Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6867 

implemented a CAA program to attain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time or 

has participated in a compact. Thus 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comments on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under E.O. 

12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

EAC program has provided cleaner air 

sooner than required under the CAA to 

these communities. The public is 

invited to submit or identify peerreviewed studies and data, of which the 

agency may not be aware, that assessed 

results of early life exposure to ozone. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any VCS. EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The health and 

environmental risks associated with 

ozone were considered in the 

establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm 

ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to 

be protective with an adequate margin 

of safety. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 

42 U.S.C. 7501–7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1). 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–2187 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674; FRL–8345–2] 

2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA, 

Desmedipham, Dimethoate, 

Fenamiphos, Phorate, Sethoxydim, 

Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos; 

Proposed Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 

certain tolerances for the herbicide 

sethoxydim and the insecticides 

dimethoate, fenamiphos, terbufos, and 

tetrachlorvinphos. Also, EPA is 

proposing to modify certain tolerances 

for the herbicides 2,4-D, DCPA, 

desmedipham, and sethoxydim and the 

insecticides dimethoate, fenamiphos, 

phorate, and tetrachlorvinphos. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to establish 

new tolerances for the herbicides 

bensulide and sethoxydim. The 

regulatory actions proposed in this 

document are in follow-up to the 

Agency’s reregistration program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance 

reassessment program under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 

section 408(q). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

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

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–

0674. EPA’s policy is that all comments 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6868 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the docket 

and made available on the Internet. If 

you submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

in regulations.gov. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

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

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

website to view the docket index or 

access available documents. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit II.A. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency 

to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency 

Proposes to Revoke? 

This proposed rule provides a 

comment period of 60 days for any 

person to state an interest in retaining 

a tolerance proposed for revocation. If 

EPA receives a comment within the 60–

day period to that effect, EPA will not 

proceed to revoke the tolerance 

immediately. However, EPA will take 

steps to ensure the submission of any 

needed supporting data and will issue 

an order in the Federal Register under 

FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The 

order would specify data needed and 

the timeframes for its submission, and 

would require that within 90 days some 

person or persons notify EPA that they 

will submit the data. If the data are not 

submitted as required in the order, EPA 

will take appropriate action under 

FFDCA. 

EPA issues a final rule after 

considering comments that are 

submitted in response to this proposed 

rule. In addition to submitting 

comments in response to this proposal, 

you may also submit an objection at the 

time of the final rule. If you fail to file 

an objection to the final rule within the 

time period specified, you will have 

waived the right to raise any issues 

resolved in the final rule. After the 

specified time, issues resolved in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6869 

final rule cannot be raised again in any 

subsequent proceedings. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is proposing to revoke, modify, 

and establish specific tolerances for 

residues of the herbicides 2,4-D, 

bensulide, DCPA, desmedipham, and 

sethoxydim and the insecticides 

fenamiphos, phorate, dimethoate, 

terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos in or on 

commodities listed in the regulatory 

text. 

EPA is proposing these tolerance 

actions to implement the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of these 

processes, EPA is required to determine 

whether each of the amended tolerances 

meets the safety standard of FFDCA. 

The safety finding determination of 

‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm’’ is 

discussed in detail in each 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 

and Report of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance 

Reassessment Progress and Risk 

Management Decision (TRED) for the 

active ingredient. REDs and TREDs 

recommend the implementation of 

certain tolerance actions, including 

modifications to reflect current use 

patterns, meet safety findings, and 

change commodity names and 

groupings in accordance with new EPA 

policy. Printed copies of many REDs 

and TREDs may be obtained from EPA’s 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (EPA/ 

NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, 

OH 45242–2419; telephone number: 1–

800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489–

8695; Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ncepihom and from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 

22161; telephone number: 1–800–553–

6847 or (703) 605–6000; Internet at 

http://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of 

REDs, TREDs, and IREDs are available 

on the Internet at http://www. epa.gov/ 

pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. 

The selection of an individual 

tolerance level is based on crop field 

residue studies designed to produce the 

maximum residues under the existing or 

proposed product label. Generally, the 

level selected for a tolerance is a value 

slightly above the maximum residue 

found in such studies, provided that the 

tolerance is safe. The evaluation of 

whether a tolerance is safe is a separate 

inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of 

a tolerance when data show that: 

1. Lawful use (sometimes through a 

label change) may result in a higher 

residue level on the commodity. 

2. The tolerance remains safe, 

notwithstanding increased residue level 

allowed under the tolerance. 

In REDs, Chapter IV on ‘‘Risk 

management, Reregistration, and 

Tolerance Reassessment’’ typically 

describes the regulatory position, FQPA 

assessment, cumulative safety 

determination, determination of safety 

for U.S. general population, and safety 

for infants and children. In particular, 

the human health risk assessment 

document which supports the RED 

describes risk exposure estimates and 

whether the Agency has concerns. In 

TREDs, the Agency discusses its 

evaluation of the dietary risk associated 

with the active ingredient and whether 

it can determine that there is a 

reasonable certainty (with appropriate 

mitigation) that no harm to any 

population subgroup will result from 

aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to 

harmonize tolerances with international 

standards set by the Codex Alimentarius 

Commission, as described in Unit III. 

Explanations for proposed 

modifications in tolerances can be 

found in the RED and TRED document 

and in more detail in the Residue 

Chemistry Chapter document which 

supports the RED and TRED. Copies of 

the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

documents are found in the 

Administrative Record electronically. 

Electronic copies are available through 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, regulations.gov at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

search for docket ID number EPA–HQ–

OPP–2007–0674 and/or 2,4-D (EPA–

HQ–OPP–2004–0167), Bensulide (EPA–

HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–HQ–

OPP–2007–0151), DCPA (EPA–HQ–

OPP–2007–0097), Desmedipham (EPA–

HQ–OPP–2004–0261), Dimethoate 

(EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0084), 

Fenamiphos (EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 

and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0151), Phorate 

(EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–

HQ–OPP–2007–0151), Sethoxydim 

(EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0323), Terbufos 

(EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0674 and EPA–

HQ–OPP–2007–0151), and 

Tetrachlorvinphos (EPA–HQ–OPP–

2007–0674 and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–

0151) then click on that docket ID 

number to view its contents. 

EPA has determined that the aggregate 

exposures and risks are not of concern 

for the above-mentioned pesticide active 

ingredients based upon the data 

identified in the RED or TRED which 

lists the submitted studies that the 

Agency found acceptable. 

EPA has found that the tolerances that 

are proposed in this document to be 

modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residues, in accordance with 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that 

changes to tolerance nomenclature do 

not constitute modifications of 

tolerances). These findings are 

discussed in detail in each RED or 

TRED. The references are available for 

inspection as described in this 

document under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

In addition, EPA is proposing to 

revoke certain specific tolerances 

because either they are no longer 

needed or are associated with food uses 

that are no longer registered under 

FIFRA. Those instances where 

registrations were canceled were 

because the registrant failed to pay the 

required maintenance fee and/or the 

registrant voluntarily requested 

cancellation of one or more registered 

uses of the pesticide. It is EPA’s general 

practice to propose revocation of those 

tolerances for residues of pesticide 

active ingredients on crop uses for 

which there are no active registrations 

under FIFRA, unless any person in 

comments on the proposal indicates a 

need for the tolerance to cover residues 

in or on imported commodities or 

legally treated domestic commodities. 

1. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register 

notices published on June 6, 2007 (72 

FR 31221) (FRL–8122–7) and September 

12, 2007 (72 FR 52013) (FRL–8142–2), 

the Agency determined in error that the 

tolerances in/on grapes, stone fruits, and 

pome fruits should be decreased to 0.1 

ppm rather than 0.05 ppm. In that same 

proposal, the tolerance for strawberries 

was increased to 0.1 ppm in error, 

when, in fact, it should have remained 

unchanged at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA 

proposes correcting the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.142(a) for the combined 2,4-D 

residues of concern in/on grape from 0.1 

to 0.05 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 from 

0.1 to 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome group 11 

from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm, and strawberry 

from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm. 

2. Bensulide. In order to account for 

the instability of bensulide in/on 

cucurbits and leafy vegetables as 

evidenced in a non-concurrent storage 

stability study, the Agency has 

determined the tolerances should be 

increased from 0.1 to 0.15 ppm in/on 

vegetable, cucurbit group 9 and 

vegetable, leafy, except brassica group 4. 

The Agency is also revising commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

practice including removing the 

negligible residue designation (N) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6870 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

associated with the tolerances. 

Therefore, EPA proposes increasing and 

revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.241(a) for the combined bensulide 

residues of concern in/on cucurbits at 

0.10 (N) ppm to vegetable, cucurbit 

group 9 at 0.15; and vegetable, leafy at 

0.1 (N) ppm to vegetable, leafy, except 

brassica group 4 at 0.15 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. 

Because the use of bensulide is 

limited to Texas, the Agency has 

determined that the carrot tolerance 

should be a regional tolerance. 

Therefore, EPA proposes transferring 

the carrot, root at 0.1 ppm tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.241(a) to 40 CFR 180.241(c). 

Based on available field trial data that 

indicate bensulide residues of concern 

are less than 0.15 ppm in/on the 

representative commodities (broccoli, 

cabbage, and Brussels sprouts) of the 

vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5, the 

Agency determined that the tolerance 

should be established for vegetable, 

brassica, leafy group 5 at 0.15 ppm. 

Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.241(a) for 

combined bensulide residues of concern 

in/on vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5 

at 0.15 ppm. 

The Agency is revising commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

practice. Therefore, EPA proposes 

revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.241 from onion, dry bulb to onion, 

bulb; and vegetable, fruiting to 

vegetable, fruiting, group 8. 

Currently, there are no Codex MRLs 

(maximum residue levels) in place for 

bensulide. 

3. DCPA. In the Federal Register 

proposal and final rule published on 

June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL–8122–

7), and September 12, 2007 (72 FR 

52013) (FRL–8142–2), the permanent 

tolerance on vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 at 5 ppm was transferred to 

inadvertent tolerance because there 

were no uses on brassica vegetables. 

Since then, it has been determined that 

there are direct uses of DCPA on 

brassica vegetables and a permanent 

tolerance in/on vegetable, brassica, 

leafy, group 5 at 5 ppm is appropriate. 

Therefore, EPA proposes transferring 

the tolerance vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 at 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.185(d) 

to 40 CFR 180.185(a) for the combined 

residues of the herbicide DCPA and its 

metabolites MTP and TCP (calculated as 

DCPA). 

4. Desmedipham. Based on field trial 

data received subsequent to the TRED 

that indicate residues of desmedipham 

as high as 0.05 ppm in/on sugar beet 

roots and an average of 1.38 ppm 

(standard deviation 2.88 ppm) in/on 

sugar beet tops, the Agency determined 

that the tolerance should be decreased 

from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm in/on sugar 

beet roots and increased from 0.2 ppm 

to 5.0 ppm in/on sugar beet tops. 

Therefore, EPA proposes revising the 

tolerance on sugar beet (roots and tops) 

from 0.2 ppm to sugar, beet, roots at 0.1 

ppm and sugar, beet, tops at 5.0 ppm in 

40 CFR 180.353(a) for residues of the 

herbicide desmedipham (ethyl-mhydroxycarbanilate carbanilate). 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. 

Currently, there are no Codex MRLs 

in place for desmedipham. 

5. Dimethoate. The uses on apples, 

cabbage, collards, head lettuce, spinach, 

and grapes were canceled due to 

revisions of the human health risk 

assessment for tolerance reassessment as 

published in Federal Register Notices 

dated Sept 10, 2003 (69 FR 53371) 

(FRL–7321–2), January 28, 2004 (69 FR 

4135) (FRL–7340–1), and May 12, 2004 

(69 FR 26384) (FRL–7354–3). Although 

the use on head lettuce has been 

canceled, the use on leaf lettuce 

remains. There are no active 

registrations with the use on 

blueberries; however, the blueberry 

tolerance is for the purpose of imports 

and for this reason will not be revoked. 

Lentils are covered by the existing pea, 

dry tolerance in accordance with 40 

CFR 180.1(g). Therefore, EPA proposes 

revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate 

residues of concern in/on apple at 2 

ppm; cabbage at 2 ppm; collards at 2 

ppm; grape at 1 ppm; lentil, seed at 2 

ppm; and spinach at 2 ppm; and revise 

lettuce to lettuce, leaf. 

Based on field trial residue data 

serving as the basis of the tolerance on 

potatoes at 0.2 ppm and translating 

those data to turnip roots, the Agency 

has determined that the tolerance in/on 

turnip roots should be decreased to 0.2 

ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes 

decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate 

residues of concern in/on turnip, roots 

from 2 ppm to 0.2 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

indicate dimethoate residues of concern 

less than 0.1 ppm in/on sorghum grain 

and forage, the Agency determined that 

the tolerance should be decreased to 0.1 

ppm in/on sorghum, grain, forage and a 

tolerance should be established for 

sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm. EPA 

is also revising the commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

Agency practice. Therefore, EPA 

proposes decreasing and revising the 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the 

combined dimethoate residues of 

concern from sorghum, forage at 0.2 

ppm to sorghum, grain, forage at 0.1 

ppm and establishing a tolerance on 

sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm. 

EPA is revising the commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

Agency practice. Also, when the 

tolerance reassessment was conducted 

for reregistration on dimethoate, the 

tolerance on ‘‘wheat, green fodder’’

existed. The correct terminology for 

‘‘wheat, green fodder’’ is ‘‘wheat, hay’’

and ‘‘wheat, forage.’’ Recently, 40 CFR 

180.204 has been revised to align 

commodity terminology to current 

standards. At that time, the ‘‘wheat, 

green fodder’’ tolerance was revised to 

‘‘wheat, hay’’ and the tolerance for 

‘‘wheat, forage’’ was inadvertently 

omitted; therefore, the wheat, forage 

tolerance should be established. Lastly, 

the Agency is correcting the reference to 

180.1(n) to 180.1(m) in 40 CFR 

180.204(c). Therefore, EPA proposes 

revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate 

residues of concern in/on alfalfa to 

alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay; from 

corn, forage to corn, field, forage and 

corn, sweet, forage; corn, grain to corn, 

field, grain and corn, pop, grain; corn, 

stover to corn, field, stover and corn, 

pop, stover; sorghum, grain to sorghum, 

grain, grain; soybean to soybean, seed; 

and turnip, greens to turnip, tops; 

proposes establishing a tolerance in/on 

wheat, forage at 2.0 ppm and proposes 

revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(c) 

from cherry to cherry, sweet and cherry, 

tart and revising the reference of 

180.1(n) to 180.1(m). 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission 

has established separate maximum 

residue limits (MRLs) for dimethoate 

per se and omethoate per se in/on 

various commodities resulting from 

application of the insecticides 

dimethoate, formothion, and omethoate. 

By contrast, the U.S. tolerance 

expression is in terms of the combined 

residues of dimethoate and omethoate, 

as a metabolite. Formothion and 

omethoate are not currently registered 

for use in the U.S. Therefore, the Codex 

MRLs and U.S. tolerances are not 

harmonized with respect to MRL/ 

tolerance expression. 

6. Fenamiphos. Based on the available 

field trial data that indicate fenamiphos 

residues of concern are up to 1.0 ppm 

in/on peanuts, the Agency determined 

that the tolerance should be increased to 

1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes 

increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6871 

180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of 

concern in/on peanut from 0.02 ppm to 

1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that 

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

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result form aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide chemical residue. 

Based on the available field trial data 

that indicate fenamiphos residues of 

concern are less than 0.05 ppm in/on 

eggplant and Brussels sprouts, the 

Agency determined that the tolerances 

should be decreased to 0.05 ppm. The 

Agency is also decreasing the Brussels 

sprouts tolerance to harmonize with 

Codex. Therefore, EPA proposes 

decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of 

concern in/on eggplant from 0.10 ppm 

to 0.05 ppm and Brussels sprouts from 

0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm. 

Pineapple bran is no longer regulated 

as a commodity in accordance with 

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; consequently, 

the Agency has determined that a 

pineapple bran tolerance is no longer 

needed. There are no active registrations 

for the use of fenamiphos on cotton, 

consequently the Agency has 

determined the cotton undelinted seed 

tolerance should be revoked. Therefore, 

EPA proposes removing the tolerance 

in/on pineapple, bran and revoking the 

tolerance in/on cotton, undelinted seed 

in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos 

residues of concern. 

There are currently individual 

tolerances for grapefruit, lemon, lime, 

orange, and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm. 

Because there are established tolerances 

for the representative commodities for 

the fruit, citrus, group 10 and the use 

patterns on these commodities are the 

same, the Agency determined that the 

individual tolerances should be 

replaced with the fruit, citrus, group 10 

tolerance. Further, in order to 

harmonize with the Codex MRLs, the 

Agency has determined the tolerances 

associated with these commodities 

should be decreased from 0.60 to 0.50 

ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes removing 

the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) 

for fenamiphos residues of concern in/ 

on grapefruit; lemon; lime; orange, 

sweet; and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm 

and establishing a tolerance for fruit, 

citrus, group 10 at 0.50 ppm. 

Based on revisions of the OPPTS 

Harmonized Test Guidelines--Series 860 

Residue Chemistry Guidelines (August 

1996) Table 1 available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/ 

OPPTS Harmonized/860 Residue 

Chemistry Test Guidelines/Series 

eliminating several animal feed items 

used to estimate secondary residues in 

livestock commodities, the Agency 

determined there is no expectation of 

finite residues in animal commodities in 

accordance with Category 40 CFR 

180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA proposes 

revoking all of the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.349(a)(2) for fenamiphos residues of 

concern in cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, 

meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; 

goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, 

meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; 

horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; 

milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, 

meat byproducts each at 0.05 ppm; 

remove 40 CFR 180.349(a)(2); and 

designate 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) as 40 

CFR 180.349(a). 

The Agency is revising commodity 

terminology to correspond to current 

Agency practice. Therefore, EPA 

proposes revising tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.349(a)(1) for fenamiphos residues of 

concern in/on grape, raisins to grape, 

raisin and cherry to cherry, sweet and 

cherry, tart. 

In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of 

FIFRA, the Agency issued a cancellation 

order published on December 10, 2003 

(68 FR 68901) (FRL–7332–5). The order 

reflects the voluntary cancellations 

submitted by Bayer CropScience for 

product registrations containing 

fenamiphos effective May 31, 2007. The 

order requires the registrant to cease 

sale/distribution of products (by persons 

other that Bayer CropScience) 

containing fenamiphos by May 31, 2008. 

Bayer CropScience anticipates that 

commodities treated with fenamiphos 

may continue to be imported into the 

U.S. after the final effective dates and 

therefore supports import tolerances for 

banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic; 

grape; and pineapple. In order to permit 

the use of existing stocks of products to 

clear the channels of trade and for 

tolerances to cover subsequent 

fenamiphos residues of concern on 

commodities, the Agency determined 

the tolerances should expire on 

December 31, 2009 except for those 

tolerances for import commodities 

(banana; fruit, citrus, group 10; citrus, 

dried pulp; citrus, oil; garlic; grape; and 

pineapple). The tolerances for banana; 

fruit, citrus, group 10; garlic; grape; and 

pineapple will not have a U.S. 

registration as of December 31, 2009, 

and will be designated as such by a 

footnote. Therefore, EPA proposes 

establishing an expiration/revocation 

date of December 31, 2009, on 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349 for 

fenamiphos residues of concern in/on 

apple; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cherry, 

sweet; cherry, tart; eggplant; okra; 

peach; peanut; raspberry; strawberry; 

asparagus; beet, garden, roots; beet, 

garden, tops; Bok choy; kiwifruit; and 

pepper, nonbell and add the footnote ‘‘1 

There are no U.S. registrations as of 

December 31, 2009.’’

7. Phorate. Based on available field 

trial data that indicate phorate residues 

of concern do not exceed 0.05 ppm in 

or on beans, field and sweet corn; 

sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane, 

cane; the Agency determined that the 

tolerance should be decreased to 0.05 

ppm in/on field and sweet corn, 

sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane, 

cane. Based on available field trial data 

that indicate phorate residues of 

concern do not exceed 0.2 ppm in/on 

potato and in order to harmonize with 

CODEX, the Agency has determined the 

tolerance should be decreased to 0.2 

ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes 

decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.206(a) for phorate residues of 

concern in/on bean; corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed; corn, 

grain; sorghum, grain; soybean; and 

sugarcane, cane from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; 

and potato from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm. 

Based on available field trial data that 

indicate phorate residues of concern are 

up to 2.0 ppm in or on hops, the Agency 

determined that the tolerance should be 

increased to 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to increase the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.206(a) for phorate residues 

of concern in/on hop from 0.5 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 current tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.206 are expressed in terms of 

phorate and its cholinesterase-inhibiting 

metabolites. The Agency has 

determined that the tolerance 

expression should be revised to 

harmonize with CODEX by regulating 

phorate, phorate sulfoxide, phorate 

sulfone, phorate oxygen analog, phorate 

oxygen analog sulfoxide, and the 

phorate oxygen analog sulfone, 

specifically. Therefore, EPA proposes 

revising the tolerance expression in 40 

CFR 180.206(a) to regulate the combined 

residues of the insecticide phorate (O,Odiethyl S[(ethylthio) 

methyl]phosphorodithioate), phorate 

sulfoxide, phorate sulfone, phorate 

oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog 

sulfoxide, and phorate oxygen analog 

sulfone. 

When the tolerance reassessment was 

conducted for reregistration on phorate, 

the tolerance on ‘‘wheat, green fodder’’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6872 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

existed. The correct terminology for 

‘‘wheat, green fodder’’ is ‘‘wheat, hay’’

and ‘‘wheat, forage.’’ Recently, 40 CFR 

part 180 has been revised to align 

commodity terminology to current 

standards. At that time, the ‘‘wheat, 

green fodder’’ tolerance was revised to 

‘‘wheat, hay’’ and the tolerance for 

‘‘wheat, forage’’ was inadvertently 

omitted. Therefore, the Agency has 

determined a tolerance in/on wheat, 

forage at 1.5 ppm should be established. 

Therefore, EPA proposes establishing a 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for the 

combined residues of phorate and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites in/ 

on wheat, forage at 1.5 ppm. The 

Agency determined that the increased 

tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. 

EPA is revising commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

Agency practice. Therefore, EPA 

proposes revising the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.206(a) for the combined 

residues of phorate and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites 

from bean to bean, dry, seed and bean, 

succulent; coffee, bean, green to coffee, 

green bean; corn, forage to corn, field, 

forage and corn, sweet, forage; corn, 

grain to corn, field, grain; hop to hop, 

dried cones; sorghum, grain to sorghum, 

grain, grain; and soybean to soybean, 

seed; and revise the footnote to ‘‘There 

are no U.S. registrations as of September 

1, 1993, for the use of phorate on the 

growing crop, coffee.’’

The proposed tolerance actions herein 

for phorate, to implement the 

recommendations of the phorate IRED, 

reflect use patterns in the U.S. which 

support a different tolerance than the 

Codex level on beans, beets, coffee 

beans, because of differences in good 

agricultural practices. However, 

compatibility currently exists between 

U.S. tolerances and Codex MRLs for 

cottonseed and will exist (upon 

completion of this action) for phorate 

residues in or on potato, sorghum grain, 

soybean seed, field and sweet corn/ 

maize. 

8. Sethoxydim. Based on available 

field trial data that indicate residues of 

sethoxydim as high as 50.7 ppm in or 

on clover hay and 2.2 ppm in/on 

cranberry, the Agency determined that 

the tolerance should be increased to 55 

ppm in/on clover, hay and 2.5 ppm in/ 

on cranberry. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to increase the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.412 for sethoxydim residues 

of concern in/on clover, hay from 50 to 

55 ppm and cranberry from 2.0 to 2.5 

ppm. The Agency determined that the 

increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there 

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide chemical residue. 

EPA is revising commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

Agency practice. Therefore, EPA 

proposes revising the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues 

of concern in/on bean, forage to cowpea, 

forage; bean, hay to cowpea, hay; 

canola/rapeseed to rapeseed, seed and 

canola, seed; canola/rapeseed, meal to 

rapeseed, meal and canola, meal; 

coriander to coriander, leaves; corn, 

fodder to corn, field, fodder; corn, forage 

to corn, field, stover; fruit, citrus to fruit, 

citrus, group 10; fruit, pome to fruit, 

pome, group 11; peppermint, tops 

(stems and leaves) to peppermint, tops; 

potato flakes and potato granules to 

potato granules/flakes; potato waste, 

processed (wet and dry) to potato waste, 

processed; safflower to safflower, seed; 

soybean to soybean, seed; spearmint, 

tops (stems and leaves) to spearmint, 

tops; turnip, greens to turnip, tops; and 

vegetable, fruiting to vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8. 

As part of improving sethoxydim 

tolerance harmonization between the 

U.S. and Canada, the Agency has 

reexamined the residue data and 

tolerance levels for bean, dry, seed at 20 

ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm; and pea, 

dry, seed 40 ppm. Using the tolerance/ 

MRL calculator developed under the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) and the dry peas, lentil, and 

dry bean field trial data which reflect 

similar use patterns, the Agency has 

determined the tolerances on the dry 

pea, lentil seed, and dry bean 

commodities can be revised to the pea 

and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, 

subgroup 6C at 25 ppm, which covers 

these commodities. Therefore, EPA 

proposes revising the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.412(a) for sethoxydim residues 

of concern from bean, dry seed at 20 

ppm; lentil, seed at 30 ppm; and pea, 

dry, seed at 40 ppm to pea and bean, 

dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 

6C at 25 ppm. 

Because apple dry pomace, citrus 

molasses, cotton seed soapstock, flax 

straw, peanut soapstock, tomato 

concentrated products, and tomato dry 

pomace are no longer recognized as raw 

agricultural commodities and are no 

longer considered to be significant food/ 

feed items, the associated tolerances are 

no longer needed. The tolerance for flax 

seed currently covers the commodity 

flax, meal, therefore the flax, meal 

tolerance is no longer needed. 

Therefore, EPA is removing the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412(a) in/on 

apple, dry pomace at 0.8 ppm; citrus, 

molasses at 1.5 ppm; cotton, seed, 

soapstock at 15 ppm; flax, straw at 2.0 

ppm; flax, meal at 7 ppm; peanut, 

soapstock at 75.0 ppm; tomato, 

concentrated products at 24 ppm; and 

tomato, dry pomace at 12.0 ppm. 

Currently, there are no Codex MRLs 

in place for sethoxydim. 

9. Terbufos. The current tolerance 

expression in 40 CFR 180.352 regulates 

the insecticide terbufos (S-[[1,1- 

dimethyl)thio]methyl]O,O-diethyl 

phosphorodithioate) and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites. 

The Agency has determined that the 

chemical name for terbufos should be 

corrected and the tolerance expression 

should be more specific for the five 

phosphorylated (cholinesteraseinhibiting) metabolites. Therefore, EPA 

proposes revising the tolerance 

expression in 40 CFR 180.352(a) to 

regulate the combined residues of the 

insecticide terbufos (phosphorodithioic 

acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl 

ester) and its phosphorylated 

(cholinesterase-inhibiting) metabolites 

(phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

and phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester). 

The Agency has determined that the 

coffee bean, green tolerance should be 

established for import purposes. The 

Agency is also revising the section to 

conform to current standards and 

configurations. Therefore, EPA proposes 

transferring the tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.352(b) for the combined residues of 

terbufos and its cholinesteraseinhibiting metabolites in/on coffee bean, 

green at 0.05 ppm to 40 CFR 180.352(a); 

redesignate 40 CFR 180.352(b) as 

Section 18 emergency exemptions–

reserved; establish 40 CFR 180.352(c) as 

tolerances with regional registrations–

reserved and establish 40 CFR 

180.352(d) as indirect or inadvertent 

residues – reserved. 

EPA is revising commodity 

terminology to conform to current 

Agency practice and removing ‘‘(N)’’- 

negligible residue designation 

associated with some of the tolerances 

because the term is no longer 

applicable. Because tolerances on corn, 

pop, forage and corn, pop, stover refer 

to the same commodity (i.e. duplicative) 

and because corn, pop, stover is the 

most current terminology, the Agency 

has determined the tolerance on corn, 

pop, forage should be removed. 

Therefore, EPA proposes revising the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.352(a) for the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6873 

combined residues of terbufos and its 

cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites 

from corn, grain to corn, field, grain and 

corn, pop, grain; sorghum, forage to 

sorghum, grain, forage; and sorghum, 

grain to sorghum, grain, grain and 

removing corn, pop, forage. 

The proposed tolerance actions herein 

for terbufos, to implement the 

recommendations of the terbufos RED, 

reflect different method levels of 

detection (LOD) where the LOD under 

the CODEX system is 0.01 ppm and the 

LOD under the U.S. system is 0.05 ppm 

which result in differing Codex levels 

on banana, corn/maize, popcorn, sugar 

beets, and sweet corn than the U.S. 

tolerances. Other differences in MRLs 

and tolerances between CODEX and the 

U.S. exist for cereal grain straw, fodder 

and stover because some are measured 

on a dry weight basis versus a wet 

weight basis. Lastly, the CODEX levels 

have changed since the tolerance 

reassessment such that, currently none 

of the U.S. tolerances and CODEX 

tolerances are harmonized. 

10. Tetrachlorvinphos. Currently, the 

residue of concern in 40 CFR 

180.252(a)(1) is tetrachlorvinphos (2- 

chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl 

dimethyl phosphate). The chemical 

name of tetrachlorvinphos as specified 

in 40 CFR 180.252 should be replaced 

with the CAS chemical name: (Z)-2- 

chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl 

dimethyl phosphate. The Agency has 

also determined that the metabolites, 1- 

(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and 

conjugated forms), 2,4,5- 

trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol are also of 

toxicological concern and should be 

regulated. Therefore, EPA proposes 

revising the tolerance expression in 40 

CFR 180.252(a)(1) to regulate the 

residues of the insecticide 

tetrachlorvinphos ((Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl 

phosphate) and its metabolites, 1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and 

conjugated forms), 2,4,5- 

trichloroacetophenone, and 1-(2,4,5- 

trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol. 

Currently, EPA has insufficient data 

to establish permanent tolerances for 

milk, cattle, hog and poultry 

commodities; however, EPA has been 

able to estimate tolerances for these 

livestock commodities using existing 

animal metabolism data on an interim 

basis of 18 months to permit time for the 

submission of additional data to support 

permanent tolerances. The tolerances 

are also being revised to address the 

additional tetrachlorvinphos 

metabolites of concern. Based on the 

metabolism data which indicate the 

tetrachlorvinphos residues of concern as 

high as 0.18 ppm in/on cattle and hog 

fat; 0.50 ppm in/on cattle and hog 

kidney; 0.38 ppm in/on cattle and hog 

liver; 1.86 ppm in/on cattle and hog 

meat; 0.50 ppm in/on cattle and hog 

meat byproducts except kidney and 

liver; 0.02 ppm in milk; 0.19 ppm in/on 

eggs; 6.1 ppm in/on poultry fat; 2.32 

ppm in/on poultry meat; 1.27 ppm in/ 

on poultry liver and 1.27 ppm in/on 

meat byproducts except liver, the 

Agency determined that interim 

tolerances should be established for 18 

months at the decreased levels of 0.2 

ppm (of which no more than 0.1 ppm 

is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle 

and hog fat; and 0.05 ppm (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on milk, fat. 

The Agency also determined that 

interim tolerances should be established 

for 18 months at 1.0 ppm (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle 

and hog kidney; 0.5 ppm (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on cattle 

and hog liver; 2.0 ppm (of which no 

more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se) cattle and hog meat; 1.0 ppm in/ 

on cattle and hog meat byproducts 

except liver and kidney; 3.0 ppm (of 

which no more than 3.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on poultry 

meat; 2.0 ppm (of which no more than 

0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

in/on poultry liver; and 2.0 ppm in/on 

poultry meat byproducts except liver. 

The Agency determined that interim 

tolerances should be established for 18 

months at the increased level of 0.2 ppm 

(of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on eggs; 

and 7.0 ppm (of which no more than 7.0 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) in/on 

poultry fat. Therefore, EPA proposes 

revising and establishing 18–month 

time-limited tolerances in newly 

proposed 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for 

residues of the insecticide 

tetrachlorvinphos and its metabolites 

in/on cattle, fat and hog, fat from 1.5 

ppm to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 

0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); 

cattle, kidney and hog, kidney at 1.0 

ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm 

is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, liver 

and hog, liver at 0.5 ppm (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat 

and hog, meat at 2.0 ppm (of which no 

more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se); cattle, meat byproducts except 

kidney and liver and hog, meat 

byproducts except kidney and liver at 

1.0 ppm; milk, fat at 0.05 ppm reflecting 

negligible residues in whole milk (of 

which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se); eggs from 0.1 

to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.05 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); 

poultry, fat from 0.7 to 7.0 ppm (of 

which no more than 7.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, meat 

at 3.0 ppm (of which no more than 3.0 

ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); 

poultry, liver at 2.0 ppm (of which no 

more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se); and poultry, 

meat byproducts except liver at 2.0 ppm 

all of which expire on [18 months from 

the date of final publication]. 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. 

Because the Agency is taking action to 

establish the time-limited tolerances in/ 

on cattle, hog and poultry commodities 

(above), the Agency has determined that 

the exception that permits ‘‘the safe use 

of tetrachlorvinphos as an additive to 

beef cattle, dairy cattle, horse and swine 

feed at the rates of 0.00015 lb per 100 

lb body weight per day for cattle and 

horses, and 0.00011 lb per 100 lb body 

weight per day for swine’’ is no longer 

necessary. In addition, any uses of 

tetrachlorvinphos in/on horses destined 

for slaughter are prohibited. Therefore, 

EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for residues of the 

insecticide tetrachlorvinphos in/on goat, 

fat at 0.5 ppm; horse, fat at 0.5 ppm; 

removing 40 CFR 180.252(a)(2); and 

changing the designation of 40 CFR 

180.252(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.252(a). 

Currently, there are no Codex MRLs 

in place for tetrachlorvinphos. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the 

maximum level for residues of pesticide 

chemicals legally allowed in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996, 

Public Law 104–170, authorizes the 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerance requirements, 

modifications in tolerances, and 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Without a tolerance or 

exemption, food containing pesticide 

residues is considered to be unsafe and 

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section 

402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such 

food may not be distributed in interstate 

commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed, 

the pesticide must not only have 

appropriate tolerances under the 

FFDCA, but also must be registered 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6874 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Food-use pesticides not registered in the 

United States must have tolerances in 

order for commodities treated with 

those pesticides to be imported into the 

United States. 

EPA is proposing these tolerance 

actions to implement the tolerance 

recommendations made during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of these 

processes, EPA is required to determine 

whether each of the amended tolerances 

meets the safety standard of FQPA. The 

safety finding determination is 

discussed in detail in each post-FQPA 

RED and TRED for the active ingredient. 

REDs and TREDs recommend the 

implementation of certain tolerance 

actions, including modifications to 

reflect current use patterns, to meet 

safety findings, and change commodity 

names and groupings in accordance 

with new EPA policy. Printed and 

electronic copies of the REDs and 

TREDs are available as provided in Unit 

II.A. 

EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs (and 

Interim REDs) for 2,4-D, bensulide, 

DCPA, desmedipham, dimethoate, 

fenamiphos, phorate, sethoxydim, 

terbufos, and tetrachlorvinphos, whose 

REDs were completed prior to FQPA. 

Also, EPA issued a RED prior to FQPA 

for tetrachlorvinphos and made a safety 

finding which reassessed its tolerances 

according to the FFDCA standard, 

maintaining them when new tolerances 

were established as noted in Unit II.A. 

REDs and TREDs contain the Agency’s 

evaluation of the database for these 

pesticides, including requirements for 

additional data on the active ingredients 

to confirm the potential human health 

and environmental risk assessments 

associated with current product uses, 

and in REDs state conditions under 

which these uses and products will be 

eligible for reregistration. The REDs and 

TREDs recommended the establishment, 

modification, and/or revocation of 

specific tolerances. RED and TRED 

recommendations such as establishing 

or modifying tolerances, and in some 

cases revoking tolerances, are the result 

of assessment under the FFDCA 

standard of ‘‘reasonable certainty of no 

harm.’’ However, tolerance revocations 

recommended in REDs and TREDs that 

are proposed in this document do not 

need such assessment when the 

tolerances are no longer necessary. 

EPA’s general practice is to propose 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide active ingredients on crops for 

which FIFRA registrations no longer 

exist and on which the pesticide may 

therefore no longer be used in the 

United States. EPA has historically been 

concerned that retention of tolerances 

that are not necessary to cover residues 

in or on legally treated foods may 

encourage misuse of pesticides within 

the United States. Nonetheless, EPA 

will establish and maintain tolerances 

even when corresponding domestic uses 

are canceled if the tolerances, which 

EPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are 

necessary to allow importation into the 

United States of food containing such 

pesticide residues. However, where 

there are no imported commodities that 

require these import tolerances, the 

Agency believes it is appropriate to 

revoke tolerances for unregistered 

pesticides in order to prevent potential 

misuse. 

Furthermore, as a general matter, the 

Agency believes that retention of import 

tolerances not needed to cover any 

imported food may result in 

unnecessary restriction on trade of 

pesticides and foods. Under section 408 

of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be 

established or maintained if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is safe 

based on a number of factors, including 

an assessment of the aggregate exposure 

to the pesticide and an assessment of 

the cumulative effects of such pesticide 

and other substances that have a 

common mechanism of toxicity. In 

doing so, EPA must consider potential 

contributions to such exposure from all 

tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such 

that the tolerances in aggregate are not 

safe, then every one of these tolerances 

is potentially vulnerable to revocation. 

Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are 

included in the aggregate and 

cumulative risk assessments, the 

estimated exposure to the pesticide 

would be inflated. Consequently, it may 

be more difficult for others to obtain 

needed tolerances or to register needed 

new uses. To avoid potential trade 

restrictions, the Agency is proposing to 

revoke tolerances for residues on crops 

for uses for which FIFRA registrations 

no longer exist, unless someone 

expresses a need for such tolerances. 

Through this proposed rule, the Agency 

is inviting individuals who need these 

import tolerances to identify themselves 

and the tolerances that are needed to 

cover imported commodities. 

Parties interested in retention of the 

tolerances should be aware that 

additional data may be needed to 

support retention. These parties should 

be aware that, under FFDCA section 

408(f), if the Agency determines that 

additional information is reasonably 

required to support the continuation of 

a tolerance, EPA may require that 

parties interested in maintaining the 

tolerances provide the necessary 

information. If the requisite information 

is not submitted, EPA may issue an 

order revoking the tolerance at issue. 

When EPA establishes tolerances for 

pesticide residues in or on raw 

agricultural commodities, consideration 

must be given to the possible residues 

of those chemicals in meat, milk, 

poultry, and/or eggs produced by 

animals that are fed agricultural 

products (for example, grain or hay) 

containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 

180.6). When considering this 

possibility, EPA can conclude that: 

1. Finite residues will exist in meat, 

milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 

2. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will exist. 

3. There is a reasonable expectation 

that finite residues will not exist. If 

there is no reasonable expectation of 

finite pesticide residues in or on meat, 

milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not 

need to be established for these 

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

EPA has evaluated certain specific 

meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances 

proposed for revocation in this 

document and has concluded that there 

is no reasonable expectation of finite 

pesticide residues of concern in or on 

those commodities. 

C. When Do These Actions Become 

Effective? 

EPA is proposing that the tolerance 

actions herein become effective on the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. The tolerances 

proposed for revocation in this 

document are associated with uses that 

have been canceled for several years and 

none of the other tolerance actions 

proposed herein are expected to result 

in adulterated commodities. The 

Agency believes that treated 

commodities have had sufficient time 

for passage through the channels of 

trade. However, if EPA is presented 

with information that existing stocks 

would still be available and that 

information is verified, the Agency will 

consider revising the expiration date of 

the tolerance in the final rule. If you 

have comments regarding existing 

stocks and whether the effective date 

allows sufficient time for treated 

commodities to clear the channels of 

trade, please submit comments as 

described under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposal treated with the pesticides 

subject to this proposal, and in the 

channels of trade following the 

tolerance revocations, shall be subject to 

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

by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6875 

of these pesticides in or on such food 

shall not render the food adulterated so 

long as it is shown to the satisfaction of 

the Food and Drug Administration that: 

1. The residue is present as the result 

of an application or use of the pesticide 

at a time and in a manner that was 

lawful under FIFRA, and 

2. The residue does not exceed the 

level that was authorized at the time of 

the application or use to be present on 

the food under a tolerance or exemption 

from a tolerance. Evidence to show that 

food was lawfully treated may include 

records that verify the dates when the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

III. Are the Proposed Actions 

Consistent with International 

Obligations? 

The tolerance actions in this proposal 

are not discriminatory and are designed 

to ensure that both domestically 

produced and imported foods meet the 

food safety standards established by 

FFDCA. The same food safety standards 

apply to domestically produced and 

imported foods. 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international Maximum Residue Limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius 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, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level in a notice 

published for public comment. EPA’s 

effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is 

summarized in the tolerance 

reassessment section of individual REDs 

and TREDs, and in the Residue 

Chemistry document which supports 

the RED and TRED, as mentioned in 

Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in 

this proposed rule and how they 

compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are 

discussed in Unit II.A. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to establish tolerances under 

FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify 

and revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions (e.g., establishment and 

modification of a tolerance and 

tolerance revocation for which 

extraordinary circumstances do not 

exist) from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed rule 

is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

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

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). Nor does it require any 

special considerations as required by 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994); or OMB review or 

any other Agency action under 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

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

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

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

previously assessed whether 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerances, raising of tolerance 

levels, expansion of exemptions, or 

revocations might significantly impact a 

substantial number of small entities and 

concluded that, as a general matter, 

these actions do not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These analyses 

for tolerance establishments and 

modifications, and for tolerance 

revocations were published on May 4, 

1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 

17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), 

respectively, and were provided to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Taking into 

account this analysis, and available 

information concerning the pesticides 

listed in this proposed rule, the Agency 

hereby certifies that this proposed rule 

will not have a significant negative 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In a 

memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA 

determined that eight conditions must 

all be satisfied in order for an import 

tolerance or tolerance exemption 

revocation to adversely affect a 

significant number of small entity 

importers, and that there is a negligible 

joint probability of all eight conditions 

holding simultaneously with respect to 

any particular revocation. (This Agency 

document is available in the docket of 

this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 

pesticide named in this proposed rule, 

the Agency knows of no extraordinary 

circumstances that exist as to the 

present proposal that would change 

EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments 

about the Agency’s determination 

should be submitted to EPA along with 

comments on the proposal, and will be 

addressed prior to issuing a final rule. 

In addition, the Agency has determined 

that this action will not have a 

substantial direct effect on States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This proposed 

rule directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal 

implications’’ as described in Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6876 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that 

have tribal implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 22, 2008. 

Marty Monell, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

2. Section 180.142 is amended by 

revising the entries for ‘‘Grape,’’ ‘‘Fruit, 

pome, group 11,’’ ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 

12,’’ and ‘‘Strawberry’’ in the table in 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

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

* * * * * 

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

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

* * * * * 

Strawberry ................................ 0.05 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

3. Section 180.185 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Vegetable, 

brassica, leafy, group 5’’ from the table 

in paragraph (d) and adding it 

alphabetically to the table in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows. 

§ 180.185 DCPA; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 .................................. 0.05 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

4. Section 180.204 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraphs (a) and 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.204 Dimethoate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Alfalfa, forage ........................... 2.0 

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

Bean, dry, seed ........................ 2.0 

Bean, lima ................................. 2.0 

Bean, snap, succulent .............. 2.0 

Blueberry1 ................................. 1.0 

Broccoli ..................................... 2.0 

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

Cauliflower ................................ 2.0 

Celery ....................................... 2.0 

Citrus, dried pulp ...................... 5.0 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.1 

Egg ........................................... 0.02 

Endive ....................................... 2.0 

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

Grapefruit .................................. 2.0 

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

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

Kale ........................................... 2.0 

Lemon ....................................... 2.0 

Lettuce, leaf .............................. 2.0 

Melon ........................................ 1.0 

Milk ........................................... 0.002 

Mustard greens ......................... 2.0 

Orange, sweet .......................... 2.0 

Pear .......................................... 2.0 

Pea ........................................... 2.0 

Pecan ........................................ 0.1 

Pepper ...................................... 2.0 

Potato ....................................... 0.2 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0.02 

Safflower, seed ......................... 0.1 

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

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 0.1 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.1 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0.1 

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

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

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

Swiss chard .............................. 2.0 

Tangerine .................................. 2.0 

Tomato ...................................... 2.0 

Turnip, tops ............................... 2.0 

Turnip, roots ............................. 0.2 

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

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.04 

Wheat, hay ............................... 2.0 

Wheat, straw ............................. 2.0 

1There are U.S. registrations as of August 

16, 1996. 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with regional 

registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are 

established for total residues of 

dimethoate including its oxygen analog 

in or on the following food 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Asparagus ................................. 0.15 

Brussels sprouts ....................... 5.0 

Cherry, sweet ........................... 2.0 

Cherry, tart ................................ 2.0 

* * * * * 

5. Section 180.206 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.206 Phorate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide phorate (O,O-diethyl 

S[(ethylthio) 

methyl]phosphorodithioate), phorate 

sulfoxide, phorate sulfone, phorate 

oxygen analog, phorate oxygen analog 

sulfoxide, and phorate oxygen analog 

sulfone in or on the following food 

commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Bean, dry, seed ........................ 0.05 

Bean, succulent ........................ 0.05 

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

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 3.0 

Coffee, green bean1 ................. 0.02 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 0.5 

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

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 0.5 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

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

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.05 

Hop, dried cones ...................... 2.0 

Peanut ...................................... 0.1 

Potato ....................................... 0.2 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.05 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0.1 

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

Sugarcane, cane ...................... 0.05 

Wheat, forage ........................... 1.5 

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

Wheat, hay ............................... 1.5 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.05 

1There are no U.S. registrations as of September 1, 1993, for the use of phorate on the 

growing crop, coffee. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 180.241 is amended by 

revising the heading and paragraphs (a) 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.241 Bensulide; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the residues of S-(O,Odiisopropyl phosphorodithioate) of NVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:31 Feb 05, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM 06FEP1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6877 

(2-mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide 

including its oxygen analog S-(O,Odiisopropylphosphorodithioate) of N-(2- 

mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide in 

or on the following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

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

Vegetable, brassica, leafy 

group 5 .................................. 0.15 

Vegetable, cucurbits group 9 ... 0.15 

Vegetable, fruiting group 8 ....... 0.10 

Vegetable, leafy except brassica group 4 .......................... 0.15 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. Tolerances with regional 

registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are 

established for the residues of S-(O,Odiisopropyl phosphorodithioate) of N- 

(2-mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide 

including its oxygen analog S-(O,Odiisopropylphosphorodithioate) of N-(2- 

mercaptoethyl) benzenesulfonamide in 

or on the following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Carrot, roots .............................. 0.10 

* * * * * 

7. Section 180.252 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§180.252 Tetrachlorvinphos; tolerances 

for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos ((Z)-2- 

chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl) vinyl 

dimethyl phosphate) and its 

metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)- 

ethanol (free and conjugated forms), 

2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and 1- 

(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol in/on 

the following food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date 

Cattle, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

0.2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Cattle, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

1.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Cattle, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

0.5 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Cattle, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

2.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Cattle, meat by products except kidney and liver 1.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Egg (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se) 

0.2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Hog, fat (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos 

per se) 

0.2 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Hog, kidney (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

1.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Hog, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

0.5 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Hog, meat (of which no more than 2.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

2.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Hog, meat byproducts except kidney and liver 1.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Milk, fat (reflecting negligible residues in whole milk and of 

which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

0.05 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Poultry, fat (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

7.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Poultry, liver (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

2.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Poultry, meat (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is 

tetrachlorvinphos per se) 

3.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

Poultry, meat byproducts except liver 2.0 [date 18 months from the date of Final tolerance publication] 

* * * * * 

8. Section 180.349 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and the table in 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.349 Fenamiphos; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the nematocide fenaminphos, (ethyl 3- 

methyl-4-(methylthio) phenyl (1- 

methylethyl) phosphoramidate, and its 

cholinesterase inhibiting metabolites 

ethyl 3-methyl-4-(methylsulfinyl) 

phenyl (1-methylethyl) 

phosphoramidate and ethyl 3-methyl-4- 

(methylsulfonyl) phenyl (1-methylethyl) 

phosporamidate in or on the following 

food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million Expiration/Revocation Date 

Apple ............................................................................................. 0.25 December 31, 2009 

Banana1 ........................................................................................ 0.10 None 

Brussels sprouts ........................................................................... 0.05 December 31, 2009 

Cabbage ....................................................................................... 0.10 December 31, 2009 

Cherry, sweet ................................................................................ 0.25 December 31, 2009 

Cherry, tart .................................................................................... 0.25 December 31, 2009 

Citrus, dried pulp .......................................................................... 2.5 None 

Citrus, oil ....................................................................................... 25.0 None 

Eggplant ........................................................................................ 0.05 December 31, 2009 

Fruit, citrus, group 101 .................................................................. 0.50 None 

Garlic1 ........................................................................................... 0.50 None 

Grape1 .......................................................................................... 0.10 None 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6878 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Commodity Parts per 

million Expiration/Revocation Date 

Grape, raisin ................................................................................. 0.30 None 

Okra .............................................................................................. 0.30 December 31, 2009 

Peach ............................................................................................ 0.25 December 31, 2009 

Peanut ........................................................................................... 1.0 December 31, 2009 

Pineapple1 .................................................................................... 0.30 None 

Raspberry ..................................................................................... 0.10 December 31, 2009 

Strawberry ..................................................................................... 0.60 December 31, 2009 

1There are no U.S. registrations as of December 31, 2009. 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrants. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Expiration/ 

Revocation 

Date 

Asparagus ..... 0.02 December 31, 

2009 

Beet, garden 

roots.

1.5 December 31, 

2009 

Beet, garden, 

tops.

1.0 December 31, 

2009 

Bok choy ....... 0.50 December 31, 

2009 

Kiwifruit .......... 0.10 December 31, 

2009 

Pepper, 

nonbell.

0.60 December 31, 

2009 

* * * * * 

9. Section 180.352 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.352 Terbufos; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for the combined residues of 

the insecticide terbufos 

(phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl ester) and 

its phosphorylated (cholinesteraseinhibiting) metabolites (phosphorothioic 

acid, S-(t-butylthio)methyl O,O-diethyl 

ester; phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

phosphorothioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfinyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester; 

and phosphorodithioic acid, S-(tbutylsulfonyl)methyl O,O-diethyl ester) 

in or on food commodities: 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Banana ..................................... 0.025 

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

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

Coffee, green bean1 ................. 0.05 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 0.5 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.5 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 0.5 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.5 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 0.5 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

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

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 0.5 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 0.5 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.05 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0.5 

1There are no U. S. registrations as of August 2, 1995, for the use of terbufos on the 

growing crop, coffee. 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

[Reserved] 

10. Section 180.353 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.353 Desmedipham; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. 

* * * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Beet, garden, roots ................... 0.05 

Beet, garden, tops .................... 1.0 

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

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 5.0 

Spinach ..................................... 6.0 

* * * * * 

11. Section 180.412 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.412 Sethoxydim; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Alfalfa, forage ........................... 40 

Alfalfa, hay ................................ 40 

Almond, hulls ............................ 2.0 

Apricot ....................................... 0.2 

Apple, wet pomace ................... 0.8 

Asparagus ................................. 4.0 

Bean, succulent ........................ 15 

Beet, sugar, molasses .............. 10 

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 3.0 

Blueberry .................................. 4.0 

Borage, meal ............................ 10 

Borage, seed ............................ 6.0 

Buckwheat, flour ....................... 25 

Buckwheat, grain ...................... 19 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Caneberry subgroup 13 A ........ 5.0 

Canola, meal ............................ 40 

Canola, seed ............................ 35 

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

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

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

Cherry, sweet ........................... 0.2 

Cherry, tart ................................ 0.2 

Citrus, dried pulp ...................... 1.5 

Clover, forage ........................... 35 

Clover, hay ............................... 55 

Coriander, leaves ..................... 4.0 

Corn, field, fodder ..................... 2.5 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.5 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 2.0 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 3.0 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husk removed ................ 0.4 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 3.5 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 5.0 

Cowpea, forage ........................ 15 

Cowpea, hay ............................. 50 

Cranberry .................................. 2.5 

Dillweed, fresh leaves .............. 10 

Egg ........................................... 2.0 

Flax, seed ................................. 5.0 

Fruit, citrus, group 10 ............... 0.5 

Fruit, pome, group 11 ............... 0.2 

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

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

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

Grape ........................................ 1.0 

Grape, raisin ............................. 2.0 

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

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

Hog, meat byproducts .............. 1.0 

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

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

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

Juneberry .................................. 5.0 

Lingonberry ............................... 5.0 

Milk ........................................... 0.5 

Nectarine .................................. 0.2 

Nut, tree, group 14 ................... 0.2 

Okra .......................................... 2.5 

Pea and bean, dried shelled, 

except soybean, subgroup 

6C .......................................... 25 

Pea, field, hay ........................... 40 

Pea, field, vines ........................ 20 

Pea, succulent .......................... 10 

Peach ........................................ 0.2 

Peanut ...................................... 25 

Peppermint, tops ...................... 30 

Pistachio ................................... 0.2 

Potato granules/flakes .............. 8.0 

Potato waste, processed .......... 8.0 

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

Poultry, meat ............................ 0.2 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 6879 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 2.0 

Radish, tops .............................. 4.5 

Rapeseed, meal ....................... 40 

Rapeseed, seed ....................... 35 

Safflower, seed ......................... 15 

Salal .......................................... 5.0 

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

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

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

Soybean, hay ............................ 10 

Soybean, seed .......................... 16 

Spearmint, tops ........................ 30 

Strawberry ................................ 10 

Sunflower, meal ........................ 20 

Sunflower, seed ........................ 7.0 

Turnip, tops ............................... 5.0 

Vegetable, brassica, leafy, 

group 5 .................................. 5.0 

Vegetable, bulb, group 3 .......... 1.0 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 .... 4.0 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 ...... 4.0 

Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 ......................... 4.0 

Vegetable, root and tuber, 

group 1 .................................. 4.0 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–2094 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WC Docket No. 07–245; FCC 07–187] 

Implementation of Section 224 of the 

Act; Amendment of the Commission’s 

Rules and Policies Governing Pole 

Attachments 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to amend its rules governing pole 

attachments, which are designed to 

ensure the attachment of facilities of 

cable television systems and 

telecommunications carriers to utility 

poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way 

(collectively, ‘‘pole attachments’’) at just 

and reasonable rates, terms and 

conditions. The Commission has 

received petitions for rulemaking from 

Fibertech Networks, LLC and United 

States Telecom Association seeking 

review of the current pole attachment 

rules, which petitioners and 

commenters claim are inadequate in 

scope or no longer accord with 

developing technology and business 

models. The Commission seeks to 

resolve questions regarding appropriate 

regulation of pole attachment rates, 

terms, and conditions of access. 

DATES: Comments are due March 7, 

2008 and Reply Comments are due 

March 24, 2008. Written comments on 

the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

April 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 07–245, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include 

the following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

Include the docket number in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. In addition to 

filing comments with the Secretary, a 

copy of any comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained 

herein should be submitted to the 

Federal Communications Commission 

via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to 

Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of 

Management and Budget, via e-mail to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via 

fax at 202–395–5167. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Reel, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–1580. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, contact Jerry R. Cowden at 

(202) 418–0447, or via the Internet at 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

Comments on or before March 7, 2008 

and Reply Comments on or before 

March 24, 2008. Comments may be filed 

using: (1) The Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the 

Federal Government’s eRulemaking 

Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 

May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS