Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, Lindane, Propachlor, and Simazine; Proposed Tolerance Actions (Note to public 6/13/07:  Due to a printing problem, do not view the PDF file; information missing.  Utilize the HTML text file only)
Posted Date: 2007-06-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 32570-32582]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-20]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187; FRL-8133-3]

 
Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, Lindane, Propachlor, and 
Simazine; Proposed Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the 
insecticides amitraz and lindane; the herbicides atrazine, propachlor, 
and simazine; the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide 
ferbam. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the 
herbicide atrazine, propachlor, and simazine; the insecticide amitraz; 
the plant growth regulator ethephon; and the fungicide ferbam. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to establish new tolerances for the 
herbicide atrazine; the plant growth regulator ethephon. 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 August 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187, 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 
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The 
Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0187. EPA's policy is that all comments 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 e-
mail. The Federal 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 web 
site 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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 
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monisha Dandridge, Special Review and 
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0410; e-mail 
address: dandridge.monisha@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.

[[Page 32571]]

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 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, remove, modify, and establish specific 
tolerances for residues of Amitraz, Atrazine, Ethephon, Ferbam, 
Lindane, Propachlor, and Simazine 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 the 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 1-800-490-9198; 
fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from 

the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or 703-605-6000; 
internet at http://www.ntis.gov/. Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs 

are available on the internet for amitraz, atrazine, ethephon, ferbam, 
lindane, propachlor, and simazine and in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-
2004-0048 (amitraz), EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0367 (atrazine), EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-
0371 (ethephon), EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0337 (ferbam), EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0005 
(lindane) and EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0151 (simazine), respectively 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 and (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 and paper copies for amitraz, ferbam, lindane and simazine can 
be found under their respective public docket numbers, identified 
above. Paper copies for atrazine, ethephon and propachlor are

[[Page 32572]]

available in the public docket for this proposed rule. 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 number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0187, then click on that docket 
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 they are either no longer needed or are associated with food 
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Registrations were 
canceled 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. Amitraz. According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which 
is currently expressed as ``residues of the insecticide amitraz (N'-
[2,4-dimethylphenyl]-N-[[(2,4-dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]-N-
methylmethanimidamide) and its metabolites N-(2,4-dimethylphenyl)-N- 
methyl formamide and N-(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl)-N-methylmethanimidamide 
(both calculated as the parent) in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities (RAC) at the following levels'' in 40 CFR 180.287 should be 
modified. EPA has determined that there is no need to require residue 
data for 2,4-dimethylaniline because the current analytical enforcement 
methods detect all residues containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety. 
The tolerance expression should specify that the terminal residues of 
concern for enforcement purposes are amitraz and its metabolites 
containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing that the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.287(a) read as 
follows: ``(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
insecticide amitraz (N'-[2,4-dimethylphenyl]-N- [[(2,4-
dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]-N-methylmethanimidamide) and its 
metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated as 
the parent) in or on food commodities, as follows:''.
    All registered uses of amitraz in beehives have been cancelled and 
therefore, the Agency determined that the tolerances on honey and 
honeycomb are no longer needed and should be revoked. Consequently, EPA 
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.287(a) for residues 
of amitraz and its metabolites in or on ``honey'' and ``honeycomb.''
    There have been no active U.S. registrations for use of amitraz on 
cotton since May 3, 2006. However, Arysta Life Sciences requested that 
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.287 on cotton, undelinted seed be retained 
for import purposes. EPA requires that Arysta Life Sciences submit 
information to the Agency about the use pattern in foreign countries 
and residue data from those countries to support the import tolerance. 
Certain tolerances were based on cotton as a livestock feed item; 
however there will no longer be any dietary exposure of livestock to 
amitraz through feed. Since cotton gin byproducts or cotton gin trash 
are not allowed to be fed to livestock in Europe, EPA does not expect 
imported meat to have secondary residues of amitraz. And although 
cottonseed is imported from Australia, U.S. production of cotton is 
about 55x greater than that produced in Australia. Therefore, even if 
such imported cottonseed were fed to animals, the contributions to the 
diet will be insignificant when compared with direct dermal treatment 
of amitraz to cattle and hogs. Consequently, the tolerances for egg, 
poultry, goat, and sheep commodities should be revoked. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to revoke the commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.287(a) 
for residues of amitraz and its metabolites in or on ``egg;'' ``goat, 
fat;'' ``goat, meat byproducts;'' ``goat, meat;'' ``poultry fat/meat;'' 
``poultry, meat byproducts;'' ``sheep, fat;'' ``sheep, meat 
byproducts;'' and ``sheep, meat.''
    For adults, acute dietary risks from use of amitraz on hops, for 
which an import tolerance exists on dried hops, exceed the Agency's 
level of concern. The Agency's assessment concluded that the acute 
dietary risk is driven by the contribution of hops, and the acute 
dietary exposure estimate for adults 20 to 49 years old is 582% of the 
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) at the 99.9th percentile. The 
Agency has evaluated the human health risks associated with all 
currently registered uses of amitraz and has determined that there is 
reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will 
result from aggregate non-occupational exposure to amitraz provided the 
tolerance for residues in or on hops is revoked and the registrant 
implements the mitigation measures identified in the RED, i.e., to 
reduce exposure from residential use; the registrant has agreed to 
reduce the amount of active ingredient in dog collars. Provided that 
mitigation measures in the RED are implemented and the tolerance on 
hops, dried cones is revoked, EPA is able to conclude that risk from 
exposure to amitraz fits within its own risk cup such that the 
tolerances for amitraz meet the FQPA safety standard. Therefore, under 
FFDCA section 408(e)(1), EPA is proposing to revoke the import 
tolerance in or on hop, dried cones in 40 CFR 180.287(a) because it 
does not meet requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
    Currently, direct animal treatments of amitraz are registered for 
use on cattle and hogs. Based on the available data following dermal 
treatment and a 3-day pre-slaughter interval on cattle with amitraz 
which show combined amitraz residues of concern are as high as 0.09 ppm 
in fat, 0.02 ppm in muscle, and range from 0.08 to 0.21 ppm in kidney 
and liver, the Agency determined that the tolerances should be 
decreased on cattle, meat from 0.05 to 0.02 ppm, cattle, meat 
byproducts from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm and cattle, fat should remain unchanged 
at 0.1 ppm. Based on available data following dermal treatment of swine 
with amitraz which show combined amitraz residues of concern in liver 
and kidney as high as 0.05 ppm and 0.07 ppm, respectively, the Agency 
determined that the tolerances on hog, liver and hog, kidney should be 
decreased, from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 
180.287(a) to decrease the tolerances for ``cattle, meat byproducts'' 
from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm; ``cattle, meat'' from 0.05 to 0.02 ppm; ``hog, 
kidney'' from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm; ``hog, liver'' from 0.2 to

[[Page 32573]]

0.1 ppm; and ``milk, fat'' from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm.
    2. Atrazine. Currently the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 
180.220(a)(1) is expressed in terms of residues of atrazine and in 
paragraph (a)(2) in terms of combined residues of atrazine and its 
metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-
6-isopropylamino-s-triazine, and 2-chloro-4,6-diamino-s-triazine. 
Because EPA considers residues of chlorinated metabolites of atrazine 
in both animal and plant commodities to be of toxicological concern, 
the Agency has determined that atrazine and its chlorinated metabolites 
(2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-
isopropylamino-s-triazine, and 2-chloro-4,6-diamino-s-triazine) should 
be included in the tolerance expression. Therefore, EPA proposes 
revising 40 CFR 180.220(a) by combining 40 CFR 180.220(a)(1) and (a)(2) 
into 40 CFR 180.220(a). Also, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance 
expression in proposed recodified Sec.  180.220(a) as follows: ``(a) 
General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the 
herbicide atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine) 
and its chlorinated metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-isopropylamino-s-
triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, and 2,4-diamino-6-
chloro-s-triazine, in or on food commodities as follows:''.
    Currently, there is only one active registration for use of 
atrazine on perennial rye grass and that use is restricted to the 
Conservation Reserve Program lands in OK, OR, NE, and TX, and along 
roadsides in CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, and WY. Because the label 
restricts grazing and cutting for feed, the Agency has determined that 
the tolerance on perennial rye grass is no longer needed and should be 
revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 
proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for the combined residues of 
atrazine in or on rye grass, perennial at 15 ppm.
    Because of the limited acreage, timing of application, restrictions 
on the use of range grasses for animal feeds, and the dominance of corn 
as a feed item, range grasses are not expected to impact either the 
livestock diet or the risk estimates significantly, and consequently 
were not included in the dietary exposure assessments. Currently, there 
are active registrations for atrazine use on range grass. Because the 
registrant has recently submitted new data to the Agency in support of 
a group tolerance and the range grass use has feeding and grazing 
restrictions on product labels, the Agency will maintain the existing 
tolerance. The Agency made a safety finding that atrazine tolerances 
are safe. Consequently, EPA will not take action to revoke the 
tolerance for atrazine in 40 CFR 180.220 on range grass at this time. 
However, in order to reflect current Agency practice the terminology 
should be revised to read grass, forage and grass, hay. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to revise commodity terminology in proposed recodified 40 
CFR 180.220(a) to conform to current Agency practice as follows: 
``grass, range'' will be revised to read both ``grass, forage'' and 
``grass, hay.''
    Because EPA no longer considers sugarcane fodder and forage to be 
significant livestock feed items their tolerances are no longer needed 
and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to 
revoke the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for 
sugarcane, fodder and sugarcane, forage. EPA's listing of significant 
food and feed commodities (raw and processed) can be found in Table 1 
of Guideline OPPTS 860.1000 (available at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/
).

    Based on available field trial data that showed combined atrazine 
residues of concern were as high as 0.27 ppm to 1.59 ppm in or on corn, 
field, stover and corn, sweet, stover, respectively, the Agency 
determined that the tolerances on corn, pop, stover; corn, fodder, 
field; and corn, sweet, stover should be decreased from 15 to 0.5 ppm, 
15 to 0.5 ppm, and 15 to 2.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to decrease the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 
180.220(a) on ``corn, pop, stover'' to 0.5 ppm; ``corn, fodder, field'' 
to 0.5 ppm and to revise the commodity terminology to ``corn, field, 
stover;'' and ``corn, sweet, stover'' to 2.0 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern 
as high as 15 ppm on corn, pop, forage, the Agency determined that the 
tolerance on corn, pop, forage should be decreased from 15 to 1.5 ppm. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in proposed 
recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) on ``corn, pop, forage'' to 1.5 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed combined atrazine 
residues of concern were less than 0.2 ppm (less than the combined 
Limit of Quantitation (LOQs) for atrazine and its chlorometabolites) in 
or on field corn grain and sweet corn grain, the Agency determined that 
the tolerances on field corn grain and sweet corn grain should each be 
decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
decrease the tolerances in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) from 
0.25 to 0.20 ppm for ``corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks 
removed'' and ``corn, grain'' and revise the terminology to ``corn, 
field, grain'' and ``corn, pop, grain.''
    Based on available data that indicate combined atrazine residues of 
concern were as high as < 0.05 ppm in or on macadamia nuts, the Agency 
determined that the tolerance should be decreased to 0.20 ppm. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in proposed 
recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for combined residues of atrazine in or on 
``nut, macadamia'' from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that indicate the combined 
atrazine residues of concern as high as 0.20 ppm in or on grain 
sorghum, and 0.23 ppm in or on sorghum stover, the Agency determined 
the tolerances should be decreased to 0.20 ppm in or on sorghum, grain; 
grain; and 0.50 ppm in or on sorghum, stover. EPA is also revising the 
commodity terminology to reflect current Agency practice. Therefore, 
EPA proposes decreasing and revising the tolerances in proposed 
recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) for the combined residues of atrazine in 
or on ``sorghum, grain'' at 0.25 ppm to ``sorghum, grain, grain'' at 
0.20 ppm and ``sorghum, fodder'' at 15 ppm to 0.50 ppm.
    Based on field trial data (at 0.8-2x application rate) that show 
combined atrazine residues of concern as high as < 0.20 ppm in or on 
sugarcane, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be decreased 
to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerance in 
proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) on sugarcane, cane from 0.25 to 
0.20 ppm.
    Based on field trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern 
as high as 0.06 ppm on wheat grain and 0.34 ppm on wheat straw, EPA 
determined that the tolerances on wheat grain and wheat straw should be 
decreased from 0.25 to 0.1 ppm and from 5.0 to 0.5 ppm, respectively. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220(a) to 
decrease the tolerances on wheat, grain to 0.1 ppm and wheat, straw to 
0.5 ppm.
    In the atrazine RED, the Agency recommends revising the tolerance 
at 5 ppm on wheat, fodder to wheat, forage and decreasing that 
tolerance to 1.5 ppm. The Agency believes that a clearer recommendation 
should have been to establish a tolerance on wheat forage at 1.5 ppm 
and revise the commodity terminology for the tolerance at 5 ppm on 
wheat, fodder to ``wheat, hay.'' Based on field trial data that showed 
atrazine

[[Page 32574]]

residues of concern as high as 1.11 ppm on wheat forage, EPA determined 
that a tolerance on wheat forage should exist at 1.5 ppm. Nevertheless, 
sometime between July 1, 2002 and July 1, 2003, the tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.220 at 5 ppm on wheat, fodder underwent a revision in nomenclature 
to ``wheat, straw,'' which resulted in two tolerances on wheat straw, 
both at 5 ppm. Because there is already a tolerance on wheat straw in 
40 CFR 180.220 (see above proposal to decrease the tolerance on wheat 
straw to 0.5 ppm, which is considered by the Agency to be the 
appropriate level based on data), the duplicate wheat straw tolerance 
should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.220 to 
revoke the duplicate tolerance on wheat, straw and establish a 
tolerance on wheat, forage at 1.5 ppm. In addition, based on field 
trial data that showed atrazine residues of concern as high as 1.11 ppm 
on wheat forage and adjusting for the difference in dry matter between 
hay and forage (88% vs. 25%), the Agency expects combined residues of 
about 3.9 ppm on wheat hay and therefore determined that a tolerance 
should be established on wheat hay at 5.0 ppm. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.220(a) on wheat, hay 
at 5.0 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that indicate combined atrazine 
residues of concern as high as 0.20 ppm in or on sorghum forage, the 
Agency determined the tolerances should be decreased to 0.25 ppm and 
revise the terminology to read sorghum, grain, forage and sorghum, 
forage, forage. However, that recommended tolerance level reduction is 
based on label restrictions which require that all atrazine labels with 
postemergent sorghum uses have a minimum PHI of 45 days, and 
preemergent sorghum uses have a minimum PHI of 60 days. In addition, 
available field trial data indicate that combined atrazine residues of 
concern as high as 1.11 ppm and 1.15 ppm in or on corn field forage and 
corn sweet forage respectively, based on atrazine labels for 
postemergent and preemergent field corn use which require a minimum PHI 
of 60-days and a PHI of 45 days for sweet corn use, EPA has determined 
that these tolerances should be decreased from 15 to 1.5 ppm. After EPA 
has confirmed that active registrations for the use of atrazine on 
field and sweet corn forage and sorghum forage have been amended to 
reflect the appropriate pre-harvest intervals (PHIs), the Agency will 
take action to modify tolerances on field and sweet corn forage; 
sorghum forage; milk, and the fat, meat and meat byproducts of cattle, 
goats, horses, and sheep in proposed recodified 40 CFR 180.220. 
Therefore, EPA will not take action on these tolerances at this time, 
but will follow-up with the registrants and address the tolerances, if 
needed, in a future publication in the Federal Register. However, EPA 
is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.220(a) to 
conform to current Agency practice as follows: ``sorghum, forage'' to 
``sorghum, grain, forage'' and ``sorghum, forage, forage.''
    3. Ethephon. Because there have been no registered uses of ethephon 
on cranberries and figs since January 1991, the Agency determined that 
the tolerances are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on 
``cranberry'' and ``fig.''
    Based on available processing data which show that residues of 
ethephon do not concentrate in or on pearled barley, EPA determined 
that the tolerance is no longer needed, and therefore should be 
revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 
CFR 180.300(a) on ``barley, pearled barley.''
    Because active registrations with use for ethephon on pumpkins 
prohibit harvesting for human or animal consumption and limit use to 
seed production only, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on 
pumpkin is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the 
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on ``pumpkin.''
    Based on the Maximum Theoretical Dietary Burden (MTDB) for dairy 
cattle and available ruminant feeding data (0.93x), ethephon residues 
in the milk, fat, meat, kidney, and liver of cattle were expected by 
the Agency (at 1x MTDB) to be as high as 0.008 ppm, 0.108 ppm, 0.017 
ppm, 0.686 ppm, and 0.102 ppm, respectively. Therefore, tolerances on 
the fat and meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be 
decreased from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm; tolerances on meat byproducts of 
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should be separated into ``meat 
byproducts, except kidney,'' and ``kidney,'' and the tolerances on meat 
byproducts, except kidney should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm and 
tolerances on kidney should be increased from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm; and the 
tolerance on milk should be decreased from 0.1 to 0.01 ppm.
    Consequently, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.300(a) to change some 
commodity terminology by revising the terminology ``cattle, meat 
byproducts;'' ``goat, meat byproducts;'' ``hog, meat byproducts;'' 
``horse, meat byproducts;'' and ``sheep, meat byproducts'' to read 
``cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney;'' ``cattle, kidney;'' ``goat, 
meat byproducts, except kidney;'' ``goat, kidney;'' ``hog, meat 
byproducts, except kidney;'' ``hog, kidney;'' ``horse, meat byproducts, 
except kidney;'' ``horse, kidney'' and ``sheep, meat byproducts, except 
kidney;'' and ``sheep, kidney;'' respectively.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to decrease tolerances on 
``cattle,fat;'' ``cattle, meat;'' ``goat, fat;'' ``goat, meat;'' ``hog, 
fat;'' ``hog, meat;'' ``horse, fat;'' ``horse, meat;'' ``sheep, fat;'' 
and ``sheep, meat'' to 0.02 ppm.
    EPA is also proposing to increase tolerances on ``cattle, meat 
byproducts, except kidney;'' ; ``goat, meat byproducts, except 
kidney;'' ``hog, meat byproducts, except kidney;'' ``horse, meat 
byproducts, except kidney;'' and ``sheep, meat byproducts, except 
kidney to 0.2 ppm; and to increase tolerances on ''cattle, kidney;`` 
''goat, kidney;`` ''hog, kidney;`` ''horse, kidney;`` and ''sheep, 
kidney`` to 1.0 ppm; and decrease the tolerance on ''milk`` to 0.01 
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.
    Based on the available data that show residues of ethephon as high 
as 0.49 ppm and 4.93 ppm in or on coffee, bean, green and cotton, 
undelinted seed, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on 
coffee, bean, green and cotton, undelinted seed should be increased 
from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and 2.0 to 6.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, the 
Agency is proposing to increase the tolerance on ``coffee, bean, 
green'' and on ``cotton, undelinted seed'' in 40 CFR 180.300(a) to 0.5 
ppm, and 6.0 ppm, respectively; and to remove the ``(N)'' designation 
to conform to current Agency administrative practice, where the ``(N)'' 
designation means negligible residues. 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.
    Compatibility exists between the reassessed U.S. tolerance of 5.0 
ppm and Codex MRL for ethephon residues in or on apples. However, 
because data indicate that ethephon residues concentrate (1.6x) in 
apple juice, EPA determined that a tolerance should be established at 
10.0 ppm in apple, juice. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to 
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) in ``apple, juice'' at 10.0 
ppm.

[[Page 32575]]

    Based on data that show ethephon residues as high as 150.0 ppm in 
or on cotton gin byproducts, EPA determined that a tolerance on cotton 
gin byproducts should be established at 180.0 ppm. Therefore, the 
Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on 
``cotton, gin byproducts'' at 180.0 ppm.
    Based on the available data that show ethephon residues as high as 
0.52 ppm in or on filbert, EPA determined that a tolerance on filbert 
should be established at 0.80 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing 
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) on ``filbert'' at 0.80 
ppm.
    Based on data that show ethephon residues < 2.0 ppm in wheat grain 
and that residues concentrate (1.8x) in wheat germ, EPA determined that 
a tolerance should be established at 5.0 ppm in or on wheat, germ. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.300(a) on ``wheat, germ'' at 5.0 ppm.
    Based on available exaggerated (1.6x MTDB) poultry feeding data 
that show residues of ethephon as high as 0.0036 ppm in eggs, 0.032 ppm 
in fat, 0.015 ppm in meat, and 0.068 ppm in liver, EPA calculated 
residues to be 0.002 ppm in egg, 0.02 ppm in fat, 0.009 ppm in meat, 
and 0.04 ppm in liver at the 1x MTDB for poultry. The Agency determined 
that the tolerances should be established on egg at 0.002 ppm, fat at 
0.02 ppm, meat and meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm, and liver 
at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.300(a) on ``egg'' at 0.002 ppm; ``poultry, fat'' at 0.02 ppm; 
``poultry, meat'' at 0.01 ppm; ``poultry, meat byproducts, except 
liver'' at 0.01 ppm; and ``poultry, liver'' at 0.05 ppm.
    Cucumber was not included in the dietary risk assessment for 
ethephon because the use was to become non-food; i.e., limited to 
cucumbers grown for seed production and product labels were to include 
that limitation and a restriction to prohibit the harvesting of treated 
cucumbers for human or animal consumption. Therefore, the ethephon RED 
recommended revocation of the tolerance on cucumber. However, based on 
the estimated acute and chronic dietary risks of ethephon are 77% of 
the aPAD and 16% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD), the 
relatively low tolerance level for cucumber (0.1 ppm) and maximum 
estimate of 1% crop treated (about 2000 acres), the Agency determined 
that the addition of cucumbers to the dietary risk assessment would not 
significantly contribute to dietary or drinking water risk estimates. 
Currently, the Agency is in the process of confirming the completeness 
of amendments for two active registrations concerning the inclusion of 
the limitation and restriction on cucumber use (particularly under the 
product label application instructions for California only). 
Consequently, the Agency will not propose to take action on the 
cucumber tolerance in 40 CFR 180.300(a) for ethephon at this time, but 
expects to address it in a future publication in the Federal Register.
    The proposed tolerance actions herein for ethephon, to implement 
the recommendations of the ethephon TRED, reflect use patterns in the 
United States which support a different tolerance than the Codex value 
on cottonseed; chicken eggs; meat of poultry; meat of cattle, goats, 
hogs, horses, and sheep; and milk of cattle, goats, and sheep. However, 
compatibility exists between the reassessed U.S. tolerances and Codex 
MRLs for ethephon residues in or on apples, blueberries, cherries, 
pineapples, tomatoes, and walnuts.
    4. Ferbam. Tolerances for residues of ferbam in or on food and feed 
commodities are currently established under 40 CFR 180.114(a) for 
residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), 
calculated as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (zineb). Current 
analytical methodology employs common moiety detection in which 
dithiocarbamate residues are converted to carbon disulfide (CS2). Based 
on this new methodology, the Agency has determined that the tolerance 
expression should reflect residues of ferbam (ferric 
dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon disulfide. Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to modify the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 
180.114(a) to residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric 
dimethyldithiocarbamate) calculated as carbon disulfide.
    In order to account for the conversion of ferbam residues 
previously calculated as zineb to that calculated as carbon disulfide, 
EPA determined that a conversion factor of 0.55x should be applied to 
existing tolerance levels. Consequently, the tolerances for apples, 
cherries, cranberries, citrus fruit, grapes, mangoes, nectarines, 
peaches, and pears currently at 7 ppm should be decreased to 4 ppm. 
Also, because mango has only one active FIFRA section 24(c) 
registration for use in Florida, the tolerance should be moved from 
Sec.  180.114(a) to Sec.  180.114(c) for regional tolerances. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.114(a) on ``apple;'' ``cherry;'' ``cranberry;'' ``grape;'' 
``nectarine;'' ``peach;'' and ``pear;'' each to 4.0 ppm; ``fruit, 
citrus'' to 4.0 ppm; revise the commodity terminology for fruit, citrus 
to read ``fruit, citrus, group 10'' to decrease the tolerance on mango 
to 4.0 ppm and recodify the entry for mango into Sec.  180.114(c).
    There have been no active ferbam registrations on apricot, 
asparagus, blueberries, boysenberries, cucumbers, peas, squash, and 
tomatoes in the United States since 1998. There have been no active 
ferbam registrations on blackberries, dewberries, loganberries, or 
youngberries in the United States since October, 2004. Because their 
tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is proposing to revoke the 
commodity tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114(a) for residues of ferbam in or 
on ``apricot;'' ``blackberry;'' ``blueberry;'' ``boysenberry;'' 
``dewberry;'' ``loganberry;'' ``pea;'' ``squash;'' and ``youngberry.'' 
There have been no active ferbam registrations on beans, cabbage, 
lettuce, and raspberries since July 3, 2006 and existing stocks were 
allowed by the Agency to be sold and distributed until October 27, 2006 
(70 FR 62112, October 28, 2005) (FRL-7743-6). The Agency believes that 
end users will have sufficient time to exhaust existing stocks and for 
treated commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by October 
27, 2007. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.114(a) for residues of ferbam on ``bean,'' ``cabbage,'' 
``lettuce,'' and ``raspberry'' with an expiration/revocation date of 
October 27, 2007. On October 26, 1998 (63 FR 57067)(FRL-6035-6), EPA 
published a final rule in the Federal Register in which it responded to 
the comment by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) that it 
would support uses of ferbam on guava and papaya. However, in a 
correspondence to the Agency dated February 24, 2005, IR-4 withdrew its 
support for the use of ferbam on papaya. Also, in recent 
correspondence, the IR-4 no longer expressed that it was interested in 
supporting the use of ferbam on guava. Because there are no active 
registrations for ferbam use on guava and papaya and there is no longer 
an expressed need for their tolerances, these tolerances should be 
revoked. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 
40 CFR 180.114(a) on guava and papaya. Also, on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 
57067)(FRL-6035-6), EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register 
in which it responded to the Canadian Horticultural Council's comment 
asking that certain tolerances, including those in 40 CFR 180.114 for 
ferbam use on

[[Page 32576]]

asparagus, cucumbers, and tomatoes, not be revoked. At that time, the 
Agency responded that it would not revoke the tolerances on asparagus, 
cucumbers, and tomatoes in 40 CFR 180.114. However, in the interim, no 
interested party has declared a need for tolerances on asparagus, 
cucumber, or tomato commodities and interest in providing the 
appropriate data for import purposes. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.114 on asparagus, cucumber, and 
tomato.
    There are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for ferbam use per 
se. However, Codex MRLs exist for the dithiocarbamates from the use of 
various dithiocarbamates and they are currently expressed as total 
dithiocarbamates, determined or carbon disulfide (milligrams/kilogram 
(mg/kg)). The proposed modification of the U.S. tolerance expression 
for ferbam to be calculated as carbon disulfide will improve the 
comparison between U.S. tolerances on ferbam with Codex MRLs on total 
dithiocarbamates. The proposed U.S. tolerances of 4.0 ppm for ferbam 
residues (calculated as carbon disulfide) on cranberry and citrus fruit 
are different from the Codex MRLs of 5.0 and 10.0 mg/kg for total 
dithiocarbamate residues (calculated as carbon disulfide) on cranberry 
and mandarins, respectively. The difference may reflect different use 
patterns in the United States which support a different tolerance level 
and/or result from Codex's inclusion of various dithiocarbamates in its 
tolerance definition.
    5. Lindane. In July 2006, EPA created an addendum to the July 2002 
Lindane RED. Both documents are available in public docket EPA-HQ-OPP-
2002-0202. In the 2006 Lindane RED Addendum, which reflects the 
Agency's conclusions on the lindane seed treatment uses in light of the 
information gathered since the 2002 RED, the Agency established that 
lindane seed treatment uses are ineligible for reregistration and that 
the existing lindane fat tolerances should be revoked. In the addendum, 
the Agency concludes that the risks of continued use of lindane 
outweigh the benefits. In addition, the addendum noted that as of July 
27, 2006, the Agency had received requests from all lindane technical 
and end-use product registrants to voluntarily cancel all lindane 
product registrations. Consequently, in the Federal Register notice of 
August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49445) (FRL-8089-1), EPA published its receipt 
of requests to voluntarily cancel lindane registrations and provided a 
public comment period. The Agency did not receive any comments that 
required further review of the cancellation requests. Further, the 
registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA sent 
final cancellation orders to the registrants granting the requested 
cancellations and published a notice announcing these cancellation 
orders in the Federal Register on December 13, 2006 (71 FR 74905) (FRL-
8103-4). In that notice, EPA announced issuance of final orders 
cancelling the registrations of all pesticide products containing the 
pesticide lindane, including those concerning lindane registrations for 
use as a seed treatment on grain. The cancellation of manufacturing-use 
products was effective on October 4, 2006, and the cancellation of end-
use products is effective on July 1, 2007. The Agency has established 
in the cancellation orders that July 1, 2007 is the last day on which 
these lindane manufacturing-use products can be used and October 1, 
2009 is the last day on which these lindane end-use products can be 
used. FFDCA section 408(l)(5) protects treated commodities that are 
still in the channels of trade after revocation if they were lawfully 
treated. Because lindane seed treatment registrations are canceled as 
described above, EPA believes that the associated tolerances for the 
fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep fed lindane-treated seeds 
will no longer be needed after October 1, 2009. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.133 on ``cattle, fat;'' 
``goat, fat;'' ``hog, fat;'' ``horse, fat;'' and ``sheep, fat'' with an 
expiration/revocation date of October 2, 2009. Also, because the time-
limited tolerances on ``broccoli;'' ``brussels sprouts;''``cabbage;'' 
and ``cauliflower'' expired on April 26, 2007, EPA is proposing to 
remove them from 40 CFR 180.133.
    6. Propachlor. Currently, propachlor tolerances are established in 
40 CFR 180.211(a) for residues of propachlor and its metabolites, 
calculated as propachlor. The Agency determined that residues of 
concern are propachlor and its metabolites which contain the N-
isopropylaniline moiety. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the 
tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.211(a) as follows: ``(a) General. 
Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide 
2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide and its metabolites containing the N-
isopropylaniline moiety, calculated as 2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide, 
in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:''
    Also, in 40 CFR 180.211(a), EPA is proposing to remove the ``(N)'' 
designation from all entries to conform to current Agency 
administrative practice, where the ``(N)'' designation means negligible 
residues.
    Based on poultry feeding data and MTDB for poultry, EPA determined 
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of propazine 
residues of concern in eggs (< 0.02 ppm at 60x MTDB) and in the fat, 
meat, and meat byproducts of poultry (as high as 0.02 ppm at 60x MTDB) 
resulting from the feeding of propachlor treated commodities. 
Therefore, the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for poultry are 
no longer needed in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, 
the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.211 on 
``egg;'' ``poultry, fat;'' ``poultry, meat;'' and ``poultry, meat 
byproducts.''
    Based on available exaggerated cattle feeding data that show 
combined propachlor residues of concern at the dose level of 1.3x MTDB 
as high as 0.12 in kidney, and 0.04 ppm in fat and liver, EPA 
determined that tolerances on the fat and meat byproducts of cattle, 
goats, horses, and sheep should be increased from 0.02 to 0.05 ppm, and 
individual tolerances on the kidney of goats, horses, and sheep should 
be separated from ``meat byproducts'' and increased to 0.2 ppm. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.211 on ``cattle, fat;'' ``goat, fat;'' ``horse, fat;'' and ``sheep, 
fat'' to 0.05 ppm; revise their commodity terminologies to read 
``cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney;'' ``goat, meat byproducts, 
except kidney;'' ``horse, meat byproducts, except kidney;'' and 
``sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney;''increase tolerances on 
cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; goats, meat byproducts, except 
kidney; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat 
byproducts, except kidney; to 0.05 ppm and establish separate 
tolerances for ``cattle, kidney;'' ``goat, kidney;'' ``horse, kidney;'' 
and ``sheep, kidney'' at 0.2 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.
    Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of 
concern as high as 7.67 ppm and 10.59 ppm in or on sorghum forage and 
stover, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on sorghum 
forage and sorghum, grain, stover should each be increased from 5.0 to 
8.0 ppm and 12.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 
CFR 180.211 to revise the commodity terminology ``sorghum,

[[Page 32577]]

forage'' to read ``sorghum, grain, forage'' and ``sorghum, forage, 
forage'' and increase the tolerance from 5.0 to 8.0 ppm; and increase 
``sorghum, grain, stover'' from 5.0 to 12.0 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.
    Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of 
concern as high as 0.19 ppm and 2.12 ppm in or on corn grain and 
forage, respectively, EPA determined that the tolerances on corn grain 
and corn forage should be increased from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm and 1.5 to 3.0 
ppm, respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.211 
to revise thecommodity terminology for ``corn, grain'' to read ``corn, 
field, grain'' and to increase the tolerance on corn, field, grain to 
0.2 ppm, to increase ``corn, forage'' to 3.0 ppm, and revisethe 
commodity terminology to read ``corn, field, forage'' and ``corn, 
sweet, forage.'' 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.
    Based on available data that showed combined propachlor residues of 
concern no greater than 1.0 ppm in or on corn stover, EPA determined 
that the tolerance on corn stover should be established at 1.0 ppm. 
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 
180.211(a) on corn, field, stover at 1.0 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40 
CFR 180.211 to conform to current Agency practices as follows: 
``sorghum, grain'' to ``sorghum, grain, grain.''
    7. Simazine. Because there are no active food use U.S. 
registrations on bermuda grass and no active U.S. registrations for 
simazine use associated with banana and fish, their tolerances are no 
longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is 
proposing to revoke in 40 CFR 180.213(a)(1) the tolerances on ``bermuda 
grass;'' ``bermudagrass, forage;'' and ``bermudagrass, hay'' and 
proposing to revoke in 40 CFR 180.213(a)(2) the tolerances on 
``banana'' and ``fish'' and remove Sec.  180.213(a)(2).
    Currently, simazine tolerances are established in 40 CFR 
180.213(a)(1) for residues of simazine only. The Agency determined that 
residues of concern are simazine and its two chlorinated degradates. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.213(a) to read as 
follows: ``(a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined 
residues of the herbicide simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-
triazine) and its two chlorinated degradates (2-amino-4-chloro-6-
ethylamino-s-triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine), the total 
residue to be measured in or on the following food commodities:''. The 
revision of 180.213(a) will eliminate paragraph designations (a)(1) and 
(a)(2).
    Because there are no active food use U.S. registrations on alfalfa 
and sugarcane, molasses, the Agency has determined the tolerances in or 
on alfalfa and sugarcane, molasses should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 in or on 
``alfalfa;'' ``alfalfa, forage;'' ``alfalfa, hay;'' and ``sugarcane, 
molasses.'' Also, because the time-limited tolerances on ``artichoke, 
globe;'' ``asparagus;'' and ``sugarcane, cane'' expired on December 31, 
2000, EPA is proposing to remove them from 40 CFR 180.213.
    Because there no longer are registered uses of simazine on pasture 
and rangeland grasses, the tolerances on grass, grass forage, and grass 
hay are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``grass;'' ``grass, forage;'' and 
``grass, hay.''
    Because the use of simazine on boysenberry and dewberry is covered 
by the reassessed tolerance on blackberry, the tolerances on 
boysenberry and dewberry are no longer needed and therefore should be 
revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.213 on ``boysenberry'' and ``dewberry,'' in accordance with 40 
CFR 180.1(g), since the tolerance on blackberry covers boysenberry and 
dewberry.
    Based on poultry feeding data and MTDB for poultry, EPA determined 
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of simazine 
residues of concern in the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of poultry 
resulting from the feeding of simazine treated commodities. Therefore, 
the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for poultry are no longer 
needed in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency 
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``poultry, 
fat;'' ``poultry, meat;'' and ``poultry, meat byproducts.'' However, 
because detectable residues of 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine were 
found in egg at 6.3x the MTDB, the Agency determined that the tolerance 
on egg should be increased from 0.02 ppm and set at the combined LOQ of 
0.03 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``egg'' to 0.03 ppm. The Agency determined that 
the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty 
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide 
chemical residue.
    Based on ruminant feeding data and MTDB for swine, EPA determined 
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of simazine 
residues of concern in the fat, meat, and meat byproducts of hogs 
resulting from the feeding of simazine treated commodities. Therefore, 
the tolerances on fat, meat, meat byproducts for hogs are no longer 
needed inaccordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency 
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``hog, 
fat;'' ``hog, meat;'' and ``hog, meat byproducts.''
    Based on ruminant feeding data for (5.6 to 6.0x MTDB) simazine that 
show combined residues were < 0.03 ppm (below the combined LOQ of 0.03 
ppm), EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite 
combined simazine residues of concern in the fat of cattle, goats, 
horse, and sheep. Therefore, the tolerances on the fat for cattle, 
goats, horses and sheep are no longer needed in accordance with 40 CFR 
180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``cattle, fat;'' ``goat, fat;'' 
``horse, fat;'' and ``sheep, fat.''
    In addition, based on available exaggerated ruminant feeding data 
that show combined residues were quantifiable at the dose level of 11.2 
to 12.0x MTDB of simazine, EPA determined that tolerances on the meat 
and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, and milk 
should be set at the combined LOQ of 0.03 ppm and increased from 0.02 
to 0.03 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on ``cattle, meat;'' ``cattle, meat 
byproducts;'' ``goat, meat;'' ``goat, meat byproducts;'' ``horse, 
meat;'' ``horse, meat byproducts;'' ``sheep, meat;'' ``sheep, meat 
byproducts;'' and ``milk'' to 0.03 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.
    Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of 
concern as high as < 0.15 ppm in or on apples, avocados, corn, forage, 
corn, grain, grapes, olives, and peaches, and < 0.20 ppm in or on plums, 
EPA determined that the tolerances on these commodities should each be 
decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, the

[[Page 32578]]

Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on 
``apple,'' ``avocado,'' ``corn, forage;'' ``corn, grain;'' ``grape,'' 
``olive,'' ``peach,'' and ``plum'' to 0.20 ppm and to revise the 
commodity terminology for ``corn, forage'' to read ``corn, field, 
forage'' and ``corn, sweet, forage'' and for ``corn, grain'' to read 
``corn, field, grain'' and ``corn, pop, grain.'' In addition, EPA is 
proposing to revise the commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.213 for 
``corn, stover'' to read ``corn, field, stover;''``corn, pop, stover;'' 
and ``corn, sweet, stover.''
    Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of 
concern as high as < 0.15 ppm in or on blueberries and raspberries, EPA 
determined that the tolerances on these commodities should each be 
decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Also, the Agency believes that data 
for the two chlorinated degradates of simazine can be translated from 
raspberries to blackberries and loganberries. From the translated data 
and existing data for simazine residues only on blackberry and 
loganberry, EPA determined that the tolerances on blackberry and 
loganberry should also be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 ppm. Therefore, 
the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.213 on 
``blueberry,'' ``blackberry,'' ``loganberry,'' and ``raspberry'' to 
0.20 ppm.
    Based on available data that showed combined simazine residues of 
concern as high as < 0.20 ppm in or on pecans, EPA determined that the 
tolerance on pecans should be increased from 0.1 to 0.20 ppm. Also, the 
Agency believes that data can be translated from pecans to filberts, 
and that the tolerance on filbert should be decreased from 0.25 to 0.20 
ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.213 to decrease 
the tolerance on ``filbert'' to 0.20 ppm, increase the tolerance on 
``pecan'' to 0.20 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased 
tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm 
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Also, in 40 CFR 180.213, EPA is proposing to remove the ``(N)'' 
designation from all entries to conform to current Agency 
administrative practice, where the ``(N)'' designation means negligible 
residues.
    In addition, in 40 CFR 180.213, EPA is proposing to revise 
commodity terminology for ``orange, sweet'' to read ``orange'' to 
conform to current Agency practice.

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 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. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing 
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore 
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). 
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 
331(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. 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 in follow-up to the 
tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). The safety finding determination under section 408 
of the FFDCA standard 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 for atrazine, ferbam, lindane, 
propachlor, and simazine, and TREDs for amitraz, and ethephon, whose 
REDs were both completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the 
Agency's evaluation of the data base 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 the 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 uses for which FIFRA registrations no

[[Page 32579]]

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.
    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/
.

    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 proposed rule 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?

    With the exception of certain tolerances for ferbam and lindane for 
which EPA is proposing specific expiration/revocation dates, the Agency 
is proposing that the actions herein become effective on the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. With the 
exception of the revocation of specific tolerances for ferbam and 
lindane, the Agency believes that existing stocks of pesticide products 
labeled for the uses associated with the tolerances proposed for 
revocation have been completely exhausted and that treated commodities 
have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. EPA 
is proposing an expiration/revocation date of October 27, 2007 for the 
ferbam tolerances on bean, cabbage, lettuce, and raspberry and an 
expiration/revocation date of October 2, 2009 for the lindane 
tolerances on the fat of cattle, goats, hops, horses, and sheep. The 
Agency believes that these revocation dates allow users to exhaust 
stocks and allow sufficient time for passage of treated commodities 
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 extending the 
expiration date of the tolerance. 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 section, any residues of these 
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so 
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug 
Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of 
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, 
and
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the 
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a 
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was 
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates 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 the 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 Commission, as required by Section 408(b)(4) 
of the FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and 
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards 
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, 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 
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, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply,

[[Page 32580]]

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), 
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 action 
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. Furthermore, 
for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no 
extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that 
would change the 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 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 3, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
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 180.114 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
text to paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.114  Ferbam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), calculated as carbon 
disulfide, in or on food commodities as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      Revocation
                                              million          Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple...................................          4.0\1\            None
Bean....................................          7.0\1\        10/27/07
Cabbage.................................          7.0\1\        10/27/07
Cherry..................................          4.0\1\            None
Cranberry...............................          4.0\1\            None
Fruit, citrus, group 10.................          4.0\1\            None
Grape...................................          4.0\1\            None
Lettuce.................................          7.0\1\        10/27/07
Nectarine...............................          4.0\1\            None
Peach...................................          4.0\1\            None
Pear....................................          4.0\1\            None
Raspberry...............................          7.0\1\        10/27/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some of these tolerances were established on the basis of data
  acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly Sec.   180.101)
  and the remainder were established on the basis of pesticide petitions
  presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the
  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Public Law 518, 83d Congress
  (68 Stat.511)

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. A tolerance with 
regional registrations, as defined in Sec.  180.1(m), is established 
for residues of the fungicide ferbam (ferric dimethyldithiocarbamate), 
calculated as carbon disulfide, in or on food commodities as follows:

[[Page 32581]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mango...................................................          4.0\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This tolerance was established on the basis of data acquired at the
  public hearings held in 1950 (formerly Sec.  180.101) and the
  remainder was established on the basis of pesticide petitions
  presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the
  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Public Law 518, 83d Congress
  (68 Stat.511)

* * * * *
    3. Section 180.133 is amended by revising the table in paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.133  Lindane; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Parts per       Expiration/
              Commodity                    million      Revocation Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................             7.0            10/2/09
Goat, fat............................             7.0            10/2/09
Hog, fat.............................             4.0            10/2/09
Horse, fat...........................             7.0            10/2/09
Sheep, fat...........................             7.0            10/2/09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    4. Section 180.211 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.211  Propachlor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues 
of the herbicide 2-chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide and its metabolites 
containing the N-isopropylaniline moiety, calculated as 2-chloro-N-
isopropylacetanilide, in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.05
Cattle, kidney.......................................                0.2
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney...............               0.05
Corn, field, forage..................................                3.0
Corn, field, grain...................................                0.2
Corn, field, stover..................................                1.0
Corn, sweet, forage..................................                3.0
Goat, fat............................................               0.05
Goat, kidney.........................................                0.2
Goat, meat...........................................               0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney.................               0.05
Hog, fat.............................................               0.02
Hog, meat............................................               0.02
Hog, meat byproducts.................................               0.02
Horse, fat...........................................               0.05
Horse, kidney........................................                0.2
Horse, meat..........................................               0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney................               0.05
Milk.................................................               0.02
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.05
Sheep, kidney........................................                0.2
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney................               0.05
Sorghum, forage, forage..............................                8.0
Sorghum, grain, forage...............................                8.0
Sorghum, grain, grain................................               0.25
Sorghum, grain, stover...............................               12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    5. Section 180.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec. 180.213  Simazine; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues 
of the herbicide simazine (2-chloro-4,6-bis(ethylamino)-s-triazine) and 
its two chlorinated degradates (2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-
triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine), the total residue to be 
measured in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond...............................................               0.25
Almond, hulls........................................               0.25
Apple................................................               0.20
Avocado..............................................               0.20
Blackberry...........................................               0.20
Blueberry............................................               0.20
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.03
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.03
Cherry...............................................               0.25
Corn, field, forage..................................               0.20
Corn, field, grain...................................               0.20
Corn, field, stover..................................               0.25
Corn, pop, grain.....................................               0.20
Corn, pop, stover....................................               0.25
Corn, sweet, forage..................................               0.20
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......               0.25
Corn, sweet, stover..................................               0.25
Cranberry............................................               0.25
Currant..............................................               0.25
Egg..................................................               0.03
Filbert..............................................               0.20
Goat, meat...........................................               0.03
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.03
Grape................................................               0.20
Grapefruit...........................................               0.25
Horse, meat..........................................               0.03
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.03
Lemon................................................               0.25
Loganberry...........................................               0.20
Milk.................................................               0.03
Nut, macadamia.......................................               0.25
Olive................................................               0.20
Orange...............................................               0.25
Peach................................................               0.20
Pear.................................................               0.25
Pecan................................................               0.20
Plum.................................................               0.20
Raspberry............................................               0.20
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.03
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................               0.03
Strawberry...........................................               0.25
Walnut...............................................                0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    6. Section 180.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec. 180.220  Atrazine; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues 
of the herbicide atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-
triazine) and its chlorinated metabolites 2-amino-4-chloro-6-
isopropylamino-s-triazine, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-ethylamino-s-triazine, 
and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine, in or on food commodities as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.02
Corn, field, forage..................................                 15
Corn, field, grain...................................               0.20
Corn, field, stover..................................                0.5
Corn, pop, forage....................................                1.5
Corn, pop, grain.....................................               0.20
Corn, pop, stover....................................                0.5
Corn, sweet, forage..................................                 15
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......               0.20
Corn, sweet, stover..................................                2.0
Goat, fat............................................               0.02
Goat, meat...........................................               0.02
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.02
Grass, forage........................................                4.0
Grass, hay...........................................                4.0
Guava................................................               0.05
Horse, fat...........................................               0.02
Horse, meat..........................................               0.02
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.02
Milk.................................................               0.02
Nut, macadamia.......................................               0.20
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................               0.02
Sorghum, forage, forage..............................                 15
Sorghum, grain forage................................                 15
Sorghum, grain, grain................................               0.20
Sorghum, grain, stover...............................               0.50
Sugarcane, cane......................................               0.20
Wheat, forage........................................                1.5
Wheat, grain.........................................               0.10
Wheat, hay...........................................                5.0
Wheat, straw.........................................               0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    7. Section 180.287 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec. 180.287  Amitraz; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
insecticide amitraz (N'-[2,4-dimethylphenyl]-N-[[(2,4-
dimethylphenyl)imino] methyl]]-N-methylmethanimidamide) and its 
metabolites containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety (calculated as 
the parent) in or on food commodities, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................                0.1

[[Page 32582]]

Cattle, meat.........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................                0.2
Cotton, undelinted seed\1\...........................                1.0
Hog, fat.............................................                0.1
Hog, kidney..........................................                0.1
Hog, liver...........................................                0.1
Hog, meat............................................               0.05
Hog, meat byproducts.................................                0.3
Milk.................................................               0.03
Milk, fat............................................                0.2
Pear.................................................                3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations on cotton, undelinted seed as of May
  3, 2006.

* * * * *
    8. Section 180.300 is amended by revising the table in paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.300  Ethephon; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple................................................                5.0
Apple, juice.........................................               10.0
Barley, bran.........................................                5.0
Barley, grain........................................                2.0
Barley, straw........................................               10.0
Blackberry...........................................               30.0
Blueberry............................................               20.0
Cantaloupe...........................................                2.0
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.02
Cattle, kidney.......................................                1.0
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney...............                0.2
Cherry...............................................               10.0
Coffee, bean, green..................................                0.5
Cotton, gin byproducts...............................              180.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................                6.0
Cucumber.............................................                0.1
Egg..................................................              0.002
Filbert..............................................               0.80
Goat, fat............................................               0.02
Goat, kidney.........................................                1.0
Goat, meat...........................................               0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney.................                0.2
Grape................................................                2.0
Grape, raisin........................................               12.0
Hog, fat.............................................               0.02
Hog, kidney..........................................                1.0
Hog, meat............................................               0.02
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney..................                0.2
Horse, fat...........................................               0.02
Horse, kidney........................................                1.0
Horse, meat..........................................               0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney................                0.2
Milk.................................................               0.01
Nut, macadamia.......................................                0.5
Pepper...............................................               30.0
Pineapple............................................                2.0
Poultry, fat.........................................               0.02
Poultry, liver.......................................               0.05
Poultry, meat........................................               0.01
Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver...............               0.01
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.02
Sheep, kidney........................................                1.0
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney................                0.2
Sugarcane, molasses..................................                1.5
Tomato...............................................                2.0
Walnut...............................................                0.5
Wheat, bran..........................................                5.0
Wheat, germ..........................................                5.0
Wheat, grain.........................................                2.0
Wheat, middlings.....................................                5.0
Wheat, shorts........................................                5.0
Wheat, straw.........................................               10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-11324 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S