ... 0.1 

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

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

Hog, meat byproducts .... 0.1 

Horse, fat ........................ 0.1 

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

Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 

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

Sheep, fat ....................... 0.1 

Sheep meat .................... 0.1 

Sheep meat byproducts 0.1 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 28889 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E7–9912 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 03–201; FCC 07–56] 

Unlicensed Devices and Equipment 

Approval 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Commission’s rules to provide for more 

efficient equipment authorization of 

both existing modular transmitter 

devices and emerging partitioned (or 

‘‘split’’) modular transmitter devices. 

These rule changes will benefit 

manufacturers by allowing greater 

flexibility in certifying equipment and 

providing relief from the need to obtain 

a new equipment authorization each 

time the same transmitter is installed in 

a different final product. The rule 

changes will also enable manufacturers 

to develop more flexible and more 

advanced unlicensed transmitter 

technologies. The Commission further 

finds that modular transmitter devices 

authorized in accordance with the 

revised equipment authorization 

procedures will not pose any increased 

risk of interference to other radio 

operations. 

DATES: Effective June 22, 2007, except 

for § 15.212, which contains information 

collection requirements that have not 

been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date 

of this section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–7506, e-mail 

Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order, ET Docket No. 03–

201, FCC 07–56, adopted April 20, 2007, 

and released April 25, 2007. The full 

text of this document is available on the 

Commission’s Internet site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. It is also available for 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street., SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

The full text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplication contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554; telephone (202) 488–5300; fax 

(202) 488–5563; e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Summary of the Report and Order 

1. In the Second Report and Order the 

Commission codified the Public Notice, 

DA 00–1407, June 26, 2000, 

requirements for approving modular 

transmitters, with certain modifications. 

It also adopted requirements for the 

approval of split modular transmitters, 

including a requirement that only parts 

of a split module that have been 

approved in a single application for 

equipment authorization may operate 

together. Further, it allows 

manufacturers the flexibility to 

demonstrate alternative methods in the 

application for equipment authorization 

to ensure that a modular transmitter will 

meet all the applicable part 15 

requirements under the operating 

conditions in which it will be used. The 

Commission finds that the increased 

flexibility adopted will facilitate the 

approval process for modular 

transmitters and provide relief from the 

need to obtain a new equipment 

authorization each time the same 

transmitter is installed in a different 

final product, and will promote an 

increase in the development of part 15 

devices without increasing the potential 

for interference to authorized radio 

services. 

Single Unit Modular Transmitters 

2. The Commission codified the 

proposed requirements for approving 

single modular transmitters into the 

rules. This action will ensure that all 

equipment manufacturers are provided 

with adequate notice of the 

Commission’s requirements for 

obtaining modular transmitter 

approvals. The Commission adopted a 

definition for a modular transmitter. 

Specifically, a modular transmitter will 

be defined as a completely selfcontained radio-frequency transmitter 

device that is typically incorporated 

into another product, host or device. 

However, the Commission will not 

require ‘‘module-like devices’’ that 

contain part 15 transmitters to be 

approved as modular transmitters. 

Consistent with current Commission 

policy, it will continue to permit such 

devices to be approved as stand-alone 

transmitters under the present 

authorization procedures, although 

manufacturers may obtain approval for 

them as modules if they desire. 

3. The Commission recognizes that 

there may be circumstances where there 

are alternative means that will enable a 

modular transmitter to meet all 

applicable part 15 requirements under 

the operating conditions in which the 

transmitter will be used. Therefore, the 

Commission adopted a rule that states 

that modular transmitters do not have to 

comply with all of the approval 

requirements if the manufacturer can 

demonstrate by alternative means in the 

application for equipment authorization 

that the equipment complies with the 

part 15 rules. Specifically, the 

Commission will permit manufacturers 

flexibility with respect to the 

requirements such as module shielding, 

buffered modulation/data inputs and 

power supply regulation, because 

compliance with these requirements 

may not be necessary in specific module 

installations. Consistent with the Public 

Notice, the Commission may grant a 

‘‘Limited Modular Approval’’ in 

instances where the equipment does not 

meet all eight criteria for modular 

transmitters, but the grantee of 

equipment authorization can 

demonstrate that it will retain control 

over the final installation of the device 

such that compliance of the end product 

is assured. In such cases, the grantee 

must state how control of the end 

product into which the module will be 

installed will be maintained such that 

full compliance of the end product is 

always ensured. A limited modular 

approval is subject to conditions such as 

the device(s) into which the module can 

be installed, the antenna separation 

distance from persons or the locations 

where it may be used (e.g. outdoor 

only). 

4. To provide additional flexibility to 

manufacturers and to parties 

incorporating modular transmitters into 

other devices, the Commission will 

permit electronic labeling of modular 

transmitters in the same manner as it 

allows for software defined radios. The 

FCC identification number may be 

shown on an electronic display on the 

module itself if the module contains a 

display that is visible to the user, or 

more typically, it may be displayed on 

the device into which the module is 

installed, such as a laptop computer or 

PDA. The information must be readily 

accessible, and the user manual must 

describe how to access the electronic 

display. In addition to the electronic 

display, the Commission requires a 

simple label on the product indicating 

when a module is installed inside a host 

device to facilitate identification of 

equipment that contains modular 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES