Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53941

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 14, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

William Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

■ Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q—Iowa

■ 2. In § 52.820(c) the table for Chapter 

22 is amended by adding a new entry in 

numerical order for 567–22.9 to read as 

follows:

§ 52.820 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED IOWA REGULATIONS

Iowa citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Commission [567]

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 22—Controlling Pollution

* * * * * * * 

567–22.9 ............................................. Special Requirements for Visibility Protection .. 04/20/05 09/13/05 [insert FR page 

number where document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–18012 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Region II Docket No. NY69–280, FRL–7968–

1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; 

Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets for 1990 and 2007 using 

MOBILE6

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the New York State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone. Specifically, EPA is 

approving New York’s revised 1990 and 

2007 motor vehicle emission budgets 

recalculated using MOBILE6 and 

modified date for submittal of the 

State’s mid-course review. The intended 

effect of this action is to approve a SIP 

revision that will help the State 

continue to plan for attainment of the 1-

hour NAAQS for ozone in its portion of 

the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island nonattainment area (New 

York Metropolitan NAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be 

effective October 13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state 

submittals are available at the following

53942 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Memorandum, ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOBILE6 for SIP development and Transportation 

Conformity,’’ issued January 18, 2002. A copy of 

this memorandum can be found on EPA’s Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm. 

2Memorandum, ‘‘Clarification of Policy Guidance 

for MOBILE6 SIPs in Mid-course Review Areas,’’

issued February 12, 2003. A copy of this 

memorandum can be found on EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm. 

addresses for inspection during normal 

business hours: 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Office of 

Air and Waste Management, 14th 

Floor, 625 Broadway, Albany, New 

York 12233–1010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Risley, Air Programs Branch, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, (212) 637–3741. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Comments 

III. What Are the Details of EPA’s Specific 

Actions? 

A. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Revised with MOBILE6 

B. Are New York’s motor vehicle emissions 

budgets approvable? 

C. Modified Date for Submittal of the Midcourse Review 

III. Conclusions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 28, 2003 EPA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR 

61379) regarding a SIP revision 

submitted by the State of New York for 

the attainment and maintenance of the 

1-hour NAAQS for ozone. That notice 

proposed to approve: Revised 1990 and 

2007 motor vehicle emission budgets 

recalculated using MOBILE6; and a 

modified date for submittal of the 

State’s mid-course review. The intended 

effect was to propose to approve a SIP 

revision that will help the State 

continue to plan for attainment of the 1- 

hour NAAQS for ozone in its portion of 

the New York Metropolitan NAA. 

The proposed SIP revision was 

initially submitted to EPA on January 

29, 2003 and later supplemented by a 

June 2, 2003 submission. A detailed 

description of New York’s submittal and 

EPA’s rationale for the proposed action 

were presented in the October 28, 2003 

notice of proposed rulemaking and will 

not be restated here. 

II. Comments 

EPA received only one set of 

comments on the proposed approval, 

from the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, in a letter 

dated January 18, 2005. The comments 

contained revised 2007 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets resulting from 

updated planning assumptions 

including changes to vehicle registration 

data and diesel fraction data. The data 

revisions decrease estimated volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions by 

2.7 tons per year in 2007, a decrease of 

nearly 2 percent of the total on-road 

VOC emission inventory. Additionally, 

the data revisions increase estimated 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions by 

3.4 tons per year in 2007, an increase of 

nearly 1.4 percent of the total on-road 

NOX emission inventory. These 

revisions to the 2007 VOC and NOX

motor vehicle emissions budgets are 

relatively small and do not change the 

results of the State’s conclusion that the 

budgets as revised using MOBILE6 

continue to be consistent with the 

State’s 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. The method used to 

demonstrate this consistency is 

described further below, and in more 

detail in the October 28, 2003 notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

III. What Are the Details of EPA’s 

Specific Actions? 

A Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Revised With MOBILE6 

New York’s revised budgets contained 

in the January 29, 2003 submittal and 

subsequently updated by New York’s 

June 29, 2003 addendum and the State’s 

January 28, 2005 comment letter, are 

summarized in Table 1 below. EPA has 

found that New York’s revised 

MOBILE6 budgets are consistent with 

its 1-hour ozone Attainment 

Demonstration. EPA has articulated its 

policy regarding the use of MOBILE6 for 

SIP development in its ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for 

SIP Development and Transportation 

Conformity’’ 1 and ‘‘Clarification of 

Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 in Midcourse Review Areas.’’ 2 New York 

included in the January 29, 2003 

submittal a relative reduction 

comparison to show that its 1-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP 

continues to demonstrate attainment 

using revised MOBILE6 budgets for the 

New York Metropolitan NAA. This 

relative reduction comparison was 

subsequently updated in New York’s 

June 29, 2003 addendum and again in 

its comments of January 18, 2005, see 

Table 2. New York’s attainment 

demonstration used photochemical grid 

modeling supplemented with a weight 

of evidence analysis. Consistent with 

EPA policy, as detailed in the 

aforementioned guidance documents, 

the State’s methodology for the relative 

reduction comparison consisted of 

comparing the new MOBILE6 budgets 

with the previously approved, (67 FR 

5170, February 4, 2002) MOBILE5 

budgets for the New York Metropolitan 

NAA to determine if attainment will 

still be predicted by the 2007 attainment 

year. Specifically, the State calculated 

the percent reduction from the 1990 

base year to the 2007 attainment year for 

NOX and VOC MOBILE5-based budgets. 

These percent reductions were then 

compared to the percent reductions 

between the revised MOBILE6-based 

1990 base year and 2007 attainment year 

budgets. 

TABLE 1.—NEW YORK METROPOLITAN

NAA MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS

BUDGETS, REVISED WITH MOBILE6 

NOX VOC 

1990 .......................... 512 596 

2007 .......................... 233.4 179.3 

TABLE 2.—RELATIVE REDUCTION COMPARISON BETWEEN MOBILE5- 

BASED BUDGETS AND MOBILE6- 

BASED BUDGETS FROM BASE YEAR

TO ATTAINMENT YEAR

NOX

(percent) 

VOC 

(percent) 

MOBILE5 .................. 44.8 66.7 

MOBILE6 .................. 54.4 69.9 

As shown in Table 2, New York’s 

relative reduction comparison shows 

that for the New York Metropolitan 

NAA the percent reductions in VOC and 

NOX budgets obtained through the use 

of MOBILE6 are greater than the percent 

reductions calculated with MOBILE5- 

based budgets. As such, New York’s 

MOBILE6 SIP revision satisfies the 

conditions outlined in EPA’s MOBILE6 

Policy guidance, and demonstrates that 

the new levels of motor vehicle 

emissions calculated using MOBILE6 

continue to support achievement of the 

projected attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of 

2007 for the New York Metropolitan 

NAA, i.e. the SIP continues to 

demonstrate its purpose. 

B. Are New York’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets Approvable? 

EPA’s October 28, 2003 notice of 

proposed rulemaking (68 FR 61379) 

determined that New York’s revised 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53943 

motor vehicle emission budgets, 

developed using appropriate 

methodology and supporting the SIP in 

demonstrating its purpose, were 

approvable. EPA posted the notice on 

EPA’s conformity Web site on July 1, 

2003 beginning the required 30-day 

comment period. EPA received no 

comments. Table 1 summarizes New 

York’s revised budgets contained in the 

January 29, 2003 submittal and 

subsequently updated by New York’s 

June 29, 2003 addendum and the State’s 

January 28, 2005 comment letter. EPA is 

taking action to find these budgets 

adequate and concurrently approve 

these budgets. The revised 2007 

attainment budget will apply for the 

New York Metropolitan Transportation 

Council’s transportation conformity 

purposes. 

C. Modified Date for Submittal of the 

Mid-Course Review 

As described in EPA’s October 28, 

2003 proposal, New York requested to 

revise the date by which it would 

submit a required mid-course review of 

the SIP’s ability to meet attainment ontime. In order to be consistent with 

surrounding states and to include the 

benefit of the regional NOX program in 

its mid-course review, New York 

revised its commitment to perform a 

mid-course review to December 31, 

2004 which is consistent with EPA 

guidance. New York has performed the 

mid-course review and has submitted it 

to EPA for review. 

III. Conclusions 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

New York’s January 29, 2003 SIP 

revision. This submittal revises New 

York’s 1990 and 2007 motor vehicle 

emission budgets using MOBILE6 and 

modifies the planned date to complete 

the State’s mid-course review to 

December 31, 2004. In accordance with 

the parallel processing procedures, EPA 

has evaluated New York’s final SIP 

revision submitted on January 29, 2003 

and supplemental information 

submitted on June 29, 2003 and New 

York’s January 18, 2005 comment letter 

and finds that no substantial changes 

were made from the proposed SIP 

revision submitted on January 29, 2003. 

New York has demonstrated that its 

revised 1-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration SIP for the New York 

Metropolitan NAA continues to 

demonstrate attainment with the revised 

MOBILE6 inventories. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, 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 the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 14, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

Kathleen C. Callahan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

53944 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart HH—New York 

■ 2. Section 52.1683 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(h)(3) and (i)(4), removing paragraphs 

(i)(6)(v) and (i)(6)(vi) and adding 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(j)(1) The 1990 and 2007 conformity 

emission budgets for the New York 

portion of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area 

contained in New York’s January 29, 

2003 SIP revision, amended by New 

York’s June 29, 2003 submittal and 

January 18, 2005 comment letter. 

(2) The revised commitment to 

perform a mid-course review and 

submit the results by December 31, 2004 

included in the January 29, 2003 SIP 

revision is approved. 

[FR Doc. 05–18094 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2005–0205; FRL–7725–7] 

Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of cyfluthrin in 

or on almond hulls, cucurbit vegetable 

crop group 9, fruiting vegetable group 8; 

grass forage; grass hay; grape; grape, 

raisin; leafy Brassica greens, subgroup 

5B; leafy vegetable group, except 

Brassica, group 4; pistachio; pome fruit 

group 11; stone fruit group 12; tuberous 

and corm vegetable subgroup 1C; 

peanut; peanut, hay; pea and bean, 

dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 

6C; tree nuts, Crop Group 14; turnip 

greens; wheat forage; wheat hay; and 

wheat straw. Bayer CropScience and the 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested the tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 13, 2005. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2005–

0205.All documents in the docket are 

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., 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 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

open 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: Olga 

Odiott, Registration Division (7505C), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9369; e-mail address: 

odiott.olga@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 and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the 

OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines 

referenced in this document, go directly 

to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/ 

opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of January 28, 

2004 (69 FR 4143) (FRL–7339–6), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petitions (PP 1F6290, 2F6445, 

and 2F6479) by Bayer CropScience, 2 

T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709; and (PP 

1E6318, 3E6776, and 3E6583) by the 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR-4), Technology Centre and Rutgers 

State University of New Jersey, 681 U.S. 

Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 

08902–390. The petitions requested that 

40 CFR 180.436 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the insecticide cyfluthrin, cyano (4- 

fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl-3-(2,2- 

dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on 

almond hulls at 1.0 parts per million 

(ppm); pistachio at 0.01 ppm; and tree 

nuts, crop group 14 at 0.01 ppm (PP 

1F6290); cucurbit vegetable crop group 

at 0.10 ppm; fruiting vegetable group at 

0.5 ppm; leafy Brassica greens subgroup 

at 7.0 ppm; leafy vegetable group at 6.0 

ppm; pome fruit group at 0.10 ppm; 

pome fruit wet pomace at 0.30 ppm; 

stone fruit group at 0.30 ppm; wheat 

forage, wheat hay and wheat straw at 5.0 

ppm; and wheat shorts at 3.5 ppm (PP 

2F6445); grape at 0.8 ppm; grape, raisin 

at 3.5 ppm; peanut at 0.01 ppm; and 

peanut, hay at 6.0 ppm (PP 2F6479); 

tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 

at 0.01 ppm (PP 1E6318); turnip greens 

at 7 ppm (PP 3E6583); and grass forage 

at 6 ppm; grass hay at 8 ppm; and pea 

and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, 

subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm (PP 3E6776). 

That notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by Bayer Crop 

Science, the registrant. The registrant 

has submitted a request to voluntarily