[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