8928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0010; FRL–8113–4] 

Orthosulfamuron; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of 

orthosulfamuron in or on rice, grain and 

rice, straw at 0.05 parts per million 

(ppm). ISAGRO S.p.A., Centro Uffici S. 

Siro — Fabbricato D — ALA 3, Via 

Caldera, 21, 20153 Milano, Italy, 

requested this tolerance 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 

February 28, 2007. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before April 30, 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–2007–0010. 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 

website 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 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, 

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 

S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open 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: Jim 

Tompkins, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5697; e-mail address: 

tompkins.jim@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 FFDCA, as 

amended by 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–2007–0010 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 April 30, 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–2007–0010, 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 telephone number is (703) 305–

5805. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of July 27, 

2005 (70 FR 43421) (FRL–7727–8), 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 petition (PP 5F 6957) by 

ISAGRO S.p.A., Centro Uffici S. Siro —

Fabbricato D — ALA 3, Via Caldera, 21, 

20153 Milano, Italy. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing a tolerance for 

residues of the herbicide 

orthosulfamuron in or on rice, grain and 

rice, straw at 0.05 ppm. That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by ISAGRO S.p.A., Centro 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8929 

Uffici S. Siro — Fabbricato D — ALA 3, 

Via Caldera, 21, 20153 Milano, Italy, the 

registrant, that is included in the public 

docket. There were no comments 

received in response to the notice of 

filing. 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue....’’

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. For 

further discussion of the regulatory 

requirements of section 408 of FFDCA 

and a complete description of the risk 

assessment process, see http:// 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA–PEST/1997/ 

November/Day–26/p30948.htm. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action. EPA has sufficient data to assess 

the hazards of and to make a 

determination on aggregate exposure, 

consistent with section 408(b)(2) of 

FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of 

orthosulfamuron in or on rice, grain and 

rice, straw at 0.05 ppm. EPA’s 

assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with establishing the 

tolerance follows. 

A. Toxicological Profile 

EPA has evaluated the available 

toxicity data and considered its validity, 

completeness, and reliability as well as 

the relationship of the results of the 

studies to human risk. EPA has also 

considered available information 

concerning the variability of the 

sensitivities of major identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, including 

infants and children. Specific 

information on the studies received and 

the nature of the toxic effects caused by 

orthosulfamuron as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) 

and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies 

can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document 0002 

(pages 38–44) in docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0010. 

B. Toxicological Endpoints 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, the dose at which no adverse 

effects are observed (the NOAEL) from 

the toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment is 

used to estimate the toxicological level 

of concern (LOC). However, the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes 

used for risk assessment if no NOAEL 

was achieved in the toxicology study 

selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is 

applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 

in the extrapolation from laboratory 

animal data to humans and in the 

variations in sensitivity among members 

of the human population as well as 

other unknowns. 

The linear default risk methodology 

(Q*) is the primary method currently 

used by the Agency to quantify nonthreshold hazards such as cancer. The 

Q* approach assumes that any amount 

of exposure will lead to some degree of 

cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of 

the probability of occurrence of 

additional cancer cases. More 

information can be found on the general 

principles EPA uses in risk 

characterization at http:// 

docket.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for orthosulfamuron used for 

human risk assessment can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in document 

2 (pages 19–20) in docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0010. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. Risk assessments were 

conducted by EPA to assess dietary 

exposures from orthosulfamuron in food 

as follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and risk assessments 

are performed for a food-use pesticide, 

if a toxicological study has indicated the 

possibility of an effect of concern 

occurring as a result of a 1–day or single 

exposure. No such effects were 

identified in the toxicological studies 

for orthosulfamuron; therefore, a 

quantitative acute dietary exposure 

assessment was not performed. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the Dietary Exposure 

Evaluation Model software with the 

Food Commodity Intake Database 

(DEEM-FCIDTM), which incorporates 

food consumption data as reported by 

respondents in the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 1994–1996 and 

1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of 

Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), and 

accumulated exposure to the chemical 

for each commodity. The chronic 

analysis is based on tolerance level 

residues and 100% of the crop treated. 

iii. Cancer. Orthosulfamuron is 

classified as demonstrating ‘‘suggestive 

evidence of carcinogenicity’’ based on 

thyroid follicular cell adenomas 

observed in male rats. The Agency has 

concluded that quantification of human 

cancer risk is not warranted and the 

NOAEL selected for the chronic 

reference dose (cRfD) is protective of 

cancer effects. 

iv. Anticipated residue and percent 

crop treated (PCT) information. The 

chronic dietary exposure analysis was 

based on tolerance level residues and 

100 PCT assumptions. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency lacks sufficient 

monitoring exposure data to complete a 

comprehensive dietary exposure 

analysis and risk assessment for 

orthosulfamuron in drinking water. 

Because the Agency does not have 

comprehensive monitoring data, 

drinking water concentration estimates 

are made by reliance on simulation or 

modeling taking into account data on 

the physical characteristics of 

orthosulfamuron. Further information 

regarding EPA drinking water models 

used in pesticide exposure assessment 

can be found at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

edkpub/index.jsp 

Based on the interim rice model and 

screening concentration in groundwater 

(SCI-GROW) models, the estimated 

environmental concentration (EECs) of 

orthosulfamuron in drinking water for 

chronic exposures is estimated to be 

40.5 parts per billion (ppb) for surface 

water and 0.611 ppb for groundwater. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Orthosulfamuron is not registered for 

use on any sites that would result in 

residential exposure. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
8930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

orthosulfamuron and any other 

substances and orthosulfamuron does 

not appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has not assumed that 

orthosulfamuron has a common 

mechanism of toxicity with other 

substances. For information regarding 

EPA’s efforts to determine which 

chemicals have a common mechanism 

of toxicity and to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of such chemicals, 

see the policy statements released by 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 

concerning common mechanism 

determinations and procedures for 

cumulating effects from substances 

found to have a common mechanism on 

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticides/cumulative. 

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for 

infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. Margins of safety are 

incorporated into EPA risk assessments 

either directly through use of a MOE 

analysis or through using uncertainty 

(safety) factors in calculating a dose 

level that poses no appreciable risk to 

humans. In applying this provision, 

EPA either retains the default value of 

10X when reliable data do not support 

the choice of a different factor, or, if 

reliable data are available, EPA uses a 

different additional safety factor value 

based on the use of traditional UFs and/ 

or special FQPA safety factors, as 

appropriate. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There is no concern for increased 

quantitative and/or qualitative 

susceptibility after exposure to 

orthosulfamuron in developmental 

toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, or a 

reproduction study in rats. In the 

developmental studies, there was no 

treatment-related maternal or 

developmental toxicity observed. In the 

reproduction study, decreased motor 

activity was seen in 6–week old males 

(F1) at 354.5 milligrams/kilograms/day 

(mg/kg/day). However, the offspring 

effects were observed in the presence of 

maternal toxicity (kidney lesions), seen 

in adult females of both generations (F0 

and F1). The NOAEL (5 mg/kg/day) 

selected for the cRfD is lower (70X) than 

the dose at which the motor activity was 

observed and; thus, considered 

protective of the effects. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that reliable data show that it would be 

safe for infants and children to reduce 

the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That 

decision is based on the following 

findings: 

i. The toxicity database for 

orthosulfamuron is complete. 

ii. There is no indication that 

orthosulfamuron is a neurotoxic 

chemical and there is no need for a 

developmental neurotoxicity study or 

additional UFs to account for 

neurotoxicity. 

iii. There is no evidence that 

orthosulfamuron results in increased 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in young rats in the 2-generation 

reproduction study. 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100 PCT and 

tolerance-level residues. Conservative 

groundwater and surface water 

modeling estimates were used. Similarly 

conservative. These assessments will 

not underestimate the exposure and 

risks posed by orthosulfamuron. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

1. Acute risk. Review of applicable 

toxicity studies indicated that 

orthosulfamuron is not expected to pose 

an acute risk. 

2. Short-term risk. Orthosulfamuron is 

not registered for use on any sites that 

would result in residential exposure. 

Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum 

of the risk from food and water, which 

do not exceed the Agency’s LOC. 

3. Intermediate-term risk. 

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 

takes into account residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be background exposure 

level). 

Orthosulfamuron is not registered for 

use on any sites that would result in 

residential exposure. Therefore, the 

aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from 

food and water, which do not exceed 

the Agency’s LOC. 

4. Chronic risk. EPA considers 

chronic aggregate risk to consist of risks 

resulting from exposure to residues in 

food, drinking water, and residues 

resulting from residential applications. 

As there are no residential uses for 

orthosulfamuron, chronic aggregate risk 

consists of risks resulting from exposure 

to residues in food and drinking water 

alone, which do not exceed the 

Agency’s LOC. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. The long-term chronic risk 

assessment outlined in this unit is 

considered to be protective of cancer 

effects. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population, and to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to 

orthosulfamuron residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An adequate high performance liquid 

chromatography-mass spectrometry 

analytical method for enforcement 

purposes is available. The method may 

be requested from: Chief, Analytical 

Chemistry Branch, Environmental 

Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft 

Meade, Maryland 20755–5350. 

Telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

No Codex maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) have been established for 

residues of orthosulfamuron on any 

crops at this time. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, the tolerance is established 

for residues of orthosulfamuron, in or 

on rice, grain and rice, straw at 0.05 

ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes a tolerance 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions 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 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8931 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

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

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations under 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 Agency 

action under Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

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

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: February 16, 2007. 

James Jones, 

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 180.625 is added to read as 

follows: 

§180.625 Orthosulfamuron; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of 

orthosulfamuron 1-(4,6- 

dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-[2- 

(dimethylcarbamoyl)- phenylsulfamoyl] 

urea) per se in or on the following 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Rice, grain ...................... 0.05 

Rice, straw ...................... 0.05 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect and inadvertant residues. 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 07–898 Filed 2–23–07; 2:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

RIN 1018–AI92 

Migratory Bird Permits; Take of 

Migratory Birds by the Armed Forces 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, or 

possessing of migratory birds unless 

permitted by regulations promulgated 

by the Secretary of the Interior. While 

some courts have held that the MBTA 

does not apply to Federal agencies, in 

July 2000, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit ruled that the prohibitions of the 

MBTA do apply to Federal agencies, 

and that a Federal agency’s taking and 

killing of migratory birds without a 

permit violated the MBTA. On March 

13, 2002, the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia ruled 

that military training exercises of the 

Department of the Navy that 

incidentally take migratory birds 

without a permit violate the MBTA. 

On December 2, 2002, the President 

signed the 2003 National Defense 

Authorization Act (Authorization Act). 

Section 315 of the Authorization Act 

provides that, not later than one year 

after its enactment, the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) shall exercise his/ 

her authority under Section 704(a) of 

the MBTA to prescribe regulations to 

exempt the Armed Forces for the 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES