Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0092-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Aldicarb, Atrazine, Cacodylic acid, Carbofuran, et al.; Proposed Tolerance Actions
Posted Date: 2003-07-16T04:00Z

41989
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Docket
No.
OW
 
2003
 
0002.
See
Unit
C
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
the
March
12,
2003,
Federal
Register
notice
for
the
proposed
rule
(
68
FR
11771
 
11772)
and
Unit
I.
B
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
the
March
12,
2003,
Federal
Register
notice
for
the
NODA
(
68
FR
11791
 
11792)
for
additional
ways
to
submit
comments
and
more
detailed
instructions.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
William
Telliard;
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
4303T);
Office
of
Science
and
Technology;
Office
of
Water;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
Ariel
Rios
Building;
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.;
Washington,
DC
20460,
or
call
(
202)
566
 
1061
or
E­
mail
at
telliard.
william@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

A.
Background
EPA's
method
detection
limit
(
MDL)
and
minimum
level
of
quantitation
(
ML)
are
used
to
define
analytical
method
(
test)
sensitivity
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
In
February
2003,
EPA's
Office
of
Water
completed
an
assessment
of
detection
and
quantitation
concepts
and
their
application
under
CWA
programs.
On
March
12,
2003,
EPA
published
a
document
(
68
FR
11791)
making
available
for
public
comment
an
assessment
document
entitled
``
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Concepts''
(
EPA
821
 
R
 
03
 
005,
February
2003).
On
the
same
date,
EPA
also
published
proposed
revisions
to
the
current
EPA
procedure
for
determining
test
sensitivity
under
EPA's
CWA
programs
(
available
at
40
CFR
part
136,
appendix
B)
(
68
FR
11770).
The
proposed
revisions
include
clarifications
and
improvements
based
on
the
assessment
of
the
MDL,
ML,
and
other
approaches
for
defining
test
sensitivity;
peer
review
of
the
assessment;
and
stakeholder
comments
on
the
existing
MDL
procedure.
The
120­
day
public
comment
periods
established
for
the
proposed
rule
and
NODA
were
scheduled
to
end
July
10,
2003.
EPA
received
a
request
to
extend
the
public
comment
for
the
proposed
rule
period
beyond
that
due
date.
In
order
to
give
the
public
enough
time
to
review
and
comment
on
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
reopening
the
comment
period
for
an
additional
30
days
to
August
15,
2003,
for
each
of
those
documents.
B.
Reopening
of
Comment
Period
This
document
reopens
the
public
comment
periods
established
in
the
Federal
Register
issued
on
March
12,
2003
(
68
FR
11770
and
68
FR
11791).
In
those
documents,
EPA
requested
public
comments
on
the
Agency's
proposed
rule
and
on
the
assessment
document
entitled
``
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Assessment
of
Detection
and
Quantitation
Concepts''
(
EPA
821
 
R
 
03
 
005,
February,
2003).
EPA
is
hereby
reopening
the
comment
periods
to
August
15,
2003.
To
submit
comments,
or
access
the
official
public
docket,
please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
sections
of
the
March
12,
2003
Federal
Register
actions
for
the
proposed
rule
(
68
FR
11771
 
11772)
and
the
NODA
(
68
FR
11791
 
11792).
If
you
have
questions,
consult
the
person
listed
under
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section
of
this
action.

Dated:
July
9,
2003.
G.
Tracy
Mehan,
III,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Water.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17875
Filed
7
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0092;
FRL
 
7301
 
5]

Aldicarb,
Atrazine,
Cacodylic
acid,
Carbofuran,
et
al.;
Proposed
Tolerance
Actions
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
document
proposes
to
revoke
specific
meat,
milk,
poultry,
and
egg
tolerances
for
residues
of
the
insecticides
aldicarb,
carbofuran,
diazinon,
and
dimethoate;
herbicides
atrazine,
metolachlor,
and
sodium
acifluorfen;
fungicides
fenarimol,
propiconazole,
and
thiophanate­
methyl;
and
the
defoliant
cacodylic
acid.
EPA
determined
that
there
are
no
reasonable
expectations
of
finite
residues
in
or
on
meat,
milk,
poultry,
or
eggs
for
the
aforementioned
pesticide
active
ingredients
and
that
these
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed.
Also,
this
document
proposes
to
modify
specific
fenarimol
tolerances.
The
regulatory
actions
proposed
in
this
document
contribute
toward
the
Agency's
tolerance
reassessment
requirements
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA)
section
408(
q),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
of
1996.
By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.
Because
all
the
tolerances
were
previously
reassessed,
no
reassessments
are
counted
here
toward
the
August
2006
review
deadline.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092,
must
be
received
on
or
before
September
15,
2003.

ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Joseph
Nevola,
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308
 
8037;
e­
mail
address:
nevola.
joseph@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

You
may
be
potentially
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer,
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Crop
production
(
NAICS
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAICS
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAICS
311)
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAICS
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.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41990
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
180
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr180_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
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.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB)
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41991
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA,
Attention:
Docket
ID
Number
OPP
 
2003
 
0092.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
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
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
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
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
copies
of
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate
that
you
provide.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternative
ways
to
improve
the
proposed
rule
or
collection
activity.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
document.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
be
sure
to
identify
the
docket
ID
number
assigned
to
this
action
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
You
may
also
provide
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation.
F.
What
Can
I
do
if
I
Wish
the
Agency
to
Maintain
a
Tolerance
that
the
Agency
Proposes
to
Revoke?
This
proposed
rule
provides
a
comment
period
of
60
days
for
any
person
to
state
an
interest
in
retaining
a
tolerance
proposed
for
revocation.
If
EPA
receives
a
comment
within
the
60
 
day
period
to
that
effect,
EPA
will
not
proceed
to
revoke
the
tolerance
immediately.
However,
EPA
will
take
steps
to
ensure
the
submission
of
any
needed
supporting
data
and
will
issue
an
order
in
the
Federal
Register
under
FFDCA
section
408(
f)
if
needed.
The
order
would
specify
data
needed
and
the
time
frames
for
its
submission,
and
would
require
that
within
90
days
some
person
or
persons
notify
EPA
that
they
will
submit
the
data.
If
the
data
are
not
submitted
as
required
in
the
order,
EPA
will
take
appropriate
action
under
FFDCA.
EPA
issues
a
final
rule
after
considering
comments
that
are
submitted
in
response
to
this
proposed
rule.
In
addition
to
submitting
comments
in
response
to
this
proposal,
you
may
also
submit
an
objection
at
the
time
of
the
final
rule.
If
you
fail
to
file
an
objection
to
the
final
rule
within
the
time
period
specified,
you
will
have
waived
the
right
to
raise
any
issues
resolved
in
the
final
rule.
After
the
specified
time,
issues
resolved
in
the
final
rule
cannot
be
raised
again
in
any
subsequent
proceedings.

II.
Background
A.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
specific
meat,
milk,
poultry,
and
egg
tolerances
for
residues
of
the
insecticides
aldicarb,
carbofuran,
diazinon,
and
dimethoate;
herbicides
atrazine,
metolachlor,
and
sodium
acifluorfen;
fungicides
fenarimol,
propiconazole,
and
thiophanate­
methyl;
and
the
defoliant
cacodylic
acid
because
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
in
or
on
the
commodities
associated
with
those
tolerances,
and
therefore
these
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed.
Also,
EPA
is
proposing
to
modify
specific
fenarimol
tolerances.
The
determinations
that
there
are
no
reasonable
expectations
of
finite
residues
for
the
tolerances
listed
in
this
document
were
made
based
on
feeding
studies
submitted
since
the
time
that
the
tolerances
were
originally
established.
These
feeding
studies
used
exaggerated
amounts
of
the
compound
and
did
not
show
measurable
residues
of
the
pesticides
tested.
The
Agency
originally
made
the
determination
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
for
the
pesticide
active
ingredient/
commodity
combinations
listed
in
this
proposal
in
memoranda
of
March
6,
2002;
March
25,
2002;
April
21,
2002;
July
1,
2002;
and
July
23,
2002.
Because
there
was
no
expectation
of
finite
residues,
in
subsequent
memoranda
of
May
3,
2002;
June
3,
2002;
July
11,
2002;
and
July
23,
2002,
the
Agency
declared
these
tolerances
as
safe
and
counted
these
tolerances
toward
meeting
the
tolerance
reassessment
requirements
listed
in
FFDCA
section
408(
q).
Copies
of
these
memoranda
can
be
found
in
the
public
docket
for
this
proposed
rule.
Because
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues,
under
40
CFR
180.6
the
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
the
FFDCA
and
can
be
proposed
for
revocation.
1.
Aldicarb.
Based
on
available
ruminant
feeding
and
storage
stability
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
aldicarb
and
its
carbamate
metabolites
in
milk
and
livestock
commodities.
The
associated
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.269
for
the
combined
residues
of
the
insecticide
and
nematocide
aldicarb
(
2­
methyl­
2­
(
methylthio)
propionaldehyde
O­
(
methylcarbamoyl)
oxime
and
its
cholinesterase­
inhibiting
metabolites
2­
methyl
2­(
methylsulfinyl)
propionaldehyde
O­(
methylcarbamoyl)
oxime
and
2­
methyl­
2­
(
methylsulfonyl)
propionaldehyde
O­(
methylcarbamoyl)
oxime
in
or
on
the
following:
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;
and
sheep,
fat;
sheep,
meat;
sheep,
meat
byproducts;
and
milk.
2.
Atrazine.
Based
on
available
ruminant
and
poultry
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
atrazine
in
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
hogs
and
poultry;
and
eggs.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.220
for
residues
of
the
herbicide
atrazine
in
or
on
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts;
and
egg.
3.
Cacodylic
acid
(
dimethylarsinic
acid).
Arsenic
is
ubiquitous
and
abundant
in
the
environment.
Studies
show
that
arsenicals
are
methylated
in
animals
to
potentially
significant
levels
of
dimethyl
arsonate.
Also,
available
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41992
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
data
show
that
background
levels
of
dimethyl
arsonate
(
cacodylate)
found
in
beef
tissues
and
milk
may
substantially
exceed
those
incurred
from
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden
from
ingestion
of
feed
stuffs
derived
from
raw
agricultural
commodities
treated
with
cacodylic
acid
at
the
maximum
supported
use
rates.
Based
on
all
these
data,
EPA
determined
that
tolerances
for
residues
of
cacodylic
acid
in
beef
tissues
and
milk
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.311
for
residues
of
the
defoliant
cacodylic
acid
(
dimethylarsinic
acid),
expressed
as
As2
O3,
in
or
on
cattle,
fat;
cattle,
kidney;
cattle,
liver;
cattle,
meat;
and
cattle
meat
byproducts
(
except
kidney
and
liver).
Furthermore,
in
order
to
conform
to
current
Agency
practice,
in
40
CFR
180.311,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
tolerance
commodity
terminology
for
``
cottonseed''
to
``
cotton,
undelinted
seed.''
4.
Carbofuran.
Based
on
available
dairy
cattle
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
carbofuran
and
its
metabolites
in
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses
and
sheep.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.254
for
the
combined
residues
of
the
insecticide
carbofuran
(
2,3­
dihydro­
2,2­
dimethyl­
7­
benzofuranyl­
Nmethylcarbamate
its
carbamate
metabolite
2,3­
dihydro­
2,2­
dimethyl­
3­
hydroxy­
7­
benzofuranyl­
Nmethylcarbamate
and
its
phenolic
metabolites
2,3­
dihydro­
2,
2­
dimethyl­
7­
benzofuranol,
2,3­
dihydro­
2,2­
dimethyl­
3,­
oxo­
7­
benzofuranol
and
2,3­
dihydro­
2,2­
dimethyl­
3,7­
benzofurandiol
in
or
on
the
following
commodities:
Cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat;
cattle
meat
byproducts;
goats,
fat;
goats,
meat;
goats,
meat
byproducts;
hogs,
fat;
hogs,
meat;
hogs,
meat
byproducts;
horses,
fat;
horses,
meat;
horses,
meat
byproducts;
sheep,
fat;
sheep,
meat;
and
sheep,
meat
byproducts.
5.
Diazinon.
Based
on
available
cattle
dermal
treatment
and
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
in
or
on
meat
and
meat
byproducts
from
the
registered
uses
of
cattle
ear
tags
or
from
consumption
of
diazinon­
treated
feed
items
by
cattle.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
A
tolerance
for
milk
is
not
required
as
long
as
the
ear
tag
labels
maintain
that
use
is
for
beef
cattle
and
non­
lactating
dairy
cattle,
only.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.153
for
residues
of
the
insecticide
diazinon
in
or
on
cattle,
meat
(
fat
basis)
(
PRE­
S
appli)
and
cattle,
meat
byproducts
(
fat
basis)
(
PRE­
S
appli).
6.
Dimethoate.
Metabolism
and
feeding
studies
in
ruminants
and
poultry
showed
no
detectable
residues
of
dimethoate
in
muscle,
fat,
kidney,
liver,
milk,
and
egg
samples.
However,
residues
of
omethoate,
its
oxygen
analog,
were
found
in
liver
and
egg
whites
samples
and
residues
of
dimethoate
carboxylic
acid
were
found
in
liver,
egg
whites,
and
milk
samples.
Based
on
these
available
ruminant
and
poultry
metabolism
and
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
concern
in
meat,
fat,
and
kidney
of
livestock
(
ruminants
and
poultry)
from
ingestion
of
dimethoate
treated
crop
and
feed
items.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.204
for
total
residues
of
the
insecticide
dimethoate
(
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­(
Nmethylcarbamoylmethyl
phosphorodithioate)
including
its
oxygen
analog
(
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­(
Nmethylcarbamoylmethyl
phosphorothioate)
in
or
on
the
following
commodities:
Cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat;
goat,
fat;
goat,
meat;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat;
horse,
fat;
horse,
meat;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
sheep,
fat;
and
sheep,
meat.
Use
of
dimethoate
on
other
commodities,
including
food
and
feed
commodities,
will
be
addressed
in
the
``
Report
on
FQPA
Tolerance
Reassessment
Progress
and
Interim
Risk
Management
Decision''
(
IRED),
which
EPA
will
complete
in
the
near
future.
Also,
EPA
is
proposing
in
40
CFR
180.204
to
remove
the
``(
N)''
designation
from
all
entries
to
conform
to
current
Agency
administrative
practice
(``(
N)''
designation
means
negligible
residues).
7.
Fenarimol.
Fenarimol
tolerances
were
reassessed
according
to
the
FQPA
standard
in
the
August
2002
``
Report
of
the
FQPA
Tolerance
Reassessment
Progress
and
Risk
Management
Decision
(
TRED)
for
Fenarimol.''
The
Agency
extrapolated
data
from
a
28
 
day
ruminant
feeding
study
of
exaggerated
dietary
burdens
to
the
1X
feeding
rate,
and
examined
the
expected
impact
of
the
average
theoretical
dietary
burden
from
wet
apple
pomace
(
calculated
using
Food
and
Drug
Administration
monitoring
data
for
apples).
Of
the
currently
registered
uses
of
fenarimol,
wet
apple
pomace
is
the
only
commodity
considered
a
livestock
feed
item.
(
Dry
apple
pomace
is
no
longer
considered
a
significant
feed
item).
For
cattle,
goats,
horses,
and
sheep,
the
Agency
concluded
from
monitoring,
feeding,
and
metabolism
data
that
tolerances
for
liver
should
be
effectively
decreased
from
0.1
to
0.05
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
and
tolerances
for
meat
byproducts
should
be
increased
from
0.01
to
0.05
ppm
based
on
the
highest
residue
found
on
an
organ
tissue;
i.
e.,
liver.
Because
both
liver
and
meat
byproduct
tolerances
were
reassessed
at
the
same
level
(
0.05
ppm)
for
cattle,
goats,
horses,
and
sheep,
the
Agency
recommended
covering
residues
in
liver
by
the
reassessed
tolerances
for
meat
byproducts,
revising
each
commodity
terminology
to
``
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney,''
and
revoking
existing
liver
tolerances
at
0.1
ppm
since
they
are
no
longer
needed.
EPA
issued
a
finding
in
this
TRED
that
these
revised
tolerances
are
safe,
as
required
by
section
408
of
FFDCA.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
separate
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.421
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
fenarimol
in
or
on
cattle,
liver;
goat,
liver;
horse,
liver;
and
sheep,
liver.
Also,
EPA
is
proposing
in
40
CFR
180.421
to
increase
the
tolerances
for
the
meat
byproducts
of
cattle,
goats,
horses,
and
sheep,
each
from
0.01
to
0.05
ppm,
and
to
revise
their
commodity
terminologies
to
cattle,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney;
goat,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney;
horse,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney;
and
sheep,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney.
Expected
fenarimol
residues
in
muscle,
fat
and
kidney
are
calculated
from
the
28
 
day
data
to
be
less
than
or
near
the
enforcement
method's
limit
of
detection
(
0.003
ppm).
Therefore,
the
Agency
concluded
that
for
muscle,
fat
and
kidney
of
ruminants
it
is
not
possible
to
establish
with
certainty
whether
finite
residues
will
be
incurred,
but
there
is
a
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
2).
While
EPA
reassessed
fenarimol
tolerances
for
cattle,
goats,
horses,
and
sheep
in
the
TRED,
including
meat,
kidney,
and
fat
tolerances
at
0.01
ppm,
the
method
limit
of
quantitation,
the
Agency
will
address
them
in
a
Federal
Register
document
to
be
published
in
the
near
future.
In
addition,
the
fenarimol
tolerance
for
milk
(
0.003
ppm)
should
be
revoked
because
residues
in
milk
for
dairy
cattle
are
predicted
to
be
significantly
less
than
the
enforcement
method's
limit
of
detection
(
0.001
ppm).
Based
on
the
available
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
fenarimol
in
milk
and
that
the
tolerance
is
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerance
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41993
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
in
40
CFR
180.421
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
fenarimol
in
milk.
Moreover,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
residue
transfer
to
livestock
commodities
via
consumption
of
fenarimol­
treated
crop
and
feed
items
because
no
feed
items
for
poultry
and
hogs
are
associated
with
active
fenarimol
registrations.
The
tolerances
for
eggs,
poultry,
and
hogs
are
no
longer
needed
and
should
be
revoked.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.421
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
fenarimol
in
or
on
the
following
commodities:
Hog,
fat;
hog,
kidney;
hog,
liver;
hog,
meat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts;
and
egg.
Furthermore,
in
order
to
conform
to
current
Agency
practice,
in
40
CFR
180.421,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revise
the
tolerance
commodity
terminology
for
``
pecans''
to
``
pecan.''
8.
Metolachlor.
Based
on
available
ruminant
feeding
data
and
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden
for
swine,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
metolachlor
and
its
metabolites
in
fat,
kidney,
liver,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
hogs.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.368
for
the
combined
residues
(
free
and
bound)
of
the
herbicide
metolachlor
[
2­
chloro­
N­(
2­
ethyl­
6­
methylphenyl)­
N­
(
2­
methoxy­
1­
methylethyl)
acetamide]
and
its
metabolites,
determined
as
the
derivatives,
2­[(
2­
ethyl­
6­
methylphenyl)
amino]­
1­
propanol
and
4­
(
2­
ethyl­
6­
methylphenyl)­
2­
hydroxy­
5­
methyl­
3­
morpholinone,
each
expressed
as
the
parent
compound,
in
or
on
hog,
fat;
hog,
kidney;
hog,
liver;
hog,
meat;
and
hog,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
and
liver.
9.
Propiconazole.
Based
on
available
poultry
metabolism
and
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
propiconazole
and
its
metabolites
(
determined
as
2,4­
dichlorobenzoic
acid)
in
poultry
muscle,
liver,
fat,
and
egg
samples
from
hens
fed
10X
the
maximum
theoretical
dietary
burden
for
poultry.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.434
for
the
combined
residues
of
the
fungicide
1­
[[
2­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
4­
propyl­
1,3­
dioxolan­
2­
yl]
methyl]­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole
and
its
metabolites
determined
as
2,4­
dichlorobenzoic
acid
and
expressed
as
parent
compound
in
or
on
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
kidney;
poultry,
liver;
poultry,
meat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
and
liver;
and
egg.
10.
Sodium
acifluorfen.
Label
restrictions
prohibit
use
of
sodium
acifluorfen­
treated
peanut
and
soybean
forage
or
hay
for
feed
and
grazing
livestock
on
these
treated
crops.
There
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
residues
being
transferred
to
livestock
commodities
via
consumption
of
feed
items
derived
from
crops
treated
with
sodium
acifluorfen
according
to
current
use
directions.
Based
on
the
registered
food/
feed
use
patterns,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
sodium
acifluorfen
and
its
metabolites
in
kidney
and
liver
of
cattle,
goats,
hogs,
horses,
and
sheep;
fat,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
poultry;
eggs,
and
milk.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.383
for
combined
residues
of
the
herbicide
sodium
salt
of
acifluorfen
(
sodium
5­[
2­
chloro­
4­
trifluoromethyl)
phenoxy]­
2­
nitrobenzoic
acid)
and
its
metabolites
(
the
corresponding
acid,
methyl
ester,
and
amino
analogues)
in
or
on
the
following
commodities:
Cattle,
kidney;
cattle,
liver;
goat,
kidney;
goat,
liver;
hog,
kidney;
hog,
liver;
horse,
kidney;
horse,
liver;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts;
sheep,
kidney;
sheep,
liver;
egg;
and
milk.
11.
Thiophanate­
methyl.
Based
on
available
ruminant
and
poultry
feeding
data,
EPA
determined
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
thiophanate­
methyl,
its
oxygen
analogue,
and
benzimidazole
metabolites
in
fat,
liver,
meat,
and
meat
byproducts
of
hogs
and
poultry.
These
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
under
40
CFR
180.6(
a)(
3).
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.371
for
residues
of
the
fungicide
thiophanate­
methyl
(
dimethyl[(
1,2­
phenylene)­
bis(
iminocarbonothioyl)]
bis
[
carbamate]),
its
oxygen
analogue
dimethyl­
4,4­
o­
phenylene
bis(
allophonate),
and
its
benzimidazolecontaining
metabolites
(
calculated
as
thiophanate­
methyl)
in
or
on
hog,
fat;
hog,
liver;
hog,
meat;
hog,
meat
byproducts,
except
liver;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
liver;
poultry,
meat;
and
poultry,
meat
byproducts,
except
liver.

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.
301
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
FQPA
of
1996,
Public
Law
104
 
170,
authorizes
the
establishment
of
tolerances,
exemptions
from
tolerance
requirements,
modifications
in
tolerances,
and
revocation
of
tolerances
for
residues
of
pesticide
chemicals
in
or
on
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
processed
foods
(
21
U.
S.
C.
346(
a)).
Without
a
tolerance
or
exemption,
food
containing
pesticide
residues
is
considered
to
be
unsafe
and
therefore
``
adulterated''
under
section
402(
a)
of
the
FFDCA.
Such
food
may
not
be
distributed
in
interstate
commerce
(
21
U.
S.
C.
331(
a)
and
342(
a)).
For
a
food­
use
pesticide
to
be
sold
and
distributed,
the
pesticide
must
not
only
have
appropriate
tolerances
under
the
FFDCA,
but
also
must
be
registered
under
FIFRA
(
7
U.
S.
C.
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.
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
pesticide
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
40
CFR
180.6(
c)).
EPA
has
evaluated
the
meat,
milk,
poultry,
and
egg
tolerances
proposed
for
revocation
in
this
proposed
rule
and
has
concluded
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues
of
the
listed
pesticide
active
ingredients
in
or
on
those
commodities.
Regarding
the
proposed
modification
of
fenarimol
tolerances,
EPA
is
required
to
determine
wheter
each
of
the
amended
tolerances
meets
the
safety
standards
under
the
FQPA.
A
safety
finding
determination
is
found
in
detail
in
the
August
2002
TRED
for
fenarimol.
An
electronic
copy
of
the
TRED
for
fenarimol
is
available
on
EPA's
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
reregistration/
status.
htm.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41994
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
C.
When
do
These
Actions
Become
Effective?

EPA
is
proposing
that
these
actions
become
effective
on
the
day
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
most
of
the
tolerances
herein
proposed
for
revocation
are
no
longer
needed,
based
on
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
pesticide
residues.
Therefore,
the
Agency
believes
that
this
revocation
date
allows
users
to
continue
utilizing
existing
pesticide
stocks
and
that
commodities
treated
with
these
pesticides
in
a
manner
that
is
lawful
under
FIFRA
will
continue
to
clear
the
channels
of
trade
since
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
finite
residues.
Also,
because
fenarimol
tolerances
for
liver,
when
revised
would
become
duplicates
covered
by
revised
``
meat
byproduct,
except
kidney''
tolerances,
they
are
no
longer
needed
as
separate
liver
tolerances.
In
addition,
because
the
modifications
to
increase
specific
fenarimol
tolerances
proposed
herein
are
safe,
as
required
by
section
408
of
FFDCA,
the
Agency
believes
that
these
modifications
become
effective
on
the
day
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
If
you
have
comments
regarding
the
effective
date,
please
submit
comments
as
described
under
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

D.
What
Is
the
Contribution
to
Tolerance
Reassessment?

By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.
As
of
July
2,
2003,
EPA
has
reassessed
over
6,510
tolerances.
This
document
proposes
to
revoke
a
total
of
105
tolerances,
all
of
which
were
previously
counted
as
reassessed.
Therefore,
none
are
counted
in
a
final
rule
toward
the
August
2006
review
deadline
of
FFDCA
section
408(
q),
as
amended
by
FQPA
in
1996.

III.
Are
The
Proposed
Actions
Consistent
with
International
Obligations?

The
tolerance
revocations
in
this
proposal
are
not
discriminatory
and
are
designed
to
ensure
that
both
domestically
produced
and
imported
foods
meet
the
food
safety
standards
established
by
the
FFDCA.
The
same
food
safety
standards
apply
to
domestically
produced
and
imported
foods.
EPA
is
working
to
ensure
that
the
U.
S.
tolerance
reassessment
program
under
FQPA
does
not
disrupt
international
trade.
EPA
considers
Codex
Maximum
Residue
Limits
(
MRLs)
in
setting
U.
S.
tolerances
and
in
reassessing
them.
MRLs
are
established
by
the
Codex
Committee
on
Pesticide
Residues,
a
committee
within
the
Codex
Alimentarius
Commission,
an
international
organization
formed
to
promote
the
coordination
of
international
food
standards.
It
is
EPA's
policy
to
harmonize
U.
S.
tolerances
with
Codex
MRLs
to
the
extent
possible,
provided
that
the
MRLs
achieve
the
level
of
protection
required
under
FFDCA.
EPA's
effort
to
harmonize
with
Codex
MRLs
is
summarized
in
the
tolerance
reassessment
section
of
individual
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
documents.
EPA
has
developed
guidance
concerning
submissions
for
import
tolerance
support
(
65
FR
35069,
June
1,
2000)
(
FRL
 
6559
 
3).
This
guidance
will
be
made
available
to
interested
persons.
Electronic
copies
are
available
on
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/.
On
the
Home
Page
select
``
Laws,
Regulations,
and
Dockets,''
then
select
``
Regulations
and
Proposed
Rules''
and
then
look
up
the
entry
for
this
document
under
``
Federal
Register
 
Environmental
Documents.''
You
can
also
go
directly
to
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
In
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
and
modify
specific
tolerances
established
under
FFDCA
section
408.
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
exempted
these
types
of
actions
(
i.
e.,
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
raising
of
tolerance
levels
or
revocations
of
tolerances
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
were
published
on
May
4,
1981
(
46
FR
24950)
and
on
December
17,
1997
(
62
FR
66020),
respectively,
and
were
provided
to
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration.
Taking
into
account
these
analyses,
and
the
fact
that
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
that
residues
of
the
pesticides
listed
in
this
proposed
rule
will
be
found
on
the
commodities
discussed
in
this
proposed
rule
(
so
that
the
lack
of
the
tolerance
could
not
prevent
sale
of
the
commodity),
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Furthermore,
for
the
pesticides
named
in
this
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
knows
of
no
extraordinary
circumstances
that
exist
as
to
the
present
proposed
revocations
that
would
change
EPA's
previous
analysis.
Any
comments
about
the
Agency's
determination
should
be
submitted
to
the
EPA
along
with
comments
on
the
proposal,
and
will
be
addressed
prior
to
issuing
a
final
rule.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
Federalism(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41995
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
proposed
rule
directly
regulates
growers,
food
processors,
food
handlers
and
food
retailers,
not
States.
This
action
does
not
alter
the
relationships
or
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
by
Congress
in
the
preemption
provisions
of
section
408(
n)(
4)
of
the
FFDCA.
For
these
same
reasons,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
have
any
``
tribal
implications''
as
described
in
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000).
Executive
Order
13175,
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
180
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Agricultural
commodities,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
June
17,
2003.

Martha
Monell,

Acting
Director,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

Therefore,
it
is
proposed
that
40
CFR
part
180
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),
346(
a)
and
371.
§
180.153
[
Amended]

2.
Section
180.153
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
cattle,
meat
(
fat
basis)
(
PRE­
S
appli)
and
cattle,
meat
byproducts
(
fat
basis)
(
PRE­
S
appli)
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1).

§
180.204
[
Amended]

3.
Section
180.204
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat;
goat,
fat;
goat,
meat;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat;
horse,
fat;
horse,
meat;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
sheep,
fat;
and
sheep,
meat
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a),
and
by
also
removing
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)
the
``(
N)''
designation
from
any
entry
where
it
appears.

§
180.220
[
Amended]

4.
Section
180.220
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
egg;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
hog,
meat;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts;
and
poultry,
meat
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1).

§
180.254
[
Amended]

5.
Section
180.254
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat;
cattle,
meat
byproducts;
goat,
fat;
goat,
meat;
goat,
meat
byproducts;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
horse,
fat;
horse,
meat;
horse,
meat
byproducts;
sheep,
fat;
sheep,
meat;
and
sheep,
meat
byproducts
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a).

§
180.269
[
Amended]

6.
Section
180.269
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat
byproducts;
cattle,
meat;
goat,
fat;
goat,
meat
byproducts;
goat,
meat;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
hog,
meat;
horse,
fat;
horse,
meat
byproducts;
horse,
meat;
sheep,
fat;
sheep,
meat
byproducts;
sheep,
meat;
and
milk
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a).
7.
Section
180.311
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.311
Cacodylic
acid;
tolerances
for
residues.

(
a)
General.
Tolerances
are
established
for
residues
of
the
defoliant
cacodylic
acid
(
dimethylarsinic
acid),
expressed
as
As2
O3,
in
or
on
the
following
raw
agricultural
commodity
as
follows:

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Cotton,
undelinted
seed
2.8
(
b)
Section
18
emergency
exemptions.
[
Reserved]
(
c)
Tolerances
with
regional
registrations.
[
Reserved]
(
d)
Indirect
or
inadvertent
residues.
[
Reserved]

§
180.368
[
Amended]

8.
Section
180.368
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
hog,
fat;
hog,
kidney;
hog,
liver;
hog,
meat;
and
hog,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
and
liver
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a).

§
180.371
[
Amended]

9.
Section
180.371
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
hog,
fat;
hog,
liver;
hog,
meat
byproducts,
except
liver;
hog,
meat;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
liver;
poultry,
meat
byproducts,
except
liver;
and
poultry,
meat
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a).
10.
Section
180.383
is
amended
by
revising
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.383
Sodium
salt
of
acifluorfen;
tolerances
for
residues.

(
a)
*
*
*

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Peanut
............................
0.1
Rice,
grain
......................
0.1
Rice,
straw
......................
0.1
Soybean
..........................
0.1
Strawberry
......................
0.05
*
*
*
*
*
11.
Section
180.421
is
amended
by
revising
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.421
Fenarimol;
tolerances
for
residues.

(
a)
General.
(
1)
*
*
*

Commodity
Parts
per
million
Apple
...............................
0.1
Apple,
dry
pomace
.........
2.0
Apple,
wet
pomace
.........
2.0
Cattle,
fat
........................
0.1
Cattle,
kidney
..................
0.1
Cattle,
meat
....................
0.01
Cattle,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
..............
0.05
Goat,
fat
..........................
0.1
Goat,
kidney
...................
0.1
Goat,
meat
......................
0.01
Goat,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
..............
0.05
Horse,
fat
........................
0.1
Horse,
kidney
..................
0.1
Horse,
meat
....................
0.01
Horse,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
..............
0.05
Pear
................................
0.1
Pecan
..............................
0.1
Sheep,
fat
.......................
0.1
Sheep,
kidney
.................
0.1
Sheep,
meat
...................
0.01
Sheep,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
..............
0.05
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1
41996
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
136
/
Wednesday,
July
16,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
§
180.434
[
Amended]

12.
Section
180.434
is
amended
by
removing
the
entries
for
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
kidney;
poultry,
liver;
poultry,
meat
byproducts,
except
kidney
and
liver;
poultry,
meat;
and
egg
from
the
table
in
paragraph
(
a).
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17730
Filed
7
 
15
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47
CFR
Part
54
[
CC
Docket
No.
96
 
45;
FCC
03
 
115]

Federal­
State
Joint
Board
on
Universal
Service;
Promoting
Deployment
and
Subscribership
in
Unserved
and
Underserved
Areas,
Including
Tribal
and
Insular
Areas
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
document
is
being
issued
in
order
to
ensure
that
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
support
is
targeted
to
the
most
underserved
segments
of
our
Nation.
The
Commission
sought
comment
on
the
same
questions
present
herein
in
the
Tribal
Stay
Order
and
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking.
This
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
seeks
to
bolster
the
record
on
how
to
define
the
geographic
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
reservations
or
are
otherwise
part
of
the
reservation's
community
of
interest,
in
a
manner
that
is
consistent
with
our
goal
of
targeting
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
support
to
the
most
underserved
segments
of
the
Nation.
DATES:
Comments
are
due
on
or
before
August
15,
2003.
Reply
comments
are
due
on
or
before
September
2,
2003.
Written
comments
by
the
public
on
the
proposed
information
collections
are
due
on
or
before
September
2,
2003.
Written
comments
must
be
submitted
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
on
the
proposed
information
collections
on
or
before
September
15,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
All
filings
must
be
sent
to
the
Commission's
Secretary,
William
F.
Caton,
Office
of
the
Secretary,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20554.
In
addition
to
filing
comments
with
the
Secretary,
a
copy
of
any
comments
on
the
information
collection(
s)
contained
herein
should
be
submitted
to
Judy
Boley,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Room
1
 
C804,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20554,
or
via
the
Internet
to
jboley@
fcc.
gov
and
to
Edward
C.
Springer,
OMB
Desk
Officer,
10236
NEOB,
725
17th
Street,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
or
via
the
Internet
to
vhuth@
omb.
eop.
gov.
See
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
for
further
filing
instructions.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Shannon
Lipp,
Attorney,
Telecommunications
Access
Policy
Division,
Wireline
Competition
Bureau,
(
202)
418
 
7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
is
a
summary
of
the
Commission's
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
FNPRM)
in
CC
Docket
No.
96
 
45,
FCC
03
 
115,
released
on
May
21,
2003.
This
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
was
also
released
with
a
companion
Order
on
Reconsideration
and
Report
and
Order
(
Order).
The
full
text
of
this
document
is
available
for
public
inspection
during
regular
business
hours
in
the
FCC
Reference
Center,
Room
CY
 
A257,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC,
20554.

I.
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
1.
In
this
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
FNPRM),
we
seek
further
comment
on
potential
modifications
to
our
rules
regarding
availability
of
enhanced
Federal
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
assistance
to
qualifying
low­
income
consumers
living
``
near
reservations.''

A.
Discussion
2.
We
seek
further
comment
on
the
proposals
in
the
record
to
identify
geographic
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
the
reservations,
consistent
with
the
goal
of
targeting
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
to
the
most
underserved
areas
of
the
Nation.
As
set
forth
in
the
Tribal
Stay
and
Order,
65
FR
58721,
October
2,
2000,
the
term
``
near
reservation,''
as
defined
by
BIA
at
the
time
of
adoption
of
the
Twelfth
Report
and
Order
and
Further
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
65
FR
47941,
August
4,
2000,
and
codified
in
our
rules
in
this
Order,
includes
wide
geographic
areas
that
do
not
possess
the
same
characteristics
that
warrant
the
targeting
of
support
to
reservations,
such
as
geographic
isolation,
high
rates
of
poverty,
and
low
telephone
subscribership.
As
several
commenters
note,
this
definition
of
``
near
reservation''
incorporates
many
highly
populated,
urban
areas
across
the
Nation,
including
major
cities
such
as
Phoenix,
Sacramento,
Seattle,
and
Las
Vegas.
As
set
forth
in
the
Tribal
Stay
and
Order,
we
continue
to
find
that
using
this
definition
of
``
near
reservation''
will
not
target
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
appropriately.
3.
We
issue
this
FNPRM
to
obtain
more
detailed
information
on
proposals
contained
in
the
current
record,
as
well
as
additional
proposals
that
may
be
more
consistent
with
our
goal
of
targeting
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
support
to
only
the
most
underserved
areas
of
our
Nation
and
that
may
impose
fewer
administrative
burdens.
For
instance,
USCC
recommends
excluding
major
metropolitan
areas
from
the
enhanced
low­
income
programs
by
excluding
Consolidated
Metropolitan
Statistical
Areas
(
CMSAs)
from
receiving
enhanced
low­
income
support.
Washington
UTC
suggests
that
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
support
be
provided
in
the
entirety
of
any
telephone
exchange
that
contains
all
or
any
portion
of
a
tribal
reservation.
In
addition,
Smith
Bagley,
Inc.
(
SBI)
proposes
that
a
person
qualify
for
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
benefits
if
he
or
she
resides
within
50
miles
of
a
recognized
Native
American
reservation
and
in
a
county
that
has
a
population
density
of
no
more
than
50
persons
per
square
mile.
4.
We
seek
comment
on
data
that
addresses
whether
these
proposed
target
areas
share
the
same
characteristics
of
reservation
areas.
For
example,
SBI
fails
to
explain
why
it
recommends
choosing
a
population
density
of
50
persons
per
square
mile.
We
seek
record
support
regarding
these
issues.
Moreover,
the
proposals
of
USCC,
Washington
UTC,
and
SBI
may
not
adequately
ensure
that
the
enhanced
Lifeline
and
Link­
Up
support
mechanisms
are
targeted
only
to
those
areas
that
share
the
same
attributes
as
reservations.
For
example,
we
believe
that
these
proposals
may
not
exclude
large
cities
from
the
definition
of
``
near
reservation.''
We
seek
comment
on
how
these
proposals
may
be
tailored
to
exclude
such
large
cities.
5.
We
seek
comment
on
how
to
minimize
any
administrative
burdens
raised
by
these
proposals.
For
example,
SBI
proposes
that
the
Commission
produce
and
distribute
maps
outlining
all
areas
that
are
within
a
50
mile
radius
of
a
reservation
in
which
the
county
contains
less
than
50
persons
per
square
mile.
We
believe
that
the
Commission
may
not
be
the
appropriate
entity
to
undertake
such
tasks
because
it
has
no
particular
expertise
with
regard
to
such
mapmaking.
In
addition,
we
are
not
aware
of
any
current
map
that
contains
all
reservations
as
defined
by
the
Commission.
We
seek
comment
on
alternative
sources
for
such
maps.
We
seek
comment
on
the
feasibility
of
having
prospective
ETCs
bear
the
cost
and
burden
of
producing
their
own
maps
showing
the
areas
in
which
they
request
ETC
designation.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
20
Jul
15,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16JYP1.
SGM
16JYP1