[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28155-28179]
[DOCID:fr19my10-22]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 180

Acephate, Cacodylic acid, Dicamba, Dicloran et al.; Proposed Tolerance
Actions; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0262; FRL-8821-3]

Acephate, Cacodylic acid, Dicamba, Dicloran et al.; Proposed
Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the
fungicides dicloran and thiophanate-methyl; the herbicides EPTC,
hexazinone, picloram, and propazine; the defoliant and herbicide
cacodylic acid; the plant growth regulator and herbicide diquat, the
insecticides disulfoton, malathion, methamidophos, methomyl, phosmet,
piperonyl butoxide, pyrethrins, and thiodicarb; the fumigant
antimicrobial and insecticide methyl bromide, the nematicides/
insecticides ethoprop and fenamiphos, the insecticide synergist N-octyl
bicycloheptene dicarboximide, and the tolerance exemptions for the
insecticide/miticide pyrethrum and insecticide synergist N-octyl
bicycloheptene dicarboximide. In addition, EPA is proposing to remove
certain expired tolerances for disulfoton, fenamiphos, and thiophanate-
methyl. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the
fungicide thiophanate-methyl, herbicides dicamba, EPTC, hexazinone and
picloram, and insecticide synergist N-octyl bicycloheptene
dicarboximide. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish new
tolerances for the fungicide thiophanate-methyl and the herbicides
EPTC, hexazinone, and picloram. Also, EPA is proposing to reinstate
specific tolerances for methamidophos residues as a result of the
application of the insecticide acephate. 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 July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0262, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0262. 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 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 at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II.A. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the
Agency Proposes to Revoke?

    This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed
and the timeframes for its submission, and would require that within 90
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data.
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take
appropriate action under FFDCA.
    EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised
again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing to revoke, modify, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the fungicides dicloran and thiophanate-
methyl; the herbicides dicamba, EPTC, hexazinone, picloram, and
propazine; the defoliant and herbicide cacodylic acid; the plant growth
regulator and herbicide diquat, the insecticides disulfoton, malathion,
methamidophos, methomyl, phosmet, piperonyl butoxide, pyrethrins, and
thiodicarb; the fumigant antimicrobial and insecticide methyl bromide,
the nematicides/insecticides ethoprop and fenamiphos; and the
insecticide synergist N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide; revoke the
tolerance exemptions for the insecticide/miticide pyrethrum and
insecticide synergist N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide; remove
certain expired tolerances for disulfoton, fenamiphos, and thiophanate-
methyl; and reinstate specific tolerances for methamidophos residues as
a result of the application of the insecticide acephate in or on
commodities listed in the regulatory text.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance/tolerance exemption actions to
implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration
and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled
or additional uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is
required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the
safety standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of
``reasonable certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk
Management Decision (TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs
recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including
modifications to reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings,
and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA
policy. Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone number: 1-
800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at http://
www.epa.gov/ncepihom and from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone
number: 1-800-553-6847 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet at http://
www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the
Internet in public dockets; REDs for cacodylic acid (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0201), dicamba (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0479), ethoprop (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0269),
malathion (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0348), N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0040), pyrethrum (see pyrethrins RED in EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0043), and thiophanate-methyl (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0265), and TREDs
for hexazinone (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0188) and propazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0496) at http://www.regulations.gov and REDs for acephate, EPTC,
methamidophos, phosmet, and picloram 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:
     Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result
in a higher residue level on the commodity.
     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 electronic copies for dicamba, ethoprop (Data Requirements
and Tolerance Reassessment), hexazinone, malathion, N-octyl
bicycloheptene dicarboximide, propazine, pyrethrum (see pyrethrins),
and thiophanate-methyl can be found under their respective public
docket ID numbers, identified in Unit II.A. Electronic copies are also
available in public dockets for acephate (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0445),
cacodylic acid (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0201), methamidophos (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0261), and phosmet (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0834), and for EPTC 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 this proposed rule under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0262, then click on that docket ID
number to view its contents.
    EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not
of concern for the above mentioned pesticide active ingredients based
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
    EPA has found that the tolerances/tolerance exemptions 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/tolerance exemptions because either they are no longer
needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered
under FIFRA. Those instances where registrations were canceled were
because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/
or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more
registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to
propose revocation of those tolerances/tolerance exemptions 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. Acephate. In order to describe more clearly the measurement and
scope or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.108(a)(1) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of acephate, O,S-
dimethyl acetyl phosphoramidothioate, including its metabolites and
degradates other than methamidophos, in or on the commodities in the
table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
acephate, O,S-dimethyl acetyl phosphoramidothioate, in or on the
commodity.

    In the Federal Register of January 29, 2008 (73 FR 5104) (FRL-8348-
8), EPA revised the tolerance expression for acephate in 40 CFR 180.108
from the combined residues of acephate, O,S-dimethyl acetyl
phosphoramidothioate, and methamidophos, O,S-dimethyl
phosphoramidothioate, to residues of acephate per se, removed the
terminology ``of which no more than 1 ppm, 0.5 ppm, or 0.1 ppm is O,S-
dimethyl phosphoramidothioate'' from tolerances on bean (succulent and
dry); Brussels sprouts; cauliflower; celery; cranberry; lettuce, head;
mint hay, and pepper; and footnoted that residues of the acephate
metabolite, methamidophos, are regulated under 40 CFR 180.315. However,
the basis for this action was in error, as methamidophos tolerances for
bean, dry, seed; bean, succulent; cranberry; peppermint, tops; and
spearmint, tops had not in fact been established in 40 CFR 180.315. To
remedy this inadvertent error, the Agency proposes to reinstate the 40
CFR 180.108 tolerances. Consequently, EPA is proposing to separate
tolerances for residues of methamidophos from the application of
acephate in newly designated 40 CFR 180.108(a)(3), with the
introductory text to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of methamidophos, O,S-
dimethyl phosphoramidothioate, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph
as a result of the application of acephate. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only methamidophos, O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate, in
or on the commodity.

    In addition, EPA is proposing to reinstate the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.108(a)(3) on bean, dry, seed at 1 ppm; bean, succulent at 1 ppm;
Brussels sprouts at 0.5 ppm; cauliflower at 0.5 ppm (which is in
harmony with the Codex maximumn residue limits (MRL) of 0.5 milligrams/
kilogram (mg/kg) on cauliflower); celery 1 ppm; cranberry at 0.1 ppm;
lettuce, head at 1 ppm; pepper at 1 ppm; and reinstate mint hay,
revising the tolerance terminology to peppermint, tops at 1 ppm and
spearmint, tops at 1 ppm. On January 29, 2008, EPA published a final
rule in the Federal Register (73 FR 5104) (FRL-8348-8), which finalized
tolerance actions for several active ingredients, including acephate,
and which increased the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.108(a)(1) for acephate
residues in or on mint hay (peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops) from
15.0 to 27.0 ppm. Consequently, methamidophos residues resulting from
acephate application are expected by the Agency to be increased from
1.0 to 2.0 ppm in or on peppermint, tops and spearmint, tops. However,
the Agency is not proposing an increase on the peppermint, tops and
spearmint, tops tolerances for methamidophos residues at this time.
    Based on available data that showed residues of acephate were as
high as 0.02 ppm for only one of seven exposed food items following
both a spot treatment and crack/crevice treatment for rooms treated
with acephate at the 1x rate and residues of methamidophos were
undetectable from these acephate treatments, the Agency determined that
a tolerance level of 0.02 ppm for acephate residues was appropriate and
that there was no expectation of methamidophos residues and therefore
no methamidophos tolerance was needed concerning food handling
establishments. Consequently, compliance with the tolerance at 0.02 ppm
in 40 CFR 180.108(a)(2) should continue to be determined by measuring
only acephate residues. However, in order to describe more clearly the
measurement and scope or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing
to revise the introductory text containing the tolerance expression in
40 CFR 180.108(a)(2), to read as follows:

    A tolerance of 0.02 ppm is established for residues of acephate,
O,S-dimethyl acetyl phosphoramidothioate, including its metabolites
and degradates other than methamidophos, in or on all food items

(other than those already covered by a higher tolerance as a result
of use on growing crops) in food handling establishments where food
and food products are held, processed, prepared and served,
including food service, manufacturing and processing establishments,
such as restaurants, cafeterias, supermarkets, bakeries, breweries,
dairies, meat slaughtering and packing plants, and canneries, where
application of acephate shall be limited solely to spot and/or crack
and crevice treatment (a coarse, low-pressure spray shall be used to
avoid atomization or splashing of the spray for spot treatments;
equipment capable of delivering a pin-stream of insecticide shall be
used for crack and crevice treatments). Spray concentration shall be
limited to a maximum of 1.0 percent active ingredient. Contamination
of food or food-contact surfaces shall be avoided. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined
by measuring only acephate, O,S-dimethyl acetyl
phosphoramidothioate, in or on the commodity.

    Because EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.108(a)(2) and include
text from 40 CFR 180.108(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii), existing paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to remove 40 CFR 180.108(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii).
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the regional tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.108(c)
to read as follows:

    A tolerance with a regional registration is established for
residues of acephate, O,S-dimethyl acetyl phosphoramidothioate,
including its metabolites and degradates other than methamidophos,
in or on the commodity in the table in this paragraph. Compliance
with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is to be
determined by measuring only acephate, O,S-dimethyl acetyl
phosphoramidothioate, in or on the commodity.

    Also, EPA is proposing to revise the table footnote in 40 CFR
180.108(a)(1) and add a table footnote in 40 CFR 180.108(c) to read as
follows:

    Where there is a direct use of methamidophos on the commodity,
residues of methamidophos resulting from methamidophos application
are regulated under 40 CFR 180.315.

    There are Codex MRLs for acephate, including those on beans, except
broad bean and soya bean at 5 mg/kg, cauliflower at 2 mg/kg, cranberry
at 0.5 mg/kg, peppers, chili (dry) at 50 mg/kg, and other commodities.
    2. Cacodylic acid. In the Federal Register notice of July 8, 2009
(74 FR 32596) (FRL-8422-6), EPA issued a notice regarding EPA's
announcement of the receipt of requests from registrants to voluntarily
cancel certain registrations, including ones for cacodylic acid (and
sodium salt) and therefore terminate the last cacodylic acid (and
sodium salt) uses in or on cotton. After the close of the 30-day
comment period, EPA approved cancellation of certain registrations,
including the cacodylic acid (and sodium salt) registrations for uses
in or on cotton and issued a cancellation order in the Federal Register
notice of September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50187)(FRL-8437-7), made them
effective on September 30, 2009, and prohibited the registrants for the
canceled cacodylic acid (and sodium salt) registrations to sell and
distribute existing stocks after December 31, 2009. Also, EPA
prohibited persons other than the registrant to sell and distribute the
canceled cacodylic acid (and sodium salt) existing stocks after
December 31, 2010. The Agency believes that end users will have had
sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated cotton
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by January 1, 2012.
The termination of the last cacodylic acid (and sodium salt) uses in or
on cotton means that the tolerance will no longer be needed and should
be revoked with an expiration/revocation date. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.311(a) on cotton,
undelinted seed with an expiration/revocation date of January 1, 2012.
    Currently, tolerances are expressed for the defoliant cacodylic
acid in 40 CFR 180.311(a) for residues of cacodylic acid
(dimethylarsinic acid), expressed as As2O3. In
order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or coverage of
the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.311(a) to read as
follows:

    A tolerance is established for residues of the defoliant
cacodylic acid, dimethylarsinic acid, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodity in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only those cacodylic acid residues
convertible to As2O3, expressed as the
stoichiometric equivalent of cacodylic acid, in or on the commodity.

    There are no Codex MRLs for cacodylic acid.
    3. Dicamba. Based on available processing data that showed an
average concentration factor of 24.4X for molasses and the Highest
Average Field Trial (HAFT) residue of 0.183 ppm for sugarcane, EPA
determined that the expected combined dicamba residues of concern in
sugarcane molasses are 4.465 ppm, and that the currently established
tolerance of 2.0 ppm for sugarcane molasses should be increased from
2.0 to 5.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) on sugarcane, molasses to 5.0 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 available sugarcane field trial data that showed combined
dicamba residues of concern as high as 0.2 ppm in or on sugarcane
harvested 87-173 days following a single layby application at 2.0 lb
dicamba acid equivalents per acre (ae/A), EPA determined that the
tolerance should be increased from 0.1 to 0.3 ppm. While the available
data, conducted at an application rate of 2.0 lb dicamba ae/A, do not
support the maximum seasonal single/yearly rate of 2.8 lb dicamba ae/A
that was listed in the Dicamba Master Use Profile, the Agency
determined that the available data was adequate provided the
registrants revise their product labels to specify a maximum seasonal
rate of 2.0 lb dicamba ae/A and an 87-day preharvest interval (PHI) for
sugarcane or submit additional data on sugarcane reflecting a maximum
single/yearly rate of 2.8 lb dicamba ae/A. In response to the Data
Call-In (DCI) of June 27, 2008 that was issued to registrants,
including the basic manufacturer BASF, BASF requested a waiver of the
sugarcane study at 2.8 lb dicamba ae/A and cited MRID 44089302, and
accepted rate limitations of 1 lb dicamba ae/A for single application,
and an annual rate limitation of 2 lb dicamba ae/A. The Agency
considers that available data to be sufficient provided product labels
specify a maximum seasonal rate of 2.0 lb dicamba ae/A and an 87-day
PHI for sugarcane. Therefore, because the current tolerance on
sugarcane, cane at 0.1 ppm is too low, based on the available data, EPA
is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) on
sugarcane, cane to 0.3 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.
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) to
read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic

acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, and
its metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic acid, calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the commodity.

    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(2) to
read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-
o-anisic acid, and its metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic
acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or
on the commodity.

    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(3) to
read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-
o-anisic acid, and its metabolites, 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic
acid, and 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the commodity.

    There are no Codex MRLs for dicamba.
    4. Dicloran (DCNA). On December 2, 2009, EPA published a notice in
the Federal Register (74 FR 63151) (FRL-8800-4) that announced the
Agency's receipt of requests from the registrants to voluntarily amend
certain dicloran registrations and therefore terminate the last
dicloran uses on carrots. EPA approved amendment of the affected DCNA
registrations by publishing a cancellation order on March 31, 2010 in
the Federal Register (75 FR 16105) (FRL-8815-8) and made them effective
on November 2, 2010, and permitted the dicloran registrant to sell and
distribute existing dicloran stocks (concerning the last uses for
carrots) until November 2, 2010. For all affected dicloran products,
the Agency permitted persons other than the registrant to sell and
distribute existing stocks and use of those cancelled products until
exhaustion. However, the Agency believes that end users will have had
sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated carrot
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by November 2, 2011.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.200(a)(1) for carrot, roots, postharvest with an expiration/
revocation date of November 2, 2011.
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.200(a)(1) to
read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide
dicloran, 2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only dicloran, 2,6-dichloro-4-
nitroaniline, in or on the commodity. Unless otherwise specified,
these tolerances prescribed in this paragraph provide for residues
from preharvest application only.

    There are Codex MRLs for dicloran, including an MRL on carrot at 15
mg/kg, and MRLs on other plant commodities.
    5. Diquat. Currently, the only active registrations for diquat use
on both sorghum grain and soybeans are for seed crops, and both uses
have restrictions to not graze or feed treated forage to livestock and
not use seed from treated plants for food, feed, or oil purposes. Given
the restrictions, such uses are considered by the Agency to be non-
food, and therefore the tolerances are no longer needed and should be
revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.226(a)(1) on sorghum, grain, grain and soybean, seed.
    There are Codex MRLs for diquat on sorghum at 2 mg/kg and on
soybean (dry) at 0.2 mg/kg.
    6. Disulfoton. On July 22, 2009, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register (74 FR 36204) (FRL-8427-2) that announced the Agency's
receipt of requests from the registrants to voluntarily cancel all
disulfoton and methamidophos registrations and therefore terminate the
last disulfoton and methamidophos products registered for use in the
United States, including the last disulfoton uses on asparagus, lima
and snap beans, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower,
coffee, cotton, and lettuce. EPA approved cancellation of the
registrations by publishing a cancellation order on September 23, 2009
in the Federal Register (74 FR 48551) (FRL-8437-1) and made them
effective on September 23, 2009, and permitted the disulfoton
registrants to sell and distribute existing disulfoton stocks
(concerning the last uses for asparagus, lima and snap beans, broccoli,
Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cotton, and lettuce) until
December 31, 2010 and stocks of a single registration (264-723) with
the last coffee use until June 30, 2011. For all affected disulfoton
products, the Agency permitted persons other than the registrant to
sell and distribute existing stocks and use of those cancelled products
until exhaustion. However, the Agency believes that end users will have
had sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated
asparagus, lima and snap beans, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage,
cauliflower, cotton, and lettuce commodities to have cleared the
channels of trade by December 31, 2012 and treated coffee commodities
to have cleared the channels of trade by June 30, 2013. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.183(a) for bean,
lima; bean, snap, succulent; broccoli; Brussels sprouts; cabbage;
cauliflower; cotton, undelinted seed; lettuce, head; and lettuce, leaf
with expiration/revocation dates of December 31, 2012. Also, because
there had been only active FIFRA section 24(c) registrations for use of
disulfoton on asparagus, EPA is proposing to revoke the regional
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.183(c) on asparagus with an expiration/
revocation date of December 31, 2012. In addition, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.183(a) for coffee, green bean with
an expiration/revocation date of June 30, 2013.
    Because the tolerances for combined disulfoton residues of concern
expired on October 14, 2009, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.183(a) on spinach and tomato. Also, because the
tolerances for combined disulfoton residues of concern expired on
January 30, 2010, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.183(a) on barley, grain; barley, straw; cattle, fat; cattle, meat;
cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts;
grain, aspirated fractions; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts;
horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; milk; peanut; pepper;
potato; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, meat byproducts; wheat, grain;
wheat, hay; and wheat, straw.
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the section
heading in 40 CFR 180.183 from O,O-diethyl S-(2-

(ethylthio)ethyl) phosphorodithioate to disulfoton and revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.183(a) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
disulfoton, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio)ethyl) phosphorodithioate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of disulfoton, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio)ethyl)
phosphorodithioate, and its metabolites demeton-S,O,O-diethyl S-(2-
(ethylthio)ethyl) phosphorothioate; disulfoton sulfoxide, O,O-
diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)ethyl) phosphorodithioate; disulfoton
oxygen analog sulfoxide, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)ethyl)
phosphorothioate, disulfoton sulfone, O,O-diethyl S-(2-
(ethylsulfonyl)ethyl) phosphorodithioate; and disulfoton oxygen
analog sulfone, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfonyl)ethyl)
phosphorothioate; calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
disulfoton, in or on the commodity.

    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the regional tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.183(c)
to read as follows:

    A tolerance with regional registration is established for
residues of the insecticide disulfoton, O,O-diethyl S-(2-
(ethylthio)ethyl) phosphorodithioate, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodity in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of disulfoton, O,O-
diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio)ethyl) phosphorodithioate, and its
metabolites demeton-S, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylthio)ethyl)
phosphorothioate; disulfoton sulfoxide, O,O-diethyl S-(2-
(ethylsulfinyl)ethyl) phosphorodithioate; disulfoton oxygen analog
sulfoxide, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfinyl)ethyl) phosphorothioate,
disulfoton sulfone, O,O-diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfonyl)ethyl)
phosphorodithioate; and disulfoton oxygen analog sulfone, O,O-
diethyl S-(2-(ethylsulfonyl)ethyl) phosphorothioate; calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of disulfoton, in or on the commodity.

    There are Codex MRLs for disulfoton, including those on asparagus
at 0.02 mg/kg, coffee beans at 0.2 mg/kg, common bean (pods and/or
immature seeds) at 0.2 mg/kg, cotton, seed at 0.1 mg/kg, and other
commodities.
    7. EPTC. Because cotton forage is no longer considered by the
Agency to be a significant livestock feed commodity as delineated in
``Table 1.--Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs
Derived from Crops,'' which is found in Residue Chemistry Test
Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000, dated August 1996 (available at http://
www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_
Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series/), EPA determined that the tolerance
is no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.117 for
residues of S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) in or on cotton,
forage.
    Because there have been no active S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
registrations in the United States for use on asparagus, small fruits
(including strawberries), flax seeds, and pineapples for more than 10
years, the tolerances are no longer needed and therefore should be
revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.117 on asparagus; fruit, small; strawberry; flax, seed; and
pineapple.
    Because castor beans and oil products are not consumed by humans or
livestock, 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 180.117 on castorbean, seed.
    EPA is proposing, in 40 CFR 180.117, to remove the ``(N)''
designation from all entries to conform to current Agency
administrative practice (``N'' designation means negligible residues).
Also, tolerances are currently established in 40 CFR 180.117 for
negligible residues of the herbicide S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate,
also called EPTC. EPA determined that EPTC plant residues of
toxicological concern are EPTC, EPTC sulfoxide, EPTC sulfone, and the
EPTC conjugates (glutathione, cysteine, N-malonyl cysteine, S-lactic
acid, and O-malonyl S-lactic acid conjugates). However, the Agency
concurred with the registrant's position that development of a single
enforcement analytical method that can detect each of these residues
was not feasible. Because development of an enforcement analytical
method for the hydroxylated metabolites (S-ethyl (2-
hydroxypropyl)propylcarbamothioate, S-(2-
hydroxyethyl)dipropylcarbamothioate, and S-ethyl (3-
hydroxypropyl)propylcarbamothioate) was feasible, the Agency concurred
with the registrant's recommendation that EPTC and its hydroxylated
metabolites be used as marker residues of EPTC residues of
toxicological concern. Therefore, in order to describe more clearly the
measurement and scope or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing
to redesignate the existing paragraph from 40 CFR 180.117 to 180.117(a)
and revise the introductory text containing the tolerance expression in
newly designated 40 CFR 180.117(a) to include its hydroxylated
metabolites as marker residues of S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate
residues of toxicological concern (i.e., markers of EPTC, EPTC
sulfoxide, EPTC sulfone, and the EPTC conjugates resulting from the
glutathione-S-transferase pathway), to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, S-ethyl (2-
hydroxypropyl)propylcarbamothioate, S-(2-
hydroxyethyl)dipropylcarbamothioate, and S-ethyl (3-
hydroxypropyl)propylcarbamothioate, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate, in or on the commodity.

    The majority of the current crop groupings for residues of EPTC are
based on obsolete crop groupings and, for many, the minimum data
requirements for the establishment of crop group tolerances were not
satisfied. Therefore, in the EPTC RED, the Agency recommended
revocation of crop group tolerances, concomitant with the establishment
of individual tolerances for the affected commodities.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were <0.09 ppm
in or on potatoes and <0.11 ppm in on sugar beet roots, the Agency
determined that the tolerance for the obsolete group, vegetable, root,
should be revoked and individual tolerances should be established for
beet, garden, roots; beet, sugar, roots; potato; and sweet potato
(based on translation of available data from potatoes). Therefore, EPA
is proposing in newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to
revoke the tolerance on vegetable, root at 0.1 ppm and establish
tolerances on beet, garden, roots at 0.1 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1
ppm; potato at 0.1 ppm; and sweet potato, roots at 0.1 ppm. Also, based
on processing data that showed combined residues of EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites were as high as <0.80 ppm in molasses that was
processed from the raw agricultural commodity (sugar beet roots) with
residues as high as <0.2 ppm (after application at 2X the maximum
exposure rate), the Agency determined that combined residues had
concentrated in molasses by a factor of 4X and that after a 1X
application on sugar beet roots, residues in molasses

would be expected at <0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish
a tolerance in newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) on beet,
sugar, molasses at 0.4 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) of the enforcement
method for EPTC and its hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or
on almond nutmeats and hulls, and walnut nutmeats, the Agency
determined that the tolerance for the obsolete group, nut, should be
revoked and individual tolerances should be established for almond,
nutmeat and walnut, nutmeat; each at 0.08 ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and
0.03 ppm for the combined hydroxylated metabolites), and decrease
almond, hulls from 0.1 ppm to 0.08 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in
newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance
on nut at 0.1 ppm and establish tolerances on almond at 0.08 ppm and
walnut at 0.08 ppm, and decrease the tolerance on almond, hulls to 0.08
ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the LOQ of the enforcement method for EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or on tomatoes, the Agency
determined that the tolerance for the obsolete group, vegetable,
fruiting, should be revoked and an individual tolerance should be
established for tomato at 0.08 ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and 0.03 ppm for
the combined hydroxylated metabolites). Therefore, EPA is proposing in
newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance
on vegetable, fruiting at 0.1 ppm and establish a tolerance on tomato
at 0.08 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate were non-detectable (<0.05 ppm) in or on alfalfa
forage and hay, and clover forage and hay, and maximum total residues
of EPTC hydroxylated metabolites were 0.18 ppm in or on alfalfa forage,
0.61 ppm in or on alfalfa hay, 0.01 ppm in or on clover forage, and
0.05 ppm in or on clover hay, the Agency determined that the tolerance
for the obsolete group, legume, forage, should be revoked and
individual tolerances should be established for alfalfa, forage at 0.2
ppm and alfalfa, hay at 0.6 ppm, clover, forage at 0.1 ppm, and clover,
hay at 0.1 ppm. Also, the Agency determined that the data for clover
forage and hay can be translated to the forage and hay of trefoil and
lespedeza, and therefore individual tolerances for each of them should
be established at 0.1 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing in newly
designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance on
legume, forage at 0.1 ppm and establish tolerances on alfalfa, forage
at 0.2 ppm, alfalfa, hay at 0.6 ppm, clover, forage at 0.1 ppm, clover,
hay at 0.1 ppm, lespedeza, forage at 0.1 ppm, lespedeza, hay at 0.1
ppm, trefoil, forage at 0.1 ppm, and trefoil, hay at 0.1 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate were non-detectable (<0.05 ppm) in or on sugar
beet tops, and maximum total residues of EPTC and its hydroxylated
metabolites were <0.47 ppm in or on sugar beet tops, the Agency
determined that the tolerance for the obsolete group, vegetable, leafy,
should be revoked and individual tolerances should be established for
beet, garden, tops at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm.
Therefore, EPA is proposing in newly designated and revised 40 CFR
180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance on vegetable, leafy at 0.1 ppm and
establish tolerances on beet, garden, tops at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar,
tops at 0.5 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the LOQ of the enforcement method for EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or on beans (succulent and
dry), the Agency determined that the tolerance for the obsolete group,
vegetable, seed and pod, should be revoked and individual tolerances
should be established for bean, dry, seed; bean, succulent; and pea,
succulent (based on translation of available data from succulent
beans); each at 0.08 ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and 0.03 ppm for the
combined hydroxylated metabolites). Therefore, EPA is proposing in
newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance
on vegetable, seed and pod at 0.1 ppm and establish tolerances on bean,
dry, seed at 0.08 ppm, bean, succulent at 0.08 ppm, and pea, succulent
at 0.08 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the LOQ of the enforcement method for EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or on field corn grain or
sweet corn ear, the Agency determined that the tolerance for the
obsolete group, grain, crop, should be revoked, data could be
translated from field corn grain to popcorn grain, and individual
tolerances should be established for corn, field, grain; corn, pop,
grain; and corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; each at
0.08 ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and 0.03 ppm for the combined hydroxylated
metabolites). Therefore, EPA is proposing in newly designated and
revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance on grain, crop at 0.1
ppm and establish tolerances on corn, field, grain at 0.08 ppm, corn,
pop, grain at 0.08 ppm, and corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed at 0.08 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the LOQ of the enforcement method for EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or on field corn forage and
stover, and sweet corn forage and ears, the Agency determined that the
tolerance for the obsolete group, grass, forage, should be revoked,
data could be translated from field corn stover to popcorn stover, and
individual tolerances should be established for corn, field, forage;
corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn,
sweet, stover; each at 0.08 ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and 0.03 ppm for the
combined hydroxylated metabolites). Therefore, EPA is proposing in
newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to revoke the tolerance
on grass, forage at 0.1 ppm and establish tolerances on corn, field,
forage at 0.08 ppm, corn, field, stover at 0.08 ppm, corn, pop, stover
at 0.08 ppm, corn, sweet, forage at 0.08 ppm, and corn, sweet, stover
at 0.08 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were non-
detectable (<0.05 ppm and <0.01 ppm for each of the three hydroxylated
metabolites; i.e., the LOQ of the enforcement method for EPTC and its
hydroxylated metabolites, respectively) in or on cottonseed, safflower
seeds, and sunflower seeds, the Agency determined that the tolerances
on cottonseed, safflower seed, and sunflower seed should be decreased
from 0.1 to 0.08

ppm (0.05 ppm for EPTC and 0.03 ppm for the combined hydroxylated
metabolites). Therefore, EPA is proposing in newly designated and
revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) to decrease the tolerances on cotton,
undelinted seed to 0.08 ppm; safflower, seed to 0.08 ppm; and
sunflower, seed to 0.08 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed residues of S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate and its hydroxylated metabolites were <0.05 ppm
for EPTC and each of the three hydroxylated metabolites (total combined
residues were <0.20 ppm) in or on cotton gin byproducts, the Agency
determined that a tolerance should be established at 0.20 ppm.
Therefore, EPA is proposing in newly designated and revised 40 CFR
180.117(a) to establish a tolerance on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.20
ppm.
    In accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 180.117 by adding separate paragraphs (b), (c), and (d),
and reserving those paragraphs with tolerance exemptions for section 18
emergency exemptions, tolerances with regional registrations, and
tolerances with indirect or inadvertent residues, respectively. Also
EPA is proposing to revise the nomenclature and tolerance in newly
designated and revised 40 CFR 180.117(a) from ``fruit, citrus'' to
``fruit, citrus, group 10.''
    There are no Codex MRLs for EPTC.
    8. Ethoprop. On May 27, 2009, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register (74 FR 25237) (FRL-8418-2) that announced the Agency's receipt
of request from the registrant to voluntarily amend a registration and
therefore terminate the last ethoprop use in the United States on
pineapple. EPA approved amendment of the registration by issuing a
cancellation order on July 9, 2009 to the registrant, made it effective
on July 23, 2009, and permitted the registrant to sell and distribute
existing ethoprop stocks of the amended registration (concerning
pineapple use deletion) for 18 months after July 9, 2009; i.e., until
January 9, 2011. The Agency permitted persons other than the registrant
to sell and distribute existing stocks and use of the affected ethoprop
product until exhaustion. However, the Agency believes that end users
will have had sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for
ethoprop treated pineapple commodities to have cleared the channels of
trade by January 9, 2012. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.262(a) for pineapple with an expiration/
revocation date of January 9, 2012.
    Because there have been no active registrations in the United
States for ethoprop use on popcorn for more than 10 years, and
therefore, tolerances covering popcorn use are no longer needed, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.262(a) on corn, pop,
grain and corn, pop, stover.
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.262(a) to read
as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the nematocide and
insecticide ethoprop, O-ethyl S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
ethoprop, O-ethyl S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate, in or on the
commodity.

    There are no Codex MRLs for ethoprophos on pineapple or corn, but
there are MRLs for ethoprophos on other commodities.
    9. Fenamiphos. There have been no active food use registrations for
fenamiphos in the United States since 2007. In a proposed rule that EPA
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6867)
(FRL-8345-2), the Agency proposed specific tolerances for multiple
pesticide active ingredients, including fenamiphos, and stated that
Bayer CropScience informed the Agency that it would support fenamiphos
tolerances on citrus and garlic, among others, for import purposes
since there were no active domestic registrations for those uses. In
January 2010, Bayer CropScience informed EPA that it no longer was
interested in supporting import tolerances for residues of fenamiphos
in or on citrus and garlic, but would continue to support import
tolerances for residues of fenamiphos in or on banana, grape, and
pineapple. Because no one other than Bayer CropScience expressed an
interest in retaining the fenamiphos tolerances on citrus and garlic,
there is no longer a need for them. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a) on citrus, dried pulp;
citrus, oil; fruit, citrus, group 10; and garlic; add a missing
footnote to the tolerance for grape, raisin to reflect that it has no
U.S. registrations, and revise the footnoted information for all
remaining tolerances to reflect the effective cancellation date of the
last fenamiphos registrations in the United States to be as of May 31,
2007.
    Because the tolerances expired on December 31, 2009, EPA is
proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a) on apple;
Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cherry, sweet; cherry, tart; eggplant; okra;
peach; peanut; raspberry; and strawberry; in 180.349(c) on asparagus;
beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; cabbage, Chinese, bok choy;
kiwifruit; and pepper, nonbell; and reserve paragraph (c).
    Also, in order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope
or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.349(a) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the nematicide/
insecticide fenamiphos, ethyl 3-methyl-4-(methylthio)phenyl 1-
(methylethyl)phosphoramidate, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of fenamiphos, ethyl 3-
methyl-4-(methylthio)phenyl 1-(methylethyl)phosphoramidate, and its
cholinesterase inhibiting metabolites ethyl 3-methyl-4-
(methylsulfinyl)phenyl 1-(methylethyl)phosphoramidate and ethyl 3-
methyl-4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl 1-(methylethyl)phosphoramidate,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of fenamiphos, in or on
the commodity.

    There are Codex MRLs for fenamiphos, including those on apple;
banana; Brussels sprouts; cabbages, head; and peanut at 0.05 mg/kg, and
other commodities.
    10. Hexazinone. Currently, tolerances are expressed for the
herbicide hexazinone in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for the combined residues
of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione) and its plant metabolites; A (3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,
3H)-dione, B (3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
(1H, 3H)-dione), C (3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione), D (3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4,6-(1H, 3H, 5H)-trione), and E (3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-
methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H, 3H, 5H)-trione) (calculated as
hexazinone). In order to describe more clearly the measurement and
scope or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.396(a)(1) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the

table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, and its plant metabolites:
metabolite A, 3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, metabolite B, 3-cyclohexyl-6-
(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, metabolite
C, 3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, metabolite D, 3-cyclohexyl-1-methyl-1,3,5-
triazine-2,4,6-(1H, 3H, 5H)-trione, and metabolite E, 3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1H, 3H, 5H)-
trione, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of hexazinone,
in or on the commodity.

    Based on available field trial data that showed combined hexazinone
residues of concern as high as 183 ppm in or on grass forage at a 0-day
PHI and 133 ppm in or on grass, hay at a 14 to 38-day PHI, EPA
determined that the tolerance for grass forage should be increased from
10 to 250 ppm, and a tolerance for grass hay should be established at
230 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40
CFR 180.396(a)(1) on grass, forage to 250 ppm and establish a tolerance
in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) on grass, hay at 230 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 available field trial data that showed combined hexazinone
residues of concern as high as <3.33 ppm in or on alfalfa hay, EPA
determined that the tolerance on alfalfa hay should be decreased from
8.0 to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR
180.396(a)(1) to decrease the tolerance on alfalfa, hay to 4.0 ppm.
    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(2) to
read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined
by measuring only the sum of hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-
(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, and its
animal tissue metabolites: metabolite B, 3-cyclohexyl-6-
(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, and
metabolite F, 3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,
3H)-dione, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
hexazinone, in or on the commodity.

    In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3) to
read as follows:

    A tolerance is established for residues of the herbicide
hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodity in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the
tolerance level specified in this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of hexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-
(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, and its
metabolites: metabolite B, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-
1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, metabolite C, 3-(4-
hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H,
3H)-dione, metabolite C-2, 3-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-
1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione, and metabolite F, 3-
cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1H, 3H)-dione,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of hexazinone, in or on
the commodity.

    In the Federal Register of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56392) (FRL-
8089-6), EPA published a final tolerance rule for several active
pesticide ingredients, including hexazinone. Because the Agency
received a comment from DuPont Crop Protection which stated that it
would be submitting grass residue data and expected increased residues
that would warrant revision of existing tolerances for both grass and
hay as livestock feed commodities, EPA did not finalize revocation of
certain livestock tolerances for hexazinone, in 40 CFR 180.396, at that
time. Upon review of the submitted data, EPA has determined that
tolerances on the fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should
be maintained at 0.1 ppm. However, based on available field trial data
for grass and hay, and a recalculation of dietary burden that show the
maximum total hexazinone residues were 3.85 ppm in liver, 2.19 ppm in
kidney, 0.32 ppm in muscle, <0.1 ppm in fat, and 11.09 ppm in milk, the
Agency determined that meat byproduct tolerances of cattle, goats,
hogs, horses, and sheep should be increased from 0.1 to 4.0 ppm; meat
tolerances of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be
increased from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm, and the milk tolerance should be
increased from 0.2 to 11 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(2) on cattle, meat byproducts;
goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts;
and sheep, meat byproducts; each to 4.0 ppm; and on cattle, meat; goat,
meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat; each to 0.5 ppm. Also,
EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3) on
milk to 11 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.
    Also, in the Federal Register of September 27, 2006 (71 FR 56392),
EPA agreed with a comment from DuPont Crop Protection which stated that
registrations for use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida are active
and that the current regional tolerances for sugarcane be designated as
general tolerances. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the regional
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396(c) on sugarcane, cane at 0.6 ppm and
sugarcane, molasses at 4.0 ppm, reserve paragraph (c) for tolerances
with regional registrations, and establish tolerances in 40 CFR
180.396(a)(1) on sugarcane, cane at 0.6 ppm and sugarcane, molasses at
4.0 ppm.
    There are no Codex MRLs for hexazinone.
    11. Malathion. Based on available ruminant and poultry metabolism
data at exaggerated feeding rates of malathion-treated livestock feeds
and that no active registrations for direct animal treatment with
malathion have existed since March 2005, EPA determined that there is
no reasonable expectation of finite residues of malathion in fat, meat,
and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep;
milk fat; and eggs. These tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR
180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.111(a)(3) for residues of malathion in or on egg; milk, fat;
cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat,
meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts;
horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry,
meat; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep,
meat byproducts; and therefore, remove paragraph (a)(3) in its
entirety, including its footnote.
    On May 20, 2009, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (74
FR 23708) (FRL-8414-2) that announced the Agency's receipt of requests
from the registrants to voluntarily cancel or amend specific malathion
registrations and therefore terminate specific uses, including the last
use on cranberries for malathion products registered for use in the
United States. EPA approved cancellation of these registrations and
uses by publishing a cancellation order on July 15, 2009 in the Federal
Register (74 FR 34345) (FRL-8425-3) and made

them effective on July 15, 2009, and permitted the malathion
registrants, including the registrant who requested to amend to
terminate the use on cranberry, to sell and distribute existing
malathion stocks (concerning the last use for cranberry) for 1 year
from the effective date of July 15, 2009; i.e., until July 15, 2010.
The Agency permitted persons other than the registrant to sell and
distribute existing stocks and use of those cancelled products until
exhaustion. However, the Agency believes that end users will have had
sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated
cranberry commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by July 15,
2011. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.111(a)(1) on cranberry with an expiration/revocation date of July
15, 2011.
    Based on available processing data that showed combined residues of
malathion and malaoxon on whole grapes were higher than those on
raisins from pre-harvest grapes treated at 5X the maximum single
application rate, the Agency determined that malathion residues of
concern did not concentrate in raisins. Also, while there are active
registrations for the pre-harvest use of malathion on grapes, covered
by the tolerance on grapes at 8 ppm in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1), there have
been no active malathion registrations in the United States for
malathion use on raisins or paper trays for drying grapes to raisins
for more than 10 years. Therefore, the tolerance in currently existing
40 CFR 180.111(a)(4) on raisin at 12 ppm is no longer needed and should
be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in
currently existing 40 CFR 180.111(a)(4) on raisins at 12 ppm resulting
from drying of grape on treated trays and from application to grape
before harvest, and remove paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) in their
entireties.
    Because there have been no active malathion registrations in the
United States for use on paper used in packaging non-medicated cattle
feed concentrate blocks since 1997, use on bagged citrus pulp since
1997, use on sunflower commodities since 2002, safflower commodities
since 2003, and peanut commodities since early 2007, the tolerances are
no longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.111(a)(1) on
sunflower, seed, postharvest; safflower, seed; peanut, hay; peanut,
postharvest; the tolerance in currently existing 40 CFR 180.111(a)(5)
on safflower, refined oil, and remove paragraph (a)(5) in its entirety;
and the tolerances in currently existing 40 CFR 180.111(a)(7)(i) on
citrus, dried pulp as the result of the application to bagged citrus
pulp during storage, and in currently existing 40 CFR 180.111(a)(7)(ii)
on non-medicated cattle feed concentrate blocks as the result of
application to paper used in its packaging, and remove paragraph (a)(7)
in its entirety.
    In order to conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR
180.111(a)(1), EPA is proposing to revise the commodity terminology
from ``bean, dry seed'' to ``bean, dry, seed.''
    There are no Codex MRLs for malathion on egg, milk, or animal
commodities; however, there are Codex MRLs for malathion on citrus
fruits and other specific plant commodities.
    12. Methamidophos. On July 22, 2009, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register (74 FR 36204) (FRL-8427-2) that announced the Agency's
receipt of requests from the registrants to voluntarily cancel all
disulfoton and methamidophos registrations and therefore terminate the
last disulfoton and methamidophos products registered for use in the
United States, including the last methamidophos uses on cotton, potato,
and tomato. EPA approved cancellation of the registrations by
publishing a cancellation order on September 23, 2009 in the Federal
Register (74 FR 48551) (FRL-8437-1) and made them effective on
September 23, 2009, and permitted the methamidophos registrant to sell
and distribute existing methamidophos stocks (concerning cotton,
potato, and tomato use) until December 31, 2010. For all affected
methamidophos products, the Agency permitted persons other than the
registrant to sell and distribute existing stocks and use of those
cancelled products until exhaustion. However, the Agency believes that
end users will have had sufficient time to exhaust those existing
stocks and for treated cotton, potato, and tomato commodities to have
cleared the channels of trade by December 31, 2012. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on cotton,
undelinted seed, potato, and tomato with expiration/revocation dates of
December 31, 2012. Also, because the last registrations for use of
methamidophos on tomatoes were FIFRA section 24(c) registrations and
there are no active registrations for use of acephate on tomatoes, the
Agency has determined that the tomato tolerance should be redesignated
as a regional tolerance. In addition, on May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28912)
(FRL-8130-8), EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register
concerning a number of pesticide active ingredients and proposed
tolerance actions, including the proposed recodification of the
methamidophos tolerance in 40 CFR 180.315 on tomato as a regional
tolerance and an increase from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm based on data that showed
residues as high as 1.4 ppm. During the public comment period, the
Agency received comment from the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR), who asked that the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.315 on
tomato be decreased to 0.3 ppm in order to be health protective. The
suggested decrease was based on CDPR's dietary risk assessments for
methamidophos at the 95th percentile for exposure and a tolerance level
of 1 ppm, and not using a percent crop treated (PCT) adjustment for
tomato. On September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54574) (FRL-8147-6), EPA published
a final rule in the Federal Register in follow-up to the proposed rule
of May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28912) and announced that it would not take
action on methamidophos tolerances at that time based upon comments and
issues concerning several commodities. However, EPA estimates dietary
risks based on tolerance levels only as a screening tool. If risks are
unacceptable using tolerance levels, a number of refinements can be
made including the use of the entire distribution of field trial data,
monitoring data, average residue levels for blended commodities, and
PCT data. When using PCT data in dietary risk assessment, it is the
Agency's policy to regulate at a higher percentile of exposure,
typically the 99.9th percentile, to assure protection of public health.
Using these refinements provides more accurate estimates of the level
of pesticide residues present at the time of consumption and therefore
more realistic dietary risk estimates. Since tolerances are established
based solely on the available field trial residue data, and dietary
risks can be refined in the ways described, which are not necessarily
directly correlated with the tolerance level, the Agency does not agree
that decreasing the current tolerance for tomato will provide any
additional health protection. The Agency believes that the recommended
tolerance of 2.0 ppm on tomato and the dietary risk assessment
performed for methamidophos are protective of public health. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to redesignate 40 CFR 180.315(b) as 40 CFR
180.315(c), remove the tolerance on tomato from 40 CFR 180.315(a) and
transfer it to newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.315(c), revoke
the tolerance on tomato with an expiration/revocation

date of December 31, 2012, and increase the tolerance from 1.0 to 2.0
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, currently, tolerances for the insecticide methamidophos are
expressed in 40 CFR 180.315(a) and newly designated and revised
180.315(c) for residues of methamidophos, O,S-dimethyl
phosphoramidothioate. In order to describe more clearly the measurement
and scope or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.315(a) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of methamidophos, O,S-
dimethyl phosphoramidothioate, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph
as a result of the application of methamidophos. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined by
measuring only methamidophos, O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate, in
or on the commodity.

    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression in newly designated and revised 40
CFR 180.315(c) to read as follows:

    A tolerance with a regional registration is established for
residues of methamidophos, O,S-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodity in
the table in this paragraph as a result of the application of
methamidophos. Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this
paragraph is to be determined by measuring only methamidophos, O,S-
dimethyl phosphoramidothioate, in or on the commodity.

    Because there are no active registrations in the United States for
methamidophos on Brussels sprouts and cauliflower since 1989; celery
since 1998; and lettuce and peppers since 2001; the tolerances are no
longer needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on Brussels
sprouts; cauliflower; lettuce; and pepper; and the regional tolerance
in newly designated and revised 40 CFR 180.315(c) on celery.
    On May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28912), EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register concerning a number of pesticide active ingredients
and proposed tolerance actions, including the proposed revocation of
methamidophos tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315 on broccoli and cabbage
because there are no active registrations for uses of either
methamidophos or acephate on broccoli and cabbage in the United States
and therefore, the tolerances were no longer needed. However, during
the public comment period, the Agency received comment from Bayer
CropScience Inc. and the Canadian Horticultural Council, who each asked
that the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315 on broccoli and cabbage not be
revoked to allow continuation of the importation of methamidophos-
treated broccoli and cabbage commodities from Canada into the United
States. On September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54574), EPA published a final rule
in the Federal Register in follow-up to the proposed rule of May 23,
2007 and announced that it would not take action on methamidophos
tolerances at that time. Since then, Bayer CropScience Inc. has
notified the Agency of a phase-out schedule they negotiated with the
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in Canada where the last date
of methamidophos product sale (Monitor 480) by Bayer CropScience Inc.
is December 31, 2010, last date of methamidophos product sale (Monitor
480) by retailers is December 31, 2011, and last date of permitted use
and expiration of Monitor 480 registration in Canada is December 31,
2012. In addition, Bayer CropScience Inc. has requested that EPA
maintain U.S. tolerances on broccoli and cabbage until December 31,
2012 in order to allow imports into the U.S. of broccoli and cabbage
treated with methamidophos product. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on broccoli and cabbage with
expiration/revocation dates of December 31, 2012.
    In accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 180.315 by adding paragraphs (b) and (d), and reserving
those paragraphs for tolerances with section 18 emergency exemptions
and indirect or inadvertent residues, respectively.
    There are Codex MRLs for methamidophos, including those on
cottonseed at 0.2 mg/kg and potato at 0.05 mg/kg, and other
commodities.
    13. Methomyl. On April 25, 2007, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register (72 FR 20541) (FRL-8125-6) that announced the Agency's
receipt of requests from the registrants for amendments to delete uses,
including the last methomyl uses on strawberry. After a 180-day public
comment period, EPA approved the use deletions and made them effective
on March 10, 2008, and permitted the methomyl registrant to sell and
distribute existing methomyl stocks (concerning strawberry use) for a
period of 18 months after approval of the revision; i.e., until
September 10, 2009. For all affected methomyl products, the Agency
permitted persons other than the registrant to sell and distribute
existing stocks and use of those cancelled products until exhaustion.
However, the Agency believes that end users will have had sufficient
time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated strawberry
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by September 10,
2010. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.253(a) on strawberry on the date a final rule, in follow-up to this
proposed rule, publishes in the Federal Register (which the Agency
expects to occur after September 10, 2010). In addition, there have
been no active food-use registrations for use of methomyl on leeks for
more than 10 years and watercress since 1991, and therefore the
tolerances are no longer needed and should be revoked. Consequently,
EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.253(a) on leek
and watercress.
    There are no Codex MRLs on leek, strawberry, or watercress for
methomyl.
    14. Methyl bromide. On September 30, 2009, EPA published a notice
in the Federal Register (74 FR 50199) (FRL-8792-8) that announced the
Agency's receipt of requests from the registrants for amendments to
delete uses, including the last methyl bromide postharvest uses on
alfalfa hay and cottonseed. On February 3, 2010 (75 FR 5582) (FRL-8805-
9), EPA approved the use deletions and made them effective on February
3, 2010, and permitted the methyl bromide registrant to sell and
distribute existing methyl bromide stocks (concerning alfalfa hay and
cottonseed postharvest uses) until October 31, 2009. For all affected
methyl bromide products, the Agency permitted persons other than the
registrant to sell and distribute existing stocks until October 31,
2010, and use of those cancelled products until exhaustion. However,
the Agency believes that end users will have had sufficient time to
exhaust those existing stocks and for treated alfalfa hay and
cottonseed commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by October
31, 2011. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.123(a)(1) on alfalfa, hay, postharvest and cotton, undelinted
seed, postharvest with expiration/revocation dates of October 31, 2011.
    Because there have been no active methyl bromide registrations in
the

United States for postharvest use on mangos and papayas for more than
10 years, the tolerances are no longer needed and therefore should be
revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.123(a)(1) on mango, postharvest and papaya, postharvest. Also,
because there have been no active methyl bromide registrations in the
United States for postharvest use on timothy hay since October 19,
2009, when one FIFRA section 24(c), special local need registration in
California was amended to delete use on timothy hay, the tolerance is
no longer needed and therefore should be revoked. The Agency believes
that there will be sufficient time for product in channels of trade to
be distributed and sold to users and for end users to exhaust those
existing stocks and for treated timothy hay commodities to have cleared
the channels of trade by October 19, 2010. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.123(a)(1) on timothy,
hay, postharvest with an expiration/revocation date of October 19,
2010.
    While there are no Codex MRLs for methyl bromide, there are MRLs
for the bromide ion on specific commodities, but none on alfalfa,
cottonseed, mango, papaya, or timothy hay.
    15. N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide (MGK-264). Currently,
there are tolerances in 40 CFR 180.367(a)(2) for residues of MGK-264,
piperonyl butoxide, and pyrethrins at 10 ppm, 10 ppm, and 1 ppm,
respectively, when these pesticides are used in combination in or on
food resulting from applications in food-processing and food-storage
areas, provided that the food is removed or covered prior to such use.
Based on available residue data for uncovered bagged foods that showed
levels of MGK-264 at <5.0 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance
for residues of MGK-264 in or on food in food-processing and food-
storage areas (where food is removed or covered prior to MGK-264
treatment) should be decreased from 10 ppm to 5 ppm, that bagged foods
in warehouse storage need not be removed or covered prior to
applications of formulations containing MGK-264, and that while covered
or removed foods in food processing/handling establishments are not
likely to have detectable residues of MGK-264, uncovered foods showed
residues at >5 ppm. Also, given that a proposed food handling
establishment tolerance of 5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.367(a)(2) would cover
the individual fat tolerances for residues resulting from dermal
application at 0.3 ppm in Sec.  180.367(a)(1), the Agency determined
that there is no longer a need for the fat tolerances at 0.3 ppm and
they should be revoked. In addition, because tolerances for residues in
or on food from applications in food-processing and food-storage areas
currently exist in 40 CFR 180.127(a)(2)(iii) for piperonyl butoxide at
10 ppm and in 40 CFR 180.128(a)(3) for pyrethrins at 1.0 ppm, the
Agency determined that the tolerances for piperonyl butoxide and
pyrethrins in 40 CFR 180.367(a)(2) are duplicates which are no longer
needed and should be revoked since the use would be covered by the
other tolerances. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances
at 0.3 ppm in 40 CFR 180.367(a)(1) for N-octyl bicycloheptene
dicarboximide residues resulting from dermal application in or on
cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; milk, fat; and sheep,
fat; and remove existing paragraph (a)(1) in its entirety, revoke the
tolerances for piperonyl butoxide at 10 ppm and pyrethrins at 1 ppm in
40 CFR 180.367(a)(2)(ii), remove existing introductory text in 40 CFR
180.367(a)(2), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(2)(iii); decrease the tolerance in 40
CFR 180.367(a)(2)(ii) to 5 ppm and redesignate it as 40 CFR 180.367(a),
and revise newly designated paragraph (a), as follows:

    A tolerance of 5 parts per million is established for residues
of the insecticide synergist N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all food items in
food handling establishments where food and food products are held,
processed, prepared and/or served, provided that the food is removed
or covered prior to such use, except for bagged food in warehouse
storage which need not be removed or covered prior to applications
of formulations containing N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide.
Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only N-octyl bicycloheptene
dicarboximide, in or on the commodity.

    Because there have been no uses of N-octyl
bicycloheptenedicarboximide, MGK-264, in or on growing agricultural
crops for more than 10 years, the tolerance exemption is no longer
needed and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing
to revoke the tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.905(a)(2) for N-octyl
bicyclo(2,2,1)-5-heptene-2,3-dicarboximide, when applied to growing
crops. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.905(a) as
described herein under proposals for pyrethrum.
    There are no Codex MRLs for N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide.
    16. Phosmet. On November 4, 2005, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register (70 FR 67167) (FRL-7744-7) that announced the Agency's
receipt of requests from the registrants for amendments to delete uses
in certain pesticide registrations, including the last phosmet uses on
cotton. No comments were received by EPA and the Agency approved the
use deletions on December 5, 2005, and permitted the registrants to
sell and distribute existing stocks for a period of 18 months after
approval; i.e., until June 5, 2007. The Agency believes that end users
have had sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for
treated cotton to have cleared the channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.261(a) on cotton,
refined oil and cotton, undelinted seed.
    Also, in order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope
or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the section
heading in 40 CFR 180.261 from N-(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-
dimethyl phosphorodithioate) and its oxygen analog to phosmet and
revise the introductory text containing the tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.261(a) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide
phosmet, N-(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-dimethyl
phosphorodithioate), including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to be determined
by measuring only the sum of phosmet, N-(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide
S-(O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate), and its oxygen analog, N-
(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of phosmet, in or on the
commodity.

    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression for regional tolerances in 40 CFR
180.261(c) to read as follows:

    Tolerances with regional registration are established for
residues of the insecticide phosmet, N-(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide
S-(O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate), including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of phosmet, N-
(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate),
and its oxygen analog, N-(mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-
dimethyl phosphorothioate, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of phosmet, in or on the commodity.

    There are Codex MRLs on certain commodities for phosmet, including
an MRL on cottonseed.
    17. Picloram. As a post-RED action, EPA made certain tolerance
determinations for picloram on November 19, 2009 in a document made
available in the public docket of this proposed rule. Because there is
no need for a different tolerance expression for the existing
tolerances for picloram residues in processed grain commodities in 40
CFR 180.292(a)(2), EPA determined that paragraph (a)(2) should be
removed and the tolerances there should be moved into the table in
Sec.  180.292(a)(1), which therefore should be redesignated as
paragraph (a).
    Also, in order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope
or coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in newly
designated 40 CFR 180.292(a) to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
picloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in
this paragraph from its application in the acid form or in the form
of its salts. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this
paragraph is to be determined by measuring only picloram, 4-amino-
3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid, in or on the commodity.

    Based on available field trial data that showed picloram residues
of 195 ppm in or on grass forage at an application rate of 0.5 lb ae/A
with a 0-day PHI, EPA determined that the existing tolerance should be
increased from 80.0 to 400 ppm, which is an appropriate tolerance level
for grass forage for the existing maximum approved rate of 1.0 lb ae/A.
Also, based on available data that showed picloram residues as high as
170 ppm in or on grass hay at an application rate of 2.0 lb ae/A with a
14-day PHI and 213 ppm in or on grass hay at an application rate of 0.5
lb ae/A with a 0-day PHI, EPA determined that a tolerance should be
established on grass hay at 225 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.292(a) on grass, forage to 400 ppm
and establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.292(a) on grass, hay at 225
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 available cattle exaggerated feeding data at 1.39X the
Maximum Theoretical Dietary Burden (MTDB) that showed picloram residues
at 0.5 ppm in fat, 0.5 ppm in muscle, 18 ppm in kidney, 2.0 ppm in
liver, and 0.29 ppm in milk, EPA calculated that the maximum expected
residues in fat, muscle, meat byproducts, and milk at 1X MTDB to be
0.36 ppm, 0.36 ppm, 12.95 ppm, and 0.21 pm, respectively. Therefore,
the Agency determined that the tolerances for the fat and meat of
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should be increased from 0.2 to 0.4
ppm, the tolerance for milk should be increased from 0.05 to 0.25 ppm;
the separate tolerances for the kidney of cattle, goats, horses, and
sheep, and liver of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep should be revoked
because they will be covered by redefined meat byproduct tolerances for
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, and the redefined meat byproduct
tolerances should be increased to 15 ppm. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a) on cattle,
fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat;
sheep, fat; and sheep, meat to 0.4 ppm, and milk to 0.25 ppm. Also, EPA
is proposing to revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a)
on cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; goat, kidney; goat, liver; horse,
kidney, horse, liver; sheep kidney; and sheep, liver. In addition, EPA
is proposing to revise the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a) on ``cattle,
meat byproducts, except kidney and liver'' to ``cattle, meat
byproducts;'' ``goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver'' to
``goat, meat byproducts;'' ``horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and
liver'' to ``horse, meat byproducts;'' and ``sheep, meat byproducts,
except kidney and liver'' to ``sheep, meat byproducts;'' and increase
them to 15 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are
safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Although grass commodities are not significant feed items for
swine, wheat milled byproduct feed items which have picloram tolerances
show that the MTDB for swine is low (1.5 ppm). The lowest levels of
picloram fed to cattle and sheep (200 and 30 ppm) were well above the
anticipated exposure for hogs and the 30 ppm dose showed picloram
residues in kidney, liver, fat, and muscle of sheep were 0.38 ppm,
<0.05 ppm, <0.05 ppm, and <0.05 ppm, respectively. Based on the
available data, the Agency determined that the tolerances for hog, fat;
hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts should be decreased from 0.2 to
0.05 ppm, and hog, kidney and hog, liver should be decreased to 0.05
ppm. However, these separate kidney and liver tolerances are no longer
needed since they will be covered by redefined meat byproduct
tolerances. Therefore, EPA is proposing to decrease the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.292(a) on hog, fat and hog, meat, each to 0.05 ppm. Also EPA
is proposing to revoke the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.292(a)
on hog, kidney and hog, liver. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.292(a) on ``hog, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver'' to ``hog, meat byproducts'' and decrease it to 0.05
ppm.
    There are no Codex MRLs for picloram.
    18. Propazine. Because there have been no active registrations for
propazine use on sweet sorghum for more than 4 years, EPA is proposing
to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.243 on sorghum, sweet.
    Tolerances established in 40 CFR 180.243 are currently defined for
residues of propazine (the parent compound) only. Based on the results
of sorghum metabolism data, the Agency determined that two chlorinated
degradates should be included in the residue definition. Therefore, in
order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or coverage of
the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.243, and designate it
as paragraph (a), to read as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
propazine, 2-chloro-4,6-bis(isopropylamino)-s-triazine, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the
table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of propazine, 2-chloro-4,6-bis(isopropylamino)-s-triazine,
and its two chlorinated degradates, 2-amino-4-chloro-6-
isopropylamino-s-triazine and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-s-triazine,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of propazine, in or on
the commodity.

    Also, in newly designated 40 CFR 180.243(a), EPA is removing the
``(N)'' designation from all entries to conform to current Agency
administrative practice, where the ``N'' designation means negligible
residues, and revising commodity terminology to conform to current
Agency practice as follows: ``sorghum, forage'' to ``sorghum, grain,
forage.''
    In accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 180.243 by adding separate paragraphs (b), (c), and (d),
and reserving those sections for tolerances with section 18 emergency
exemptions, regional registrations, and indirect or inadvertent
residues, respectively.
    There are no Codex MRLs for propazine.

    19. Pyrethrum. Currently, there are tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR
180.905(a)(6) for pyrethrum and pyrethrins when applied to growing
crops in accordance with good agricultural practice. Because there have
been no active registrations in the United States for pyrethrum since
1991, there is no longer a need for a tolerance exemption on pyrethrum
and the tolerance exemption for it should be revoked. Consequently, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerance exemption for pyrethrum in 40 CFR
180.905(a)(6). While the tolerance exemption for pyrethrins will be
maintained, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.905(a) in accordance
with the proposed revocation of the tolerance exemption for N-
octylbicyclo(2,2,1)-5-heptene-2,3-dicarboximide in 40 CFR 180.905(a)(2)
as described elsewhere in this rule and transfer the entry for
petroleum oils from 40 CFR 180.905(a)(3) to 40 CFR 180.905(a)(1), which
had been reserved, transfer the entry for piperonyl butoxide from 40
CFR 180.905(a)(4) to 40 CFR 180.905(a)(2), transfer the entry for
pyrethrins from 40 CFR 180.905(a)(6) to 40 CFR 180.905(a)(3), transfer
the entry for rotenone or derris or cube roots from 40 CFR
180.905(a)(7) to 40 CFR 180.905(a)(4), transfer the entry for Sabadilla
from 40 CFR 180.905(a)(8) to 40 CFR 180.905(a)(5), which had been
reserved, and remove paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8).
    There are no Codex MRLs for pyrethrum. However, there are Codex
MRLs for pyrethrins concerning specific commodities.
    20. Thiodicarb. Based on available field trial at 5X the maximum
label rate and processing data that showed combined thiodicarb residues
of concern as high as 0.215 ppm on cottonseed and 0.228 in cottonseed
hulls, EPA calculated that the residues in cottonseed hulls are
unlikely to exceed both the current tolerance of 0.4 ppm on the raw
agricultural commodity (cotton, undelinted seed) and a tolerance of 0.2
ppm recommended for cottonseed in the 1998 RED for thiodicarb. Because
thiodicarb residues of concern concentrated by only 1.1X in cottonseed
hulls (based on average residues of 0.200 ppm in cottonseed and 0.223
ppm in cottonseed hulls), the Agency determined that residues in
cottonseed hulls will be covered by the tolerance on the raw
agricultural commodity and that the existing tolerance of 0.8 ppm on
cottonseed hulls is no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.407(a) on
cotton, hulls.
    There are no Codex MRLs for thiodicarb.
    21. Thiophanate-methyl. Currently, tolerances for the fungicide
thiophanate-methyl are expressed in 40 CFR 180.371(a) and 180.371(c)
for the combined residues of thiophanate-methyl, dimethyl ((1,2-
phenylene) bis (iminocarbonothioyl)) bis(carbamate), and its metabolite
methyl 2-benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC), calculated as thiophanate-
methyl. In order to describe more clearly the measurement and scope or
coverage of the tolerances, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory
text containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.371(a) to read
as follows:

    Tolerances are established for residues of thiophanate-methyl,
dimethyl ((1,2-phenylene) bis (iminocarbonothioyl)) bis(carbamate),
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
in the table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only
the sum of thiophanate-methyl, dimethyl ((1,2-phenylene) bis
(iminocarbonothioyl)) bis(carbamate), and its metabolite, methyl 2-
benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of thiophanate-methyl, in or on the commodity.

    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.371(c) to read as
follows:

    A tolerance with a regional registration is established for
residues of thiophanate-methyl, dimethyl ((1,2-phenylene) bis
(iminocarbonothioyl)) bis(carbamate), including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodity in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance level specified in this paragraph is
to be determined by measuring only the sum of thiophanate-methyl,
dimethyl ((1,2-phenylene) bis (iminocarbonothioyl)) bis(carbamate),
and its metabolite, methyl 2-benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC),
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of thiophanate-methyl,
in or on the commodity.

    Because tolerances for FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions in 40
CFR 180.371(b) for cotton, gin byproducts and cotton, undelinted seed
expired on December 31, 2008, blueberry expired on June 30, 2009, and
citrus, mushroom, and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 expired on December
31, 2009, they should be removed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove
the expired tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(b) for blueberry; citrus;
cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, undelinted seed; mushroom; and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8. Consequently, because no tolerances will
remain there, EPA is also proposing to reserve 40 CFR 180.371(b).
    Because sugar beet tops are no longer considered by the Agency to
be a significant feed item that will contribute to the overall dietary
burden of livestock, the tolerance is no longer needed and should be
revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.371(a) on beet, sugar, tops.
    Because there have been no active registrations in the United
States for thiophanate-methyl use on sugarcane for more than 9 years,
the tolerance should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371(a) on sugarcane, cane.
    Based on available cattle feeding data at exaggerated pesticide
dose levels and MTDB for cattle, the Agency determined that there is no
reasonable expectation of detecting finite residues of thiophanate-
methyl residues of concern in the milk and fat, meat, and meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, horses and sheep. Therefore, these
tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently,
EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(a) on
cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat,
meat; goat, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat
byproducts; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts; and
milk.
    Based on available data provided to support reregistration that
showed thiophanate-methyl residues of concern, the Agency determined
that tolerances should be established on aspirated grain fractions
(based on soybean) at 12 ppm and wheat forage at 1.1 ppm. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(a) on grain,
aspirated fractions at 12 ppm and wheat, forage at 1.1 ppm.
    In the Federal Register of July 11, 2007 (72 FR 37646)(FRL-8131-6),
EPA issued a final rule which revoked, modified, and established
certain tolerances for specific pesticide active ingredients, including
thiophanate-methyl, for which the Agency revised the commodity
terminology in 40 CFR 180.371(a) for bean (snap and dry) into bean,
dry, seed and bean, snap, succulent, and inadvertently decreased the
tolerance for bean, snap, succulent from 2.0 to 0.2 ppm. However, in
the Federal Register of September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54953)(FRL-8078-2),
EPA issued a proposed rule which proposed to revise the tolerance in 40
CFR 180.371(a) for bean (snap and dry) into bean, dry, seed and bean,
snap, succulent, and stated that the tolerance for bean, snap,
succulent would be maintained at 2.0 ppm. Consequently, the Agency is
proposing to reinstate the correct tolerance level for the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.371(a) on bean, snap, succulent to 2.0 ppm.

     There are no Codex MRLs for thiophanate-methyl.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such
food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)).
For a 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/tolerance exemption 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/tolerance
exemptions meets the safety standard of FQPA. The safety finding
determination is discussed in detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for
the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of
certain tolerance/tolerance exemption 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 REDs for acephate, cacodylic acid, ethoprop,
hexazinone, methamidophos, N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide,
phosmet, picloram, pyrethrum (see pyrethrins RED), and thiophanate-
methyl, and TREDs for hexazinone and propazine, as noted in Unit II.A.,
and made a safety finding which reassessed picloram tolerances
according to the FFDCA standard, maintaining them when new picloram
tolerances were established on January 5, 1999 (64 FR 418) (FRL-6039-
4), and since then made certain tolerance determinations for picloram
on November 19, 2009 in a document made available in the public docket
of this proposed rule, as noted in Unit II.A. REDs and TREDs contain
the Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides, including
requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm
the potential human health and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions
under which these uses and products will be eligible for
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment,
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances/tolerance
exemptions. 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/
tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on
crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the
pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. EPA has
historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not
necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may
encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless,
EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding
domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as
``import tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the
United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However,
where there are no imported commodities that require these import
tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances
for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of FFDCA, a tolerance/tolerance exemption 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/tolerance
exemptions for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no
longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances/
tolerance exemptions. 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/tolerance
exemptions 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/tolerance
exemption at issue.
    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example,
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
    1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
    2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will
exist.
    3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).

    EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg
tolerances proposed for revocation in this document and has concluded
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of
concern in or on those commodities.

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    With the exception of certain tolerances for cacodylic acid,
dicloran, disulfoton, ethoprop, malathion, methamidophos, and methyl
bromide for which EPA is proposing specific expiration/revocation
dates, the Agency is proposing that these revocations, modifications,
establishment of tolerances, and revisions of tolerance nomenclature
become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. With the exception of the proposed revocation of
specific tolerances for cacodylic acid, dicloran, disulfoton, ethoprop,
malathion, methamidophos, and methyl bromide, 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 cleared the channels of
trade. EPA is proposing expiration/revocation dates of January 1, 2012
for the cacodylic acid tolerance on cotton, undelinted seed; November
2, 2011 for the dicloran tolerance on carrot, roots, postharvest;
December 31, 2012 for the disulfoton tolerances on bean, lima; bean,
snap, succulent; broccoli; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cauliflower;
cotton, undelinted seed; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; and asparagus;
June 30, 2013 for the disulfoton tolerance on coffee, green bean;
January 9, 2012 for the ethoprop tolerance on pineapple; July 15, 2011
for the malathion tolerance on cranberry; December 31, 2012 for the
methamidophos tolerances on broccoli; cabbage; cotton, undelinted seed;
tomato; and potato; October 19, 2010 for the methyl bromide tolerance
on timothy, hay, postharvest; and October 31, 2011 for the methyl
bromide tolerances on alfalfa, hay, postharvest and cotton, undelinted
seed, postharvest. The Agency believes that these revocation dates
allow users to exhaust stocks and allows 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(l)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this unit, 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. International Residue Limits

    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 MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 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.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for cacodylic acid, dicamba,
EPTC, hexazinone, N-octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide, picloram,
propazine, pyrethrum, thiodicarb, and thiophanate-methyl, or MRL in or
on corn, pop, grain; corn, pop, stover; or pineapple for ethoprop; or
MRL in or on citrus, dried pulp; citrus, oil; fruit, citrus, group 10;
or garlic for fenamiphos; or MRL for citrus, dried pulp; cranberry;
peanut, hay; peanut, postharvest; raisins; safflower, seed; safflower,
refined oil; sunflower, seed, postharvest; fat, meat, and meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; egg;
milk, fat; or nonmedicated cattle feed concentrate blocks for
malathion; or MRL in or on alfalfa, hay, postharvest; cotton,
undelinted seed; mango, postharvest; papaya, postharvest; or timothy,
hay, postharvest for bromide ion or methyl bromide; or MRL in or on
leek; strawberry; or watercress for methomyl; or MRL in or on broccoli;
Brussels sprouts; cabbage; lettuce; or tomato for methamidophos.
    The Codex has established MRLs for dicloran in or on commodities
including carrot, postharvest at 15 mg/kg. This MRL is different than
the current tolerance established for dicloran at 10 ppm in the United
States, which EPA is proposing herein to revoke. The tolerance was
reassessed in the RED at 10 ppm and was harmonized with Codex at that
time.
    The Codex has established MRLs for diquat in or on commodities
including sorghum at 2 mg/kg and soya bean (dry) at 0.2 mg/kg. These
MRLs are the same as the current tolerances for diquat in or on
sorghum, grain, grain and soybean, seed in the United States, which EPA
is proposing herein to revoke.
    The Codex has established MRLs for disulfoton in or on commodities
including asparagus at 0.02 mg/kg; cotton seed at 0.1 mg/kg. These MRLs
are different than the current tolerances established for disulfoton in
or on asparagus at 0.1 ppm and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.75 ppm in
the United States, both of which EPA is proposing herein to revoke. The
tolerances were reassessed in the RED and were not harmonized with
Codex levels because of differences in good agricultural practices. The
Codex MRL for disulfoton in or on coffee beans is the same as the
current tolerance for disulfoton in or on coffee, green bean, which EPA
is proposing herein to revoke.
    The Codex has established MRLs for methamidophos in or on
commodities including cauliflower at 0.5 mg/kg; cotton seed at 0.2 mg/
kg; chili peppers at 2 mg/kg; sweet peppers at 1 mg/kg; and potato at
0.05 mg/kg. These MRLs are different than the current tolerances
established for methamidophos from methamidophos application in or on
cauliflower at 1.0 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.1 ppm; pepper at
1.0 ppm; and potato at 0.1 ppm in the United States, all of which EPA
is proposing herein to revoke. The tolerances were reassessed in the
RED and were not harmonized with the Codex levels because of
differences in good agricultural practices. While methamidophos is a
metabolite of acephate and EPA is proposing herein the re-instatement
of certain methamidophos tolerances as a result of the application of
acephate, Codex has

established MRLs for acephate but for compliance purposes has defined
them as only acephate residues.
    The Codex has established MRLs for phosmet in or on commodities
including cotton seed at 0.05 mg/kg. This MRL is different than the
current tolerance established for phosmet in or on cotton, undelinted
seed at 0.1 ppm in the United States, which EPA is proposing herein to
revoke. The tolerance was reassessed in the RED and was not harmonized
with the Codex level because of differences in good agricultural
practices and tolerance expression where total residues for U.S.
tolerances included phosmet's oxygen analog.

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/tolerance exemptions 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, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations as required by Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels,
expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance
establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were
published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR
66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were provided to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into
account this analysis, and available information concerning the
pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated
May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be
satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption
revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity
importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all
eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular
revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket of this
proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 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