[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31788-31807]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-11]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0232; FRL-8363-9]

Aldicarb, Ametryn, 2,4-DB, Dicamba, Dimethipin, Disulfoton,
Diuron, et al.; Proposed Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for the
insecticides/nematicides aldicarb, ethoprop, and oxamyl; the
insecticides disulfoton, malathion, and methyl parathion; the miticide/
acaricide propargite; the fungicides o-phenylphenol and its sodium
salt, triadimefon, triadimenol, and ziram; the herbicides ametryn,
dicamba, diuron, oxyfluorfen, and paraquat; the growth regulator/
herbicide dimethipin; and the antimicrobial/insecticidal fumigant
propylene oxide. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances
for the insecticide/nematicide oxamyl; the insecticide fenitrothion;
the miticide/acaricide propargite; the molluscicide metaldehyde; the
fungicides triadimefon and tridemorph; the herbicides ametryn, 2,4-DB,
dicamba, and diuron; and the antimicrobial/insecticidal fumigant
propylene oxide. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances
for the insecticide/nematicide oxamyl; the molluscicide metaldehyde;
the fungicides etridiazole and streptomycin; the herbicides 2,4-DB,
dicamba, and diuron; and the antimicrobial/insecticidal fumigant
propylene oxide and propylene chlorohydrin (a reaction product formed
during the propylene oxide sterilization process). Finally, because
tolerances expired in 2005, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 180.167
for nicotine-containing compounds. The regulatory actions proposed in
this document are in follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
and tolerance reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0232, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0232. 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 in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration 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 insecticides/nematicides aldicarb,
ethoprop, and oxamyl; the insecticides disulfoton, fenitrothion,
malathion, and methyl parathion; the miticide/acaricide propargite; the
molluscicide metaldehyde; the fungicides etridiazole, o-phenylphenol
and its sodium salt, streptomycin, triadimefon, triadimenol,
tridemorph, and ziram; the herbicides ametryn, 2,4-DB, dicamba, diuron,
oxyfluorfen, and paraquat; the growth regulator/herbicide dimethipin;
and the antimicrobial/insecticidal fumigant propylene oxide and its
reaction product propylene chlorohydrin in or on commodities listed in
the regulatory text. Also, because tolerances expired in 2005, the
Agency is proposing to remove 40 CFR 180.167 for nicotine-containing
compounds.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision
(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the
implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to
reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change
commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy.
Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone number: 1-800-490-
9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at http://www.epa.gov/
ncepihom and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, telephone number: 1-800-
553-6847 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet at http://www.ntis.gov. Electronic
copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the Internet in public
dockets for aldicarb (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163), ametryn (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-
0411), 2,4-DB (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0220), dicamba (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0479),
dimethipin (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0380), ethoprop (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0269),
malathion (EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0348), metaldehyde (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231),
methyl parathion (EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0237), o-phenylphenol and its sodium
salt (EPA-

HQ-OPP-2006-0154), oxyfluorfen (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0255), propylene oxide
(EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0253), triadimefon (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0258), ziram (EPA-
HQ-OPP-2004-0194), and TREDs for diuron (EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0249),
streptomycin (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0493), triadimenol (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0038), and tridemorph (EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0505) at http://
www.regulations.gov and REDs for disulfoton, diuron, etridiazole,
fenitrothion, oxamyl, paraquat, and propargite at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
    The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in
such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the
raising of a tolerance when data show that:
    1. Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a
higher residue level on the commodity.
    2. The tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue
level allowed under the tolerance.
    In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk management, Reregistration, and
Tolerance reassessment'' typically describes the regulatory position,
FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of
safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and
children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document
which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether
the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation
of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether
it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate
mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from
aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to harmonize tolerances with
international standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as
described in Unit III.
    Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative
Record and electronic copies for aldicarb, ametryn, 2,4-DB, dimethipin,
diuron, ethoprop, malathion, metaldehyde, methyl parathion, o-
phenyphenol and salts, propylene oxide, streptomycin, triadimefon,
triadimenol, and tridemorph can be found under their respective public
docket ID numbers, identified in Unit II.A. Electronic copies for
etridiazole, paraquat, and propargite can be found under public docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0154, oxyfluorfen under EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0036,
ziram under EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0459, and residue documents for dicamba,
fenitrothion, and oxamyl, are available in the public docket for this
proposed rule. Electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic
public docket and comment system, regulations.gov at http://
www.regulations.gov. You may search for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0232, then click on that docket ID number to view its contents.
    EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not
of concern for the above mentioned pesticide active ingredients based
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
    EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this
document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance
with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance
nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These
findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references
are available for inspection as described in this document under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances
because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food
uses that are no longer registered under FIFRA. Those instances where
registrations were canceled were because the registrant failed to pay
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily
requested cancellation of one or more registered uses of the pesticide.
It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances
for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which
there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in
comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover
residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic
commodities.
    1. Aldicarb. Because sugarcane forage and sugarcane stover are no
longer considered by the Agency to be significant livestock feed items
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
tolerances are no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.269 for the combined residues of aldicarb and its cholinesterase-
inhibiting metabolites 2-methyl 2-(methylsulfinyl) propionaldehyde O-
(methylcarbamoyl) oxime and 2-methyl-2-(methylsulfonyl) propionaldehyde
O-(methylcarbamoyl) oxime in or on sugarcane, forage and sugarcane,
stover.
    EPA is not proposing other tolerance actions for aldicarb at this
time because of public comments received by the Agency to the aldicarb
RED notice of availability, published in the Federal Register on
October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58082)(FRL-8152-3). The Agency will review the
comments and propose any appropriate tolerance actions in a future
publication in the Federal Register.
    2. Ametryn. Because pineapple, fodder; pineapple, forage;
sugarcane, forage; and sugarcane, stover are no longer considered by
the Agency to be significant livestock feed items 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 these
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.258 are no longer needed, and therefore should
be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.258 for residues of ametryn in or on pineapple, fodder;
pineapple, forage; sugarcane, forage; and sugarcane, stover.
    Because there are no active registrations for use of ametryn on
taniers, yams, and cassava in the United States, EPA determined that
the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.258(a) on tanier and yam, true, tuber and
the regional tolerance in 40 CFR 180.258(c) on cassava, roots are no
longer needed and therefore, should be revoked. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.258(a) on
tanier and yam, true, tuber and the regional tolerance in 40 CFR
180.258(c) on cassava, roots; and reserve section (c).

    Based on available data showing ametryn residues as high as 0.10
ppm on field corn forage and <0.02 ppm on field corn grain and stover,
EPA determined that the tolerance on corn, forage at 0.5 ppm should be
revised to corn, sweet, forage at 0.5 ppm and corn, field, forage
decreased from 0.5 to 0.1 ppm; the tolerance on corn, grain at 0.25 ppm
should be revised to corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain, and each
decreased from 0.25 to 0.05 ppm; and the tolerance on corn, stover at
0.5 ppm should be revised to corn, sweet, stover at 0.5 ppm; corn,
field, stover and corn, pop, stover, and both decreased from 0.5 to
0.05 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.258(a) on corn, field, forage to 0.1 ppm, corn, field,
grain to 0.05 ppm; corn, pop, grain to 0.05 ppm; corn, field, stover to
0.05 ppm; and corn, pop, stover to 0.05 ppm, and maintain at 0.5 ppm
the revised tolerances on corn, sweet, forage and corn, sweet, stover.
    Based on available data showing ametryn residues as high as 0.05
ppm on pineapple and <0.02 ppm on sugarcane, EPA determined that the
tolerances should each be decreased from 0.25 to 0.05 ppm. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to decrease the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.258(a)
on pineapple and sugarcane, cane; each to 0.05 ppm.
    Because the registrant has requested voluntary cancellation of an
active registration with the last uses of ametryn for bananas and sweet
corn (72 FR 71898, December 19, 2007) (FRL-8343-9), EPA expects to
address these tolerances in a future notice in the Federal Register.
    There are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for ametryn.
    3. 2,4-DB. Currently, tolerances for 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)
butyric acid, known as 2,4-DB, in 40 CFR 180.331 exist for the combined
residues of 2,4-DB and its metabolite 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid,
known as 2,4-D. Based on plant and livestock metabolism data, the
Agency determined (as described in the RED and Residue Chemistry
Chapter) that residues of concern for plant and livestock commodities
should be 2,4-DB per se because the metabolite 2,4-D is present only at
low levels. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the introductory text
containing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.331 as follows:
    Tolerances are established for the residues of the herbicide 4-
(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid (2,4-DB), both free and
conjugated, determined as the acid, in or on food commodities as
follows.

    Based on available field trial data that showed 2,4-DB residues as
high as 0.49 ppm in or on alfalfa forage and 1.7 ppm on alfalfa hay,
EPA determined that the tolerance on alfalfa at 0.2 ppm should be
divided into alfalfa forage and hay, increased to 0.7 ppm and 2.0 ppm,
respectively, and that since the data could be translated to birdsfoot
trefoil, the tolerance on birdsfoot trefoil at 0.2 ppm should be
divided into trefoil forage and hay, and increased to 0.7 ppm and 2.0
ppm, respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.331
to revise the tolerance on alfalfa to alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay,
and increase the tolerance on alfalfa, forage to 0.7 ppm and alfalfa,
hay to 2.0 ppm, and revise the tolerance on trefoil, birdsfoot to
trefoil, forage and trefoil, hay, and increase the tolerance on
trefoil, forage to 0.7 ppm and trefoil, hay to 2.0 ppm. The Agency
determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on ruminant feeding data and Maximum Theoretical Dietary
Burden (MTDB) for cattle, EPA determined that there is no reasonable
expectation of finite residues of 2,4-DB residues in the milk or in the
meat and fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep resulting from
the feeding of 2,4-DB treated commodities. Therefore, tolerances on
milk, and the fat and meat of livestock are not needed under 40 CFR
180.6(a)(3). However, based on that ruminant feeding data, which showed
residues of 2,4-DB in or on kidney and liver were <0.05 ppm, the limit
of quantitation (LOQ), the Agency determined that tolerances on the
meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be
established at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.331 on cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat
byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,
meat byproducts, each at 0.05 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed 2,4-DB residues as
high as 0.45 ppm in or on soybeans at a Preharvest Interval (PHI) of at
least 60 days, and 0.64 ppm in or on soybean forage at a PGI (pre-
grazing interval) of at least 60 days, EPA determined that the
tolerance on soybean should be increased from 0.2 to 0.5 ppm, and a
tolerance on soybean forage should be established at 0.7 ppm. In
addition, based on the tolerance recommended at 0.7 ppm for forage,
feedstuff percent dry matter values of 35% and 85% for forage and hay,
respectively, and a dry-down factor of 2.4X, EPA determined that the
tolerance on soybean hay should be increased from 0.2 to 2.0 ppm.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.331 to revise the
tolerance on soybean to soybean, seed and increase the tolerance on
soybean, seed to 0.5 ppm, increase the tolerance on soybean, hay to 2.0
ppm, and establish a tolerance on soybean, forage at 0.7 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 40 CFR 180.331, EPA is proposing to remove the ``(N)''
designation from all entries to conform to current Agency
administrative practice, where the ``(N)'' designation means negligible
residues. In addition, in 40 CFR 180.331, EPA is proposing to revise
the commodity terminology for ``mint, hay'' to ``peppermint, tops'' and
``spearmint, tops.
    In accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 180.331 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.
    At this time, EPA is not taking action to decrease the tolerance
for 2,4-DB on peanut pending verification that registration amendments
that specify a minimum 60-day PHI for use on peanuts are available for
Agency approval.
    There are no Codex MRLs for residues of 2,4-DB.
    4. Dicamba. The tolerances in 40 CFR 180.227 for combined dicamba
residues of concern in or on sugarcane forage and sugarcane stover
should be revoked because the Agency considers these commodities to no
longer be significant livestock feed items, and therefore their
tolerances are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) for combined dicamba
residues of concern in or on sugarcane, forage; and sugarcane, stover.
    Based on available field trial data that showed dicamba residues of
concern as high as 0.015 ppm in or on corn grain, the Agency determined
that the tolerance on corn grain should be decreased from 0.5 to 0.1
ppm and revised to corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain. Therefore,
EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) to decrease the tolerance on
corn, grain to 0.1 ppm and revise the tolerance from corn grain to
corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain, each at 0.1 ppm.
    Based on the translation of available data from wheat grain and
straw that

showed dicamba residues of concern as high as 1.4 ppm and 26 ppm,
respectively, EPA determined that the registrations for wheat, oat,
millet proso, and rye should specify a maximum seasonal rate of 0.5 lb
acid equivalents per acre (ae/A) for grain and straw, and a 7-day PHI
for straw, and that the expected residues in or on the grains of oat,
proso millet, and rye would each be as high as 1.4 ppm, and straws of
oat, proso millet, and rye would each be as high as 26 ppm, and
therefore the tolerances on oat grain and proso millet grain should
each be increased from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm, tolerances on oat straw and
proso millet straw should each be increased from 0.5 to 30.0 ppm, and
tolerances on rye grain and rye straw should be established at 2.0 ppm
and 30.0 ppm, respectively. Consequently, the Agency is proposing in 40
CFR 180.227(a)(1) to increase the tolerances on oat, grain to 2.0 ppm;
millet, proso, grain to 2.0 ppm; oat, straw to 30.0 ppm, millet, proso,
straw to 30.0 ppm, and establish tolerances on rye, grain at 2.0 ppm
and rye, straw at 30.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased
tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available data from wheat forage and hay that showed
dicamba residues of concern as high as 86 ppm (0-day PHI) and 34 ppm
(14-day PHI), respectively, EPA determined that the registrations for
wheat, oat, millet proso, and rye should specify a 14-day PHI for hay
and tolerances on wheat forage and hay should be increased from 80.0 to
90.0 ppm and from 20.0 to 40.0 ppm, respectively. Also, based on the
translation of the wheat data to oats, proso millet, and rye, the
Agency expected residues in or on the forage of oat, proso millet, and
rye would each be as high as 86 ppm (0-day PHI), and hay of oat and
proso millet would each be as high as 34 ppm (14-day PHI), and
therefore the tolerance on oat forage should be increased from 80.0 to
90.0 ppm and tolerances on the forage of proso millet and rye should
each be established at 90.0 ppm, and the tolerance on oat hay should be
increased from 20.0 to 40.0 ppm, and a tolerance on proso millet hay
should be established at 40.0 ppm. Consequently, the Agency is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) to increase the tolerances on oat,
forage and wheat, forage, each to 90.0 ppm; increase the tolerances on
oat, hay and wheat, hay, each to 40.0 ppm; and establish tolerances on
millet, proso, forage at 90.0 ppm, rye, forage at 90.0 ppm, and millet,
proso, hay at 40.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased
tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available field trial data that showed dicamba residues of
concern in or on sorghum grain as high as 3.16 ppm (30-day PHI) and
sorghum stover as high as 4.29 ppm (30-day PHI), EPA determined that
the registrations for sorghum grain and stover should specify a 30-day
PHI and the tolerances on sorghum grain and sorghum stover should be
increased from 3.0 to 4.0 ppm and from 3.0 to 10.0 ppm. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) to increase the tolerances
on sorghum, grain, grain to 4.0 ppm and sorghum, grain, stover to 10.0
ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are safe;
i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available field trial data that showed dicamba residues of
concern as high as 0.05 ppm in or on cottonseed and a combined LOQ of
0.1 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance on cottonseed should
be decreased from 5.0 to 0.2 ppm. Also, the Agency calculated that the
proposed tolerance level for cottonseed is greater than the highest
average field trial (HAFT) multiplied by the concentration factor of
1.9x in meal, and determined that a separate tolerance for cotton meal
is no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA
is proposing in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1) to decrease the tolerance on
cotton, undelinted seed to 0.2 ppm and revoke the tolerance on cotton,
meal.
    Based on available cattle exaggerated feeding data (about 2.1x
MTDB) of dicamba that showed combined maximum dicamba residues of
concern in fat at 0.511 ppm, 46.64 ppm in kidney, 5.06 ppm in liver,
0.392 ppm in muscle, <0.01 ppm in whole milk, and 0.165 ppm in cream,
EPA calculated that the maximum expected residues in fat, kidney,
liver, muscle, whole milk and cream at 1x MTDB to be 0.24 ppm, 22.2
ppm, 2.41 ppm, 0.19 ppm, <0.01 ppm and 0.09 ppm, respectively.
Therefore, the Agency determined that the tolerances for the fat of
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be increased from 0.2 to
0.3 ppm; the kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep should be
increased from 1.5 to 25.0 ppm; the liver of cattle, goats, hogs,
horses, and sheep should be revoked because these separate tolerances
are no longer needed since they will be covered by redefined meat
byproduct tolerances of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep that
should be increased from 0.2 to 3.0 ppm and revised to meat byproducts,
except kidney; the meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep
should be increased from 0.2 to 0.25 ppm; and the tolerance on milk
should be decreased from 0.3 to 0.2 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing
in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(2) to increase the tolerances on cattle, fat;
goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat, each to 0.3 ppm; on
cattle, kidney; goat, kidney; hog, kidney; horse, kidney; and sheep,
kidney, each to 25.0 ppm; revise the terminology and increase the
tolerances on cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; goat, meat
byproducts, except kidney; hog, meat byproducts, except kidney; horse,
meat byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat byproducts, except
kidney, each to 3.0 ppm; increase the tolerances on cattle, meat; goat,
meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat, each to 0.25 ppm;
decrease the tolerance on milk to 0.2 ppm; and revoke the separate
tolerances on cattle, liver; goat, liver; hog, liver; horse, liver; and
sheep, liver. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances are
safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available processing data that showed combined dicamba
residues of concern concentrated by a factor of 3.8x in soybean hulls
(but did not concentrate in any of the other soybean processed
fractions), and a HAFT combined residue level of 7.44 ppm, EPA expected
residues of 28.3 ppm and determined that the tolerance on soybean,
hulls should be increased from 13.0 to 30.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(3) to increase the tolerance on soybean,
hulls to 30.0 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 data on the aspirated grain fractions (also
known as grain dusts) of sorghum, soybean, and wheat, where the highest
processing factor found was 670x in soybean seed aspirated grain
fractions, and average dicamba residues of concern at 1.36 ppm in or on
soybean seed, EPA expected residues as high as 941 ppm and determined
that the tolerance on aspirated fractions of grain should be decreased
from 5,100 to 1,000 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR
180.227(a)(3) to decrease the tolerance on grain, aspirated fractions
to 1,000 ppm.

    At this time, EPA is not taking the following actions for dicamba
residues of concern: to increase tolerances on grass forage and hay
pending verification of the status of one registration whose maximum
rate may be above the 2.0 lb ae/A rate associated with the field trial
data, to decrease the tolerance on sorghum forage pending verification
that registration amendments that specify a maximum single/seasonal
rate of 0.25 lb ae/A and 20-day PHI for sorghum forage are available
for Agency approval, and to increase sugarcane molasses pending the
Agency's receipt and approval of storage stability data. The Agency
will take any appropriate tolerance actions for these commodities in a
future publication in the Federal Register.
    In addition, in 40 CFR 180.227(a)(1), EPA is proposing to revise
the commodity terminology ``sorghum, forage'' to ``sorghum, grain,
forage'' and revise the crop group 17 tolerance terminologies for
``grass, forage'' and ``grass, hay'' to ``grass, forage, fodder and
hay, group 17, forage'' and ``grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17,
hay.''
    There are no Codex MRLs for dicamba.
    5. Dimethipin. On April 11, 2007, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register (72 FR 18238) (FRL-8123-6) that announced the Agency's
receipt of requests from the registrant to voluntarily cancel all
dimethipin registrations and therefore terminate the last dimethipin
uses in or on cotton. EPA approved cancellation of the registrations by
issuing a letter as the final cancellation order with the close of the
30-day comment period, made them effective on May 31, 2007, and
permitted the registrants for the canceled registrations to sell and
distribute existing stocks for 24 months; i.e., until May 31, 2009.
Also, EPA permitted persons other than the registrant to sell,
distribute, and conforming to the EPA-approved label and labeling of
the products, use existing dimethipin pesticide stocks on cotton until
exhaustion. 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 May 31, 2010.
While dimethipin-treated cotton seed, meal, and gin-byproducts may be
part of the diet of livestock, termination of dimethipin uses on cotton
means that remaining livestock tolerances are no longer needed and
should be revoked. In addition, while the Agency previously retained
meat and meat byproducts tolerances to harmonize with Codex MRLs (72 FR
52013, September 12, 2007)(FRL-8142-2), it had already determined from
feeding data that there is no expectation of finite residues of
dimethipin in the fat, meat, or meat byproducts of cattle, goats,
horses, hogs, and sheep. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.406 on cotton, undelinted seed; cattle, meat;
cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat;
hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts; sheep, meat;
and sheep, meat byproducts, each with an expiration/revocation date of
May 31, 2010.
    6. Disulfoton. Because there have been no active registrations for
disulfoton, O,O-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate, use
on dry beans, sorghum, and soybeans since February 2002, and on
sugarcane since 1991, EPA determined that the tolerances on dry beans,
sorghum, soybeans, and sugarcane are no longer needed and should be
revoked. Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.183(a) on bean, dry, seed; sorghum, forage; sorghum,
grain, grain; sorghum, grain, stover; soybean; soybean, forage;
soybean, hay; and sugarcane, cane.
    Also, because the tolerances expired on December 9, 2003, EPA is
proposing to remove the entries for corn, field, forage; corn, field,
grain; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, forage; corn, pop, grain; corn,
pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with
husks removed; corn, sweet, stover; oat, grain; oat, hay; oat, straw;
and pecan from 40 CFR 180.183(a).
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice as follows: in 40 CFR 180.183(a),
``pea'' to ``pea, dry, seed,'' and ``pea, succulent.''
    There are Codex MRLs for combined residues of disulfoton, demeton-
S, and their sulphoxides and sulphones on a number of commodities,
including MRLs on dry beans, oats, oat straw, and pecans.
    7. Diuron. Currently, tolerances for diuron, 3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea, in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) are
established for residues of diuron per se and in Sec.  180.106(a)(2)
are established for combined residues of diuron and its metabolites
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline. Based on plant and animal
metabolism data, the Agency had determined that residues of concern for
plant and livestock commodities should include metabolites hydrolysable
to 3,4-dichloroaniline. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove Sec.
180.106(a)(2) and combine the tolerances there with those in Sec.
180.106(a)(1), under newly recodified Sec.  180.106(a), and revise the
introductory text containing the tolerance expression in newly
recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a), as follows:
    Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
herbicide diuron, 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea, and its
metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline in or on food
commodities as follows.

    Also, as a result of combining tolerances in Sec.  180.106(a)(1)
and (a)(2) under newly recodified Sec.  180.106(a), there will be two
tolerances on peppermint tops, one at 1.5 ppm and the other at 2 ppm.
Based on available field trial data that showed diuron residues of
concern as high as 1.3 ppm in or on peppermint tops, the Agency
determined that the appropriate tolerance is 1.5 ppm, and the tolerance
on peppermint tops at 2 ppm is no longer needed, and therefore should
be revoked. Consequently, while EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) on peppermint, tops at 2 ppm, it will
maintain the tolerance on peppermint, tops at 1.5 ppm.
    Because vetch seed is no longer considered by the Agency to be a
significant livestock feed item 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, EPA is proposing
to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) on vetch, seed.
    Because there are no active registrations for diuron use on
potatoes and rye, the Agency determined that the tolerances on potato;
rye, forage; rye, grain; and rye, straw are no longer needed and should
be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.106(a)(1) on potato; rye, forage; rye, grain; and rye, straw.
    Because there are no active registrations for diuron use on sweet
corn, the Agency determined that the tolerances on sweet corn forage
and stover are no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) on corn,
sweet, forage and corn, sweet, stover. Also, the tolerance on corn in
grain or ear form (including sweet corn, field corn, popcorn) should be
revised to corn, field, grain and corn,

pop, grain. Based on available field trial data that showed diuron
residues of concern as high as <0.1 ppm in or on field corn grain and
translating that data to support use of diuron on popcorn grain, the
Agency determined that the tolerances on field corn and popcorn grain
should each be set at 0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) on corn in grain or ear form
(including sweet corn, field corn, popcorn) and establish separate
tolerances on corn, field, grain; and corn, pop, grain; each at 0.1
ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed diuron residues of
concern as high as 2.58 ppm in or on alfalfa forage, EPA determined
that the tolerance on alfalfa should be divided into alfalfa forage and
alfalfa hay and the tolerance on alfalfa forage should be increased
from 2.0 to 3.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in recodified
40 CFR 180.106(a) to revise the nomenclature for alfalfa to read
alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay and to increase the tolerance on
alfalfa, forage to 3.0 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 field trial data that showed diuron residues of
concern as high as 0.07 ppm in or on apple, 0.18 ppm in or on
cottonseed, <0.03 ppm in or on grapes, 0.065 ppm in or on pineapple,
0.1 ppm in or on field pea seed, 0.33 ppm in or on grain sorghum, 0.20
ppm in or on sugarcane, 0.29 ppm in or on wheat grain, and 1.17 ppm in
or on wheat straw, EPA determined that the tolerances on apple,
cottonseed, grape, pineapple, field pea seed, grain sorghum, sugarcane,
wheat grain, and wheat straw should be decreased from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm,
1.0 to 0.2 ppm, 1.0 to 0.05 ppm, 1.0 to 0.1 ppm, 1.0 to 0.1 ppm, 1.0 to
0.5 ppm, 1.0 to 0.2 ppm, 1.0 to 0.5 ppm, and 2.0 to 1.5 ppm,
respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in recodified 40 CFR
180.106(a) to decrease the tolerances on apple to 0.1 ppm, cotton,
undelinted seed to 0.2 ppm, grape to 0.05 ppm, pineapple to 0.1 ppm,
pea to 0.1 ppm and revise the tolerance nomenclature for pea to pea,
field, seed; sorghum, grain, grain to 0.5 ppm; sugarcane, cane to 0.2
ppm, wheat, grain to 0.5 ppm, and wheat, straw to 1.5 ppm.
    Based on active registrations for use of diuron on barley
restricted to western OR and western WA and available field trial data
that showed diuron residues of concern as high as 0.15 ppm in or on
barley grain and the translation of wheat straw data to barley straw,
EPA determined that the tolerances on barley grain and hay should be
recodified from 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.106(c) as regional
tolerances and the tolerance on barley grain be decreased from 1.0 to
0.2 ppm, and a tolerance should be established for barley straw at 1.5
ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposingto recodify the tolerances on
barley, grain and barley, hay currently in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to 40
CFR 180.106(c) and decrease the tolerance on barley, grain to 0.2 ppm,
and establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.106(c) on barley, straw at 1.5
ppm.
    Based on available processing data that showed an average
concentration factor of 17x for wheat grain aspirated grain fractions
and 2.3x for wheat bran, a HAFT value of 0.29 ppm for wheat, and
translation of wheat bran data to support barley bran, EPA determined
that the expected combined diuron residues of concern in wheat grain
aspirated fractions are 4.9 ppm and wheat bran are 0.67 ppm, which are
both greater than the reassessed tolerance for wheat grain of 0.5 ppm,
and barley, grain of 0.2 ppm and therefore tolerances should be
established for aspirated grain fractions at 5.0 ppm, wheat bran at 0.7
ppm, and barley bran at 0.7 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing to
establish tolerances in recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a) for grain,
aspirated fractions at 5.0 ppm and wheat, bran at 0.7 ppm, and in 40
CFR 180.106(c) for barley, bran at 0.7 ppm.
    Based on active registrations for use of diuron on clover
restricted to western OR and available field trial data that showed
diuron residues of concern as high as 0.07 ppm in or on clover forage
and 0.7 ppm in or on clover hay, EPA determined that the tolerances on
clover forage and hay should be recodified from 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to
40 CFR 180.106(c) as regional tolerances and the tolerances on clover
forage and hay be decreased from 2.0 to 0.1 ppm and 1.0 ppm,
respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR
180.106(a)(1) to recodify the tolerances on clover, forage and clover,
hay to 40 CFR 180.106(c) and decrease the tolerance on clover, forage
to 0.1 ppm and clover, hay to 1.0 ppm.
    Based on active registrations for use of diuron on oats restricted
to ID, OR and WA and available field trial data that showed diuron
residues of concern as high as <0.1 ppm in or on oat grain and
translation of wheat straw data (residues as high as 1.17 ppm) to oat
straw, EPA determined that the tolerances on oat forage, grain, hay,
and straw should be recodified from 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to 40 CFR
180.106(c) as regional tolerances and the tolerances on oat grain and
straw be decreased from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm and 2.0 to 1.5 ppm,
respectively. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR
180.106(a)(1) to recodify the tolerances on oat, forage; oat, grain;
oat, hay; and oat, straw to 40 CFR 180.106(c) and decrease the
tolerances on oat, grain to 0.1 ppm and oat, straw to 1.5 ppm.
    Based on active registrations for use of diuron on trefoil
restricted to western OR, available field trial data that showed diuron
residues of concern as high as 1.3 ppm in or on trefoil hay, and
translation of clover forage (residues as high as 0.07 ppm) data to
support trefoil forage, EPA determined that the tolerances on trefoil
forage and hay should be recodified from 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to 40 CFR
180.106(c) as regional tolerances and decreased from 2.0 to 0.1 ppm for
forage and 2.0 to 1.5 ppm for hay. Therefore, the Agency is proposing
in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to recodify the tolerances on trefoil, forage
and trefoil, hay to 40 CFR 180.106(c) and decrease them to 0.1 ppm and
1.5 ppm, respectively.
    Based on active registrations for use of diuron on vetch restricted
to ID, OR and WA and translation of clover forage and hay data
(residues as high as 0.07 ppm and 0.7 ppm, respectively) to vetch
forage and hay, EPA determined that the tolerances on vetch forage and
hay should be recodified from 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.106(c)
as regional tolerances and the tolerances on vetch forage and hay be
decreased from 2.0 to 0.1 ppm and 2.0 to 1.5 ppm, respectively.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to recodify
the tolerances on vetch, forage and vetch, hay to 40 CFR 180.106(c) and
decrease them to 0.1 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respectively.
    Because acceptable field trial data are available for the
representative commodities of the berry crop group (blackberry,
blueberry, and raspberry), and data for blackberries and raspberries
may be translated to support use on loganberries, and data for
blueberries may be translated to support use on gooseberries, EPA
determined that a crop group tolerance should be established
concomitant with the removal of individual berry tolerances. Also,
based on data that showed diuron residues of concern as high as <0.1
ppm on blackberries and raspberries, the Agency determined that the
group tolerance should be decreased from the level of the individual
tolerances; i.e., from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to revoke the individual tolerances on blackberry, blueberry,
boysenberry, currant, dewberry, gooseberry, huckleberry, loganberry,
and raspberry in 40 CFR

180.106(a)(1) and establish a tolerance on berry group 13 at 0.1 ppm in
recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a).
    Based on available field trial data that showed diuron residues of
concern in or on grapefruit and oranges below the limit of quantitation
(LOQ) of 0.0345 ppm and in or on lemons as high as 0.33 ppm, EPA
determined that the citrus fruit tolerance should be revised to fruit,
citrus, group 10, except lemon and decreased from 1.0 to 0.05 ppm, and
a separate tolerance on lemon should be established at 0.5 ppm.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing in recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a) to
revise the tolerance on fruit, citrus to fruit, citrus, group 10,
except lemon and decrease it to 0.05 ppm, and establish a tolerance on
lemon at 0.5 ppm.
    In addition, based on available processing data that showed average
concentration factors of 1.9x for citrus dried pulp and 10.5x for
citrus oil, and the HAFT value for lemons (0.27 ppm), EPA determined
that the expected combined diuron residues of concern in citrus dried
pulp and citrus oil are 0.51 ppm and 2.8 ppm, respectively. Because the
expected residues in citrus dried pulp are approximately the same as
the reassessed tolerance for lemons, the Agency determined that a
tolerance for citrus dried pulp is no longer needed and therefore
should be revoked, and a tolerance for citrus oil should be established
at 3.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to
revoke the tolerance on citrus, dried pulp and establish a tolerance on
citrus, oil at 3.0 ppm in recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a).
    Based on available processing data that showed an average
concentration factor of 4.7x for pineapple pulp, and a HAFT value of
0.065 ppm for pineapple, EPA determined that the expected combined
diuron residues of concern in pineapple process residue are 0.31 ppm,
which is greater than the reassessed tolerance for pineapple of 0.1
ppm, and therefore a tolerance should be established for pineapple
process residue at 0.4 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing to establish
a tolerance in recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a) for pineapple, process
residue at 0.4 ppm.
    Based on available processing data that showed an average
concentration factor of 3.27x for blackstrap molasses, and a HAFT value
of 0.2 ppm for sugarcane, EPA determined that the expected combined
diuron residues of concern in sugarcane molasses are 0.654 ppm, which
is greater than the reassessed tolerance for sugarcane of 0.20 ppm, and
therefore a tolerance should be established for sugarcane molasses at
0.7 ppm. Consequently, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in
recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a) for sugarcane, molasses at 0.7 ppm.
    Because adequate field trial data are not available for almonds,
which is a representative commodity of the nut, tree, group 14, and
based on available field trial data that showed diuron residues of
concern in or on macadamia nuts, pecans, and walnuts were each <0.05
ppm, EPA determined that the nut group tolerance at 0.1 ppm should be
revoked concomitant with the establishment of separate tolerances for
hazelnuts (filberts) at 0.1 ppm, and macadamia nuts, pecans, and
walnuts, each at 0.05 ppm. Consequently, after the nut group tolerance
is revoked, diuron use on almonds, beech nuts, butternuts, Brazil nuts,
cashews, chestnuts, and hickory nuts will no longer be covered. In the
near future, the Agency is expecting to receive data, including crop
field trial data on hazelnuts (filberts), from the registrants based on
their responses to a Data Call-In, and if needed will address the
hazelnut tolerance again in a future notice in the Federal Register.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.106(a)(1) to revoke
the tolerance on nut and establish tolerances on hazelnut at 0.1 ppm,
and nut, macadamia; pecan; and walnut; each at 0.05 ppm in recodified
40 CFR 180.106(a).
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice in recodified 40 CFR 180.106(a) as
follows: ``grass crops (other than Bermuda grass)'' to ``grass, forage,
except bermudagrass;'' ``grass, hay (other than Bermuda grass)'' to
``grass, hay, except bermudagrass;'' and ``sorghum, forage'' to
``sorghum, grain, forage.''
    After active registrations are amended to restrict use of diuron on
bananas to those grown in Hawaii, EPA expects to make it a regional
tolerance and decrease the tolerance based on available field trial
data. However, EPA is still in the process of addressing those active
registrations. Therefore, the Agency will not propose to take action on
the tolerance for diuron residues of concern on banana in 40 CFR
180.106 at this time, but will address it in a future publication in
the Federal Register.
    There are no Codex MRLs for diuron.
    8. Ethoprop. Because there have been no active registrations for
ethoprop use on peanuts since April 2002, EPA determined that the
tolerances on peanut and peanut hay are no longer needed and should be
revoked. Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.262(a) on peanut and peanut, hay.
    9. Etridiazole. Etridiazole, 5-ethoxy-3-(trichloromethyl)-1,2,4-
thiadiazole, is registered for use on peanuts as a seed treatment. In a
final rule published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2007 (72 FR
41913) (FRL-8139-5), the Agency announced that a tolerance should be
established on peanut hay for etridiazole. Based on available
metabolism data that showed residues of etridiazole per se were non-
detectable and the monoacid metabolite showed residues as high as 0.033
ppm in or on cotton, soybean, and wheat grown from seed, the Agency
determined that the combined residues of concern for etridiazole in or
on commodities grown from etridiazole treated seed would not be
expected to exceed 0.04 ppm, and therefore a tolerance on peanut hay
should be established at the combined LOQ (0.1 ppm). Consequently, EPA
is proposing to establish a tolerance for residues of etridiazole and
its monoacid metabolite, 3-carboxy-5-ethoxy-1,2,4-thiadiazole, in 40
CFR 180.370(a) on peanut, hay at 0.1 ppm. For a detailed discussion of
the Agency's rationale on the establishment of the peanut hay
tolerance, refer to the final rule published in the Federal Register of
August 1, 2007.
    There are no Codex MRLs for etridiazole.
    10. Fenitrothion. Currently, a tolerance for fenitrothion in 40 CFR
180.540(a) is established for combined residues of fenitrothion, O,O-
dimethyl O-(4-nitrom-tolyl) phosphorothioate and its metabolites, O,O-
dimethyl O-(4-nitro-m-tolyl) phosphate and 3-methyl-4-nitrophenol.
Based on available field trial data, EPA determined that finite
residues of the metabolite O,O-dimethyl O-(4-nitro-m-tolyl) phosphate
are not expected in or on wheat grain or in wheat gluten resulting from
the postharvest use of fenitrothion on stored wheat in Australia, and
therefore that metabolite no longer needs to be included in the
tolerance expression. Also, because the metabolite 3-methyl-4-
nitrophenol is not determined to be a cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolite, the Agency determined that the metabolite 3-methyl-4-
nitrophenol no longer needs to be included in the tolerance expression.
Consequently, the Agency determined that residues of concern for
enforcement purposes should include only the parent compound.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.540(a) as follows:
    A tolerance is established for residues of the insecticide
fenitrothion, O,O-dimethyl O-(4-nitro-m-tolyl)

phosphorothioate, from the postharvest application of the insecticide
to stored wheat in Australia, in or on the following food commodity.
    Based on available Australian field trial data that showed
fenitrothion residues as high as 2.5 ppm in or on wheat gluten, EPA
determined that the tolerance on wheat gluten should be decreased from
30 to 3 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.540(a) to
decrease the tolerance on wheat gluten to 3.0 ppm.
    11. Malathion. Flax straw, lespedeza seed and straw, and vetch seed
and straw are no longer considered by the Agency to be significant
animal feed items 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 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 flax, straw; lespedeza, seed;
lespedeza, straw; vetch, seed; and vetch, straw.
    There are no Codex MRLs for malathion on the commodities mentioned
above.
    12. Metaldehyde. The Agency has conducted human health and
ecological risk assessments based on its review of the database
supporting the uses of metaldehyde. The toxicological profile and
endpoints, exposure assessment, FQPA Safety Factor, aggregate exposure
and risk, and cumulative risk are discussed in the metaldehyde RED and
HED Chapter of the RED, which are both available, along with related
supporting documents, in the docket associated with metaldehyde as
identified in Unit II.A. The dietary exposure assessment for
metaldehyde is available in the docket of this proposed rule.
    The dietary risk assessment is a function of both exposure and
toxicity. In the case of metaldehydye, dietary risk is expressed as a
percentage of a level of concern. The level of concern is the dose
predicted to result in no unreasonable adverse health effects to any
human population subgroup, including sensitive members of such
population subgroups. This level of concern is referred to as the
population adjusted dose (PAD). Risk estimates less than 100% of the
PAD are below EPA's level of concern. The acute PAD (aPAD) is the
highest predicted dose to which a person could be exposed on any given
day with no adverse health effect expected. The chronic PAD (cPAD) is
the highest predicted dose to which a person could be exposed over the
course of a lifetime with no adverse health effects expected. There are
no dietary risks of concern for metaldehyde. For the general population
and all subpopulations, acute dietary risk estimates are below 100% of
the aPAD and chronic dietary risk estimates are below 100% of the cPAD.
Dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U.S. population and
various population subgroups. This assessment showed that at the 95th
percentile of exposure, the acute risk estimates are below the Agency's
level of concern (<100% of the aPAD) for the general U.S. population
(11% of the aPAD) and all population subgroups (<25% of the aPAD). The
highest exposed population subgroup was children 1 to 2 years old.
Tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated (PCT) were also used to
determine the chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates. This
assessment showed that for all included commodities, the chronic risk
estimates were below the Agency's level of concern (<100% of the cPAD)
for the general U.S. population (22% of the cPAD) and all population
subgroups (<49% cPAD). The highest exposed population subgroup was
children 1 to 2 years old. Aggregated risks from dietary and
residential exposures are below the Agency's levels of concern.
    The Agency has reassessed the one existing tolerance for
metaldehyde, and found a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S.
population and all population subgroups from the use of metaldehyde.
Prior to the RED, in the Federal Register of April 26, 2006 (71 FR
24692)(FRL-8062-5), EPA published a notice of filing of a pesticide
petition submitted by a registrant for the establishment of a
regulation for residues of metaldehyde in or on various food
commodities, including representatives for the brassica (cole) leafy
crop group, citrus crop group, lettuce, tomato, and strawberries. In
the July 2006 RED and April 2006 HED Chapter of the RED, the Agency
identified new tolerances (whose uses as well as strawberry were
included in the dietary risk assessment) that are needed for
metaldehyde, including ones for commodities mentioned in the notice of
April 2006. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) program
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which develops residue data for
minor and specialty crops, has done research on a number of additional
uses for metaldehyde. In the Federal Register of January 23, 2008 (73
FR 3964)(FRL-8345-7), EPA published a notice of filing of a number of
pesticide petitions including one submitted by IR-4 for the
establishment of a regulation for residues of metaldehyde in or on
various food commodities, including representatives for the berry crop
group, artichoke, and prickly pear cactus.
    Currently, in 40 CFR 180.523, there are prescribed conditions in
the introductory text and in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3). Because
the Agency now believes that all treatment parameters should be on the
label only, the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.523 which states
that ``metaldehyde may be safely used as a preharvest spray or dust on
strawberry to control slugs and snails, in accordance with the
following prescribed conditions'' should be modified by removing the
prescribed conditions while continuing to limit the tolerance to use on
strawberries. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.523(a) as follows:
    Tolerances are established for residues of the molluscicide
metaldehyde in or on food commodities, as follows.

    In addition, the Agency believes that 40 CFR 180.523(a)(1), (2),
and (3) should be removed because all treatment parameters should be on
the label only. Therefore, in 40 CFR 180.523, EPA is proposing to
delete current paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3), and replace them with a
new paragraph (a) and include a table for the tolerances described
below.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues as high as 2.42 ppm in or on strawberries, EPA determined that
the existing tolerance on strawberry should be increased from 0 to 6.25
ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.523(a) to
increase the tolerance on strawberry to 6.25 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 metaldehyde
residues in or on lemons below the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05
ppm, grapefruit as high as 0.081 ppm and oranges as high as 0.103 ppm,
EPA determined that a tolerance on the citrus fruit crop group should
be established at 0.26 ppm. Consequently, the Agency is proposing in 40
CFR 180.523(a) to establish a tolerance on fruit, citrus, group 10 at
0.26 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues in or on head lettuce as high as 0.09 ppm and leaf lettuce as
high as 0.691 ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance on lettuce

should be established at 1.73 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing
in 40 CFR 180.523(a) to establish a tolerance on lettuce at 1.73 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues in or on tomato as high as 0.096 ppm, artichokes below the LOQ
of 0.05 ppm, and watercress as high as 1.28 ppm, EPA determined that
tolerances on tomato, artichokes, and watercress should be established
at 0.24 ppm, 0.07 ppm, and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.523(a) to establish tolerances on
tomato at 0.24 ppm; artichoke, globe at 0.07 ppm; and watercress at 3.2
ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues in or on mustard greens, cabbage, and broccoli as high as
0.561 ppm, 0.59 ppm, and 1.0 ppm, respectively, EPA determined that a
tolerance on the brassica (cole) leafy crop group should be established
at 2.5 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.523(a) to
establish a tolerance on vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5 at 2.5
ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues in or on cactus fruit were below the LOQ of 0.05 ppm and
cactus pads (three of four samples were below the LOQ) with one sample
at 0.05 ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance on cactus should be
established at 0.07 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR
180.523(a) to establish a tolerance on cactus at 0.07 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed metaldehyde
residues in or on blueberries below the LOQ of 0.05 ppm and raspberries
as high as 0.06 ppm, EPA determined that a tolerance on the berries
crop group should be established at 0.15 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.523(a) to establish a tolerance on berry group
13 at 0.15 ppm.
    There are no Codex MRLs for metaldehyde.
    13. Methyl parathion. In the Federal Register notice of November 7,
2007 (72 FR 62850) (FRL-8155-9), EPA issued a notice regarding EPA's
announcement on the receipt of requests from registrants to voluntarily
cancel and/or amend certain registrations for methyl parathion and
delete the last cabbage, hops, lentils, pecans, dried bean, dried peas,
and sugar beet uses from methyl parathion registrations. EPA approved
the use deletions, including the last uses for methyl parathion on
cabbage, hops, lentils, pecans, dried beans, dried peas, and sugar
beets with the close of the 30-day comment period, made them effective
on January 24, 2008, and permitted persons other than the registrant to
sell, distribute, and conforming to the EPA-approved label and labeling
of the products, use existing methyl parathion pesticide stocks on
cabbage, hops, lentils, pecans, dried beans, dried peas, and sugar
beets until exhaustion. The Agency believes that end users will have
had sufficient time to exhaust those existing stocks and for treated
cabbage, hops, lentils, pecans, dried beans, dried peas, and sugar beet
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade by January 24, 2009.
(Note, the use of methyl parathion on lentils is currently covered by
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.121 on pea, dry, seed according to 40 CFR
180.1(g)). Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.121(a) on cabbage; hop; pecan; bean, dry, seed; pea, dry, seed;
beet, sugar, roots; and beet, sugar, tops; each with an expiration/
revocation date of January 24, 2009.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice as follows: in 40 CFR 180.121(a),
``corn, forage'' to ``corn, field, forage'' and ``corn, sweet,
forage;'' ``hop'' to ``hop, dried cones;'' and ``soybean'' to
``soybean, seed.''
    There are Codex MRLs for residues of parathion-methyl on a number
of commodities, including dry beans, dry peas, and sugar beets.
    14. Nicotine-containing compounds. Because the tolerances expired
on December 4, 2005, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 180.167 in its
entirety.
    15. Ortho-phenylphenol and Sodium ortho-phenylphenate. Currently,
there are active U.S. registrations for use of sodium ortho-
phenylphenate (sodium o-phenylphenate) on citrus (which includes use on
grapefruit, kumquat, lime, and tangerine). Because the existing
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.129 on citrus at 10 ppm includes coverage of
combined residues of o-phenylphenol and sodium o-phenylphenate on
grapefruit, kumquat, lime, and tangerine, the Agency determined that
their separate tolerances (each at 10 ppm) are no longer needed, and
therefore should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke
the individual tolerances in 40 CFR 180.129 on grapefruit, kumquat,
lime, and tangerine.
    Because there are no active U.S. registrations for use of either o-
phenylphenol or sodium o-phenylphenate on melon citron and kiwifruit,
since 1988 and 1993, respectively, the Agency determined that their
tolerances are no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.129 on citron and kiwifruit.
    Also, in accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is proposing
to revise 40 CFR 180.129 by designating general tolerances as paragraph
(a), 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, and
to revise commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice
in 40 CFR 180.129(a) for ``citrus'' to ``citrus fruits,'' and ``orange,
sweet'' to ``orange.''
    There are Codex MRLs for ortho-phenylphenol or its sodium salt.
    16. Oxamyl. Based on available processing data that showed combined
residues of oxamyl and its oxime metabolite methyl N,N-dimethyl-N-
hydroxy-1-thiooxamimidate calculated as oxamyl concentrated by a factor
of 1.8x (where combined residues in or on treated pineapple and
pineapple wet skins were as high as 0.1 ppm and 0.18 ppm,
respectively), EPA expected residues of 1.8 ppm, and the Agency
determined that the tolerance on pineapple, bran should be decreased
from 6.0 to 2.0 ppm. Further, the current tolerance expression in 40
CFR 180.303(a)(2) is for residues of oxamyl per se. However, the
processing data reflects the combined residues of oxamyl and its
metabolite and therefore the Agency determined that the tolerance
expression under Sec.  180.303(a)(2) was no longer needed and the
tolerance there should be moved under the current tolerance expression
for Sec.  180.303(a)(1), along with the correct ``methyl'' name for the
metabolite. Therefore, EPA is proposing to recodify 40 CFR
180.303(a)(1) to (a), move the tolerance on pineapple, bran from 40 CFR
180.303(a)(2) to (a), decrease the tolerance on pineapple, bran to 2.0
ppm, revise the tolerance nomenclature from ``pineapple, bran'' to
``pineapple, process residue,'' and correct the oxamyl metabolite name
in Sec.  180.303(a) to methyl N,N-dimethyl-N-hydroxy-1-thiooxamimidate.
    Because the commodity tolerance terminology in 40 CFR 180.303(a)
for ``vegetable, root'' at 0.1 ppm is an obsolete crop group (which
also covers such commodities as carrot, bulb onion, bulb garlic, and
potato) and many commodities formerly associated with it no longer have
active registrations, the Agency determined that it should be revoked
concomitantly with the establishment of a subgroup tolerance on
vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm, an individual
tolerance for carrot at 0.1 ppm, and

based on available data showing oxamyl residues of concern on bulb
onion as high as 0.18 ppm with a 14-day PHI and translation of bulb
onion data to bulb garlic (with a 14-day PHI), individual tolerances on
onion, bulb and garlic, bulb, each at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.303(a) to revoke the tolerance
on vegetable, root and establish tolerances on vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm; carrot at 0.1 ppm; onion, bulb at 0.2
ppm; and garlic, bulb at 0.2 ppm. Also, because the subgroup 1C
includes potato, the Agency determined that the existing individual
tolerance on potato at 0.1 ppm is no longer needed, and therefore
should be revoked. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.303(a) on potato.
    Based on available field trial data that showed combined oxamyl
residues of concern in or on peanut nutmeat as high as 0.12 ppm when
oxamyl was applied up to 2.2x the maximum rate per application, and a
current Codex MRL for combined oxamyl residues in or on peanuts at 0.05
mg/kg (at the time of the RED the MRL was 0.1 mg/kg), the Agency
calculated that at 1x the application rate the combined oxamyl residues
of concern on peanut nutmeat are expected at 0.05 ppm and therefore,
determined that the tolerance should be decreased from 0.2 to 0.05 ppm
(which is less than the 0.1 ppm recommended in the RED due to a Codex
MRL level of 0.1 mg/kg at that time) to harmonize with Codex as the
dietary exposure and risk are not of concern. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to decrease the tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR
180.303(a) on peanut to 0.05 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed combined oxamyl
residues of concern in or on bell peppers do not exceed 2.0 ppm, and a
current Codex MRL for combined oxamyl residues in or on sweet peppers
at 2.0 mg/kg, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be
decreased from 3.0 to 2.0 ppm to harmonize with Codex as the dietary
exposure and risk are not of concern. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
decrease the tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.303(a) on pepper,
bell to 2.0 ppm.
    Based on available field trial data that showed combined oxamyl
residues of concern as high as 0.058 ppm in or on soybeans and <0.2 ppm
in or on winter squash, the Agency determined that the tolerances
should be decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 ppm and 2.0 to 0.2 ppm,
respectively, and that because the winter squash data could be
translated to pumpkins based on similar use patterns, the tolerance on
pumpkin should be decreased from 2.0 to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to decrease the tolerances in newly recodified 40 CFR
180.303(a) on soybean to 0.1 ppm and revise the terminology to soybean,
seed; squash, winter to 0.2 ppm; and pumpkin to 0.2 ppm.
    Although the oxamyl RED stated that the tolerance in Sec.
180.303(a) on celery should be increased from 3.0 to 10.0 ppm to
reflect a 14-day PHI, prior to the RED, the Agency reviewed a comment
from a registrant and determined that residues on celery did not exceed
the established tolerance of 3 ppm based on data that reflected a 21-
day PHI, and therefore because registrations for celery reflect a 21-
day PHI, the current tolerance of 3 ppm would be appropriate. (The
Agency's June 1999 document which reviewed celery residue data will be
made available in the docket of this proposed rule). However, the same
registrant recently requested that the Agency proceed to increase the
tolerance for oxamyl on celery from 3.0 to 10.0 ppm based on data that
reflected a 14-day PHI and agreed to apply for changing the PHI to 14
days. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to increase the tolerance in
Sec.  180.303(a) on celery to 10.0 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.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice in newly recodified 40 CFR
180.303(a) from ``fruit, citrus'' to ``fruit, citrus, group 10.''
    17. Oxyfluorfen. While active oxyfluorfen registrations for fallow-
land use with a rotation to popcorn exist, due to a 10 month plant-back
interval, the Agency determined that a tolerance is not needed. Because
there are no other active registrations for oxyfluorfen use on popcorn
which require a tolerance, the Agency determined that the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.381(a) for residues of oxyfluorfen in or on popcorn grain is
no longer needed and should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.381(a) on corn, pop, grain.
    18. Paraquat. In the final rule published on August 1, 2007 (72 FR
41913), the Agency announced that duplicate tolerances for paraquat
were inadvertently created on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52487), when the
Agency established and revised certain tolerances for paraquat in 40
CFR 180.205, and that the duplicate tolerances are not needed and would
be addressed in a future publication in the Federal Register.
Currently, the individual tolerances at 0.05 ppm on cucurbits; nut; and
bean, snap, succulent are covered by the tolerances at 0.05 ppm on
vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; nut, tree, group 14; and vegetable,
legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A; respectively. Also, the individual
tolerances at 0.05 ppm on bean, lima, succulent and pea, succulent are
covered by the subgroup tolerance on pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the individual tolerances at 0.3
ppm on bean, dry, seed and pea, dry, seed are covered by the subgroup
tolerance on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C,
except guar bean at 0.3 ppm. Because paraquat residues are covered by
existing group or subgroup tolerances, the aforementioned individual
tolerances are no longer needed, and therefore should be revoked.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the individual tolerances for
paraquat in 40 CFR 180.205(a) on bean, dry, seed; bean, lima,
succulent; bean, snap, succulent; pea, dry, seed; pea, succulent;
cucurbits, and nut.
    19. Propargite. In a final rule published on August 1, 2007 (72 FR
41913), the Agency's response to a comment included an acknowledgement
that the 100 mg/kg MRL on dried hops for propargite, established by
Codex, is appropriate, and therefore the U.S. tolerance should be
increased from 30.0 to 100.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
increase the tolerance for propargite in 40 CFR 180.259(a) on hop,
dried cones to 100.0 ppm. For a detailed discussion of the Agency's
rationale on the modification of the dried hops tolerance, refer to the
final rule published in the Federal Register of August 1, 2007. The
Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Also, in the final rule published on August 1, 2007 (72 FR 41913),
the Agency announced that the appropriate basis to revoke the tolerance
on peanut hay for propargite is that registration labels prohibit the
feeding of propargite-treated peanut hay to livestock, and therefore
the tolerance is no longer needed, and would be addressed in a future
publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance for propargite in 40 CFR 180.259(a) on peanut,
hay. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to

current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.259(a) for ``corn, stover'' to
``corn, field, stover,'' ``corn, pop, stover,'' and ``corn, sweet,
stover.''
    20. Propylene oxide. In the Federal Register notice of October 18,
2006 (71 FR 61463) (FRL-8099-5), EPA issued a technical correction
which stated that the terms of the May 24, 2006 Federal Register notice
(71 FR 29957) (FRL-8068-4) are controlling regarding EPA's announcement
on the receipt of a registrant's request to voluntarily amend certain
propylene oxide registrations and delete the last edible gum uses from
propylene oxide registrations. EPA approved the edible gum use
deletions with the close of the 30-day comment period, made them
effective on June 23, 2006, and permitted the registrant to sell and
distribute existing stocks for 1 year; i.e., until April 20, 2007. The
Agency believes that end users have had sufficient time to exhaust
those existing stocks and for treated edible gum commodities to have
cleared the channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR
180.491(a)(1) to revoke the tolerance on gum, edible.
    Based on available data that showed residues of propylene oxide as
high as <137.0 ppm in or on cacao bean powder, EPA determined that the
data could be translated to support the use on the bean (expected
residues would be less on the dried cacao bean than powder due to vast
surface area differences) and the cacao bean tolerance should be
decreased from 300 to 200 ppm, and a tolerance should be established on
cacao bean, cocoa powder at 200 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing
in 40 CFR 180.491(a)(1) to revise the commodity terminology from cocoa
bean, bean to cacao bean, dried bean and decrease the tolerance to 200
ppm, and establish a tolerance on cacao bean, cocoa powder at 200 ppm.
    Based on available data that showed residues of propylene oxide as
high as <164.0 ppm in or on dried basil and translation of that data to
dried garlic and onion, EPA determined that tolerances should be
established on dried garlic and dried onion, each at 300 ppm.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.491(a)(1) to establish
tolerances on garlic, dried at 300 ppm and onion, dried at 300 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology in 40
CFR 180.491(a)(1) to conform to current Agency practice as follows:
``nutmeat, processed, except peanuts'' to ``nut, tree, group 14'' and
``spices, processed'' to ``herbs and spices, group 19, dried.''
    Because residues of propylene chlorohydrin are formed upon
postharvest fumigation of cacao bean, dried spices and vegetables, and
nutmeats (except peanut), EPA determined that certain tolerances should
be established not only for propylene oxide in 40 CFR 180.491(a)(1), as
described in this document, but also for propylene chlorohydrin in 40
CFR 180.491(a)(2). There are existing tolerances in 40 CFR
180.491(a)(2) for propylene chlorohydrin on fig; grape, raisin; and
plum, prune, dried. The Agency determined that these new tolerances are
safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available data that showed residues of propylene
chlorohydrin (the reaction product of propylene oxide) as high as <20.0
ppm in or on cocoa powder and expected by the Agency in or on cacao
bean at <13 ppm, EPA determined that tolerances for propylene
chlorohydrin (from use of propylene oxide as a postharvest fumigant)
should be established on each at 20.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.491(a)(2) to establish tolerances on cacao
bean, dried bean at 20.0 ppm and cacao bean, cocoa powder at 20.0 ppm.
    Based on available data that showed residues of propylene
chlorohydrin as high as <6,000 ppm and <1,500 ppm in or on dried basil
and spice, respectively, and translation of data for dried basil to
dried garlic and onion, EPA determined that tolerances for propylene
chlorohydrin (from use of propylene oxide as a postharvest fumigant)
should be established on dried basil, dried garlic, and dried onion at
6,000 ppm and herbs and spices, group 19, dried, except basil at 1,500
ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40 CFR 180.491(a)(2) to
establish tolerances at 6,000 ppm on basil, dried leaves; garlic,
dried; and onion, dried; and at 1,500 ppm on herbs and spices, group
19, dried, except basil.
    Based on available data that showed residues of propylene
chlorohydrin as high as <6 ppm in or on almond, pecan, and walnut, EPA
determined that a tolerance for propylene chlorohydrin (from use of
propylene oxide as a postharvest fumigant) should be established on the
tree nut group at 10.0 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is proposing in 40
CFR 180.491(a)(2) to establish a tolerance on nut, tree, group 14 at
10.0 ppm.
    There are no Codex MRLs for propylene oxide or propylene
chlorohydrin.
    21. Streptomycin. Based on available field trial data for succulent
and dry beans grown from treated seeds that showed streptomycin
residues were non-detectable and a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.45
ppm, the Agency determined that tolerances should be established for
dry and succulent beans, each at 0.5 ppm. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing in 40 CFR 180.245(a)(1) to establish tolerances on bean, dry,
seed and bean, succulent, each at 0.5 ppm.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice in 40 CFR 180.245(a)(1) from
``fruit, pome'' to ``fruit, pome, group 11.''
    There are no Codex MRLs for streptomycin.
    22. Triadimefon. Currently, tolerances for triadimefon are
established in 40 CFR 180.410(a) for residues of triadimefon and its
metabolites containing chlorophenoxy and triazole moieties (expressed
as the parent compound). However, the Agency determined that residues
of concern for tolerance expression for all raw agricultural
commodities are triadimefon and triadimenol. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revise the introductory text of 40 CFR 180.410(a) as
follows:
    Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
fungicide triadimefon, 1-(4-chlorophenoxy)-3,3-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)-2-butanone and triadimenol, [beta]-(4-chlorophenoxy)-
[alpha]-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, expressed
as triadimefon, in or on the following food commodities.
    Based on available ruminant exaggerated feeding data at 125x MTDB
of triadimefon that show highest residues were in kidney (at 0.412 ppm
in kidney), EPA calculated that the maximum expected residues in kidney
at 1x MTDB is 0.0016 ppm, which is below the livestock method LOD of
0.01 ppm. Therefore, EPA determined that there is no reasonable
expectation of finite triadimefon residues of concern in milk and
tissues of cattle, goats, horses and sheep, and that their tolerances
are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). In addition, with the
exception of wet apple pomace, there are no active registered feed item
uses of triadimefon for cattle, goat, horse, and sheep. Further, the
registrant has requested voluntary deletion of specific triadimefon
uses including apple, and in the Federal Register of April 16, 2008 (73
FR 20640)(FRL-8361-1) the Agency published a notice of receipt of
request for voluntary cancellation of the last active registration for
use of triadimefon on apples, grapes, pears, and raspberries. In that
notice, the Agency provides a public comment period of 30-days and
states that because the

registrant has provided information that it is not likely that any
existing stocks are out in the channels of trade, the Agency does not
believe that there is a need to permit the registrant to sell or
distribute existing stocks and does not believe that there is a need
for other persons to sell and/or use existing stocks. Therefore, the
Agency determined that the last day for end use of that product will be
the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal
Register. Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.410(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;
sheep, meat byproducts; and milk. In addition, the Agency is proposing
to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.410(a) on apple; apple, wet
pomace; grape; and pear; and in Sec.  180.410(c) the regional tolerance
on raspberry and reserve that section for tolerances with regional
registrations.
    Because there are no active registered uses of triadimefon on any
poultry or swine feed items, EPA determined that there is no reasonable
expectation of finite triadimefon residues of concern in or on eggs,
and tissues of poultry and hogs, and that their tolerances are no
longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.410 on hog, fat; hog,
meat; hog, meat byproducts; poultry, fat; poultry, meat; poultry, meat
byproducts; and egg.
    The tolerances in 40 CFR 180.410(a) on apple, dry pomace, grape
pomace (wet and dry), and grape, raisin, waste should be revoked
because the Agency considers these commodities to no longer be
significant livestock feed items, and therefore the tolerances are no
longer needed. Consequently, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.410(a) on apple, dry pomace; grape pomace (wet and dry);
and grape, raisin, waste.
    Because there have been no active registered uses of triadimefon on
barley, sugar beets, chickpeas, grasses, nectarines, and wheat for at
least 10 years, and cucurbits since July 1999, the Agency determined
that their tolerances are no longer needed and should be revoked.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.410
on barley, milled fractions (except flour); beet, sugar, roots; beet,
sugar, tops; chickpea, seed; cucurbits; grass, forage; grass, seed
screenings; grass, straw, grown for seed; nectarine; wheat, forage;
wheat, grain; wheat, milled fractions (except flour); and wheat, straw.
    Based on available data that showed combined triadimefon residues
of concern as high as 8.1 ppm in or on treated pineapple peel and 0.18
ppm in or on treated pineapple pulp, EPA calculated that the maximum
expected residue in or on whole pineapple is 1.82 ppm. Therefore, EPA
determined that the tolerances on fresh pineapple should each be
decreased from 3.0 to 2.0 ppm. In addition, this level harmonizes with
the Codex MRL for pineapple at 2 mg/kg. Consequently, the Agency is
proposing to decrease the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.410(a) on pineapple,
fresh to 2.0 ppm and revise the commodity terminology to ``pineapple.''
    Because there will be no shared tolerances for triadimefon with
those for triadimenol in 40 CFR 180.450, Sec.  180.3(d)(13), which
states that the total amount of residues for triadimefon, triadimenol,
and a butanediol metabolite shall not yield more residue than that
permitted by the higher of the two tolerances, is no longer needed and
therefore 40 CFR 180.3(d)(13) should be removed. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to remove the current 40 CFR 180.3(d)(13) and redesignate
current 40 CFR 180.3(d)(14) as 40 CFR 180.3(d)(13).
    Currently, there are Codex MRLs for triadimefon on eggs, meat (from
mammals other than marine mammals), milks, pineapple, poultry meat,
sugar beets, wheat, and wheat straw.
    23. Triadimenol. Based on available ruminant exaggerated feeding
data at 189x MTDB of triadimenol that show highest combined triadimenol
residues of concern were in kidney and there at 0.206 ppm (residues
were lower in milk, muscle, liver, and fat), EPA calculated that the
maximum expected residues in kidney at 1x MTDB is 0.0011 ppm, which is
below the livestock method LOQ of 0.05 ppm and LOD of 0.01 ppm.
Therefore, because residues in milk and tissues were expected to be
less than the LOQ, EPA determined that there is no reasonable
expectation of detecting finite residues of triadimenol residues of
concern in milk and tissues of cattle, goats, horses and sheep and
these tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3).
Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.450(b) 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; sheep, meat
byproducts; and milk.
    Based on available ruminant exaggerated feeding data and a 272x
MTDB of triadimenol for swine, EPA calculated that the maximum expected
residues in kidney at 10x MTDB is 0.0076 ppm, which is below the
livestock method LOQ of 0.05 ppm and LOD of 0.01 ppm. Therefore, EPA
determined that there is no reasonable expectation of detecting finite
residues of triadimenol residues of concern in tissues of hogs and
these tolerances are no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3).
Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.450(b) on hog, fat; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts.
    Based on available poultry exaggerated feeding data and a 2720x
MTDB of triadimenol that show highest combined triadimenol residues of
concern were in liver and there at 0.703 ppm (residues were lower in
egg, muscle, and fat), EPA calculated that the maximum expected
residues in liver at 1x MTDB is 0.00026 ppm, which is below the
livestock method LOQ of 0.05 ppm and LOD of 0.01 ppm. Therefore,
because residues in eggs and tissues were expected to be less than the
LOQ, EPA determined that there is no reasonable expectation of
detecting finite residues of triadimenol residues of concern in eggs
and tissues of poultry and these tolerances are no longer needed under
40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Consequently, the Agency is proposing to revoke the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.450(b) on poultry, fat; poultry, meat;
poultry, meat byproducts; and egg.
    Because cotton forage is no longer considered by the Agency to be
significant livestock feed items 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, EPA is proposing
to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.450 on cotton, forage.
    As a result of proposing that all the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.450
(b) are to be revoked and in order to conform to current Agency
practice, EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 180.450 by removing
existing paragraph (b) and redesignating and reserving paragraph (b)
for section 18 emergency exemptions, adding and reserving paragraph (c)
for tolerances with regional registrations, and adding and reserving
paragraph (d) tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues.

    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology to
conform to current Agency practice as follows: in 40 CFR 180.450(a),
``corn, forage'' to ``corn, field, forage'' and ``corn, sweet,
forage;'' ``corn, grain'' to ``corn, field, grain'' and ``corn, pop,
grain;'' and ``corn, stover'' to ``corn, field, stover,'' ``corn, pop,
stover;'' and ``corn, sweet, stover.''
    EPA is not proposing to revoke sorghum tolerances for triadimenol
at this time. The Agency is in the process of addressing one active
registration and intends to address the tolerances in a future
publication in the Federal Register.
    There are Codex MRLs for triadimenol on commodities including meat
(from mammals other than marine mammals), milks, eggs, and poultry
meat.
    24. Tridemorph. Tridemorph (2,6-dimethyl-4-tridecylmorpholine) is a
fungicide used in Central and South America on bananas. There are no
U.S. registrations for tridemorph. In the 2005 tridemorph TRED, EPA
stated that the foreign residue data for tridemorph is adequate for
tolerance reassessment purposes. Based on foreign field trial data that
showed residues of tridemorph as high as 0.907 ppm in or on unbagged
bananas, the Agency determined that the existing import tolerance
should be increased from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
increase the import tolerance in 40 CFR 180.372 on bananas from 0.1 to
1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe;
i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    There are no Codex MRLs for tridemorph.
    25. Ziram. In a final rule published in the Federal Register of
September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54423)(FRL-8077-9), included among tolerance
actions for multiple active ingredients, EPA announced receipt of a
comment from VJP Consulting, Inc. on behalf of Taminco, a member of the
Ziram Task Force consortium, which expressed an interest in the
retention of tolerances for ziram residues in or on onion and melon for
import purposes. In its response, the Agency took no action on the
ziram tolerances for onion and melon at that time. However, shortly
after that time, Taminco informed the Agency that it will not support
the tolerances for ziram residues in or on onion and melon for import
purposes. Because there have been no active registrations for ziram use
on onion since 1991 and on melon since 1995, and no longer interest in
supporting them with data for import purposes, tolerances on onion and
melon are no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerances for residues of ziram, calculated as zinc
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate, in 40 CFR 180.116(a) in or on onion and
melon.
    Also, because the tolerances expired on January 15, 2007, EPA is
proposing to remove all the entries for garden beet roots and tops,
cabbage, and cauliflower from 40 CFR 180.116(a).
    Codex MRLs do exist for total dithiocarbamates on onion, bulb;
onion, spring; melons, except watermelon; and watermelon, but are
determined as carbon disulfide and apply to the use of individual or
combinations of dithiocarbamates, including ziram. The U.S. tolerances
on onion and melon for ziram in 40 CFR 180.116 are calculated as zinc
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate.

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 actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in
detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs
and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions,
including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety
findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with
new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are
available as provided in Unit II.A.
    EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for aldicarb, ametryn, 2,4-DB,
dicamba, dimethipin, disulfoton, diuron, ethoprop, etridiazole,
fenitrothion, malathion, metaldehyde, methyl parathion, o-phenylphenol
and its sodium salt, oxamyl, oxyfluorfen, paraquat, propargite,
propylene oxide, triadimefon, and ziram, and TREDs for diuron,
streptomycin, triadimenol, and tridimorph. REDs and TREDs contain the
Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides, including
requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm
the potential human health and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions
under which these uses and products will be eligible for
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment,
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the
FFDCA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' However,
tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed
in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no
longer necessary.
    EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import

tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in
unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section
408 of FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA
determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors,
including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and
an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA
must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all
tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in
aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is
potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded
tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
    Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible
residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs
produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example,
grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When
considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that:
    1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs.
    2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will
exist.
    3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not
exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide
residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need
to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
    EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg
tolerances proposed for revocation in this document and has concluded
that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of
concern in or on those commodities.

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    With the exception of specific tolerance revocations for dimethipin
and methyl parathion for which EPA is proposing specific expiration/
revocation dates, the Agency is proposing that these revocations,
modifications, establishments 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 dimethipin and methyl parathion,
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 May 31, 2010 and January 24, 2009 for the specific tolerances
for dimethipin and methyl parathion, respectively. The Agency believes
that this revocation date allows 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(1)(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. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?

    The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and
are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standards established by FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level in a notice published for public
comment. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the
tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs, and in the
Residue Chemistry document which supports the RED and TRED, as
mentioned in Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in this proposed
rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit
II.A.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    EPA is proposing to establish tolerances under FFDCA section
408(e), and also modify and revoke specific tolerances established
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions (e.g., establishment and modification
of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary
circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review

under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed rule
does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special
considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review
or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require Agency consideration of
voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously
assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from
tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or
revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small
entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4,
1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1),
respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis,
and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this
proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will
not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined
that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import
tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a
significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a
negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding
simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of this proposed rule).
Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present
proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this proposed rule does not have any ``tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 22, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  180.3  [Amended]

    2. Section 180.3 is amended by removing paragraph (d)(13) and
redesignating paragraph (d)(14) as (d)(13).
    3. Section 180.106 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the
tables in paragraphs (b) and (c), to read as follows:

Sec.  180.106  Diuron; tolerances for residues

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of the herbicide diuron, 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea and
its metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline in or on food
commodities, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage............................................          3.0
Alfalfa, hay...............................................          2.0
Apple......................................................          0.1
Artichoke, globe...........................................            1
Asparagus..................................................            7
Banana.....................................................          0.1
Berry group 13.............................................          0.1
Cattle, fat................................................            1
Cattle, meat...............................................            1
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................            1
Citrus, oil................................................          3.0
Corn, field, grain.........................................          0.1
Corn, pop, grain...........................................          0.1
Cotton, undelinted seed....................................          0.2
Fish - freshwater finfish, farm raised.....................          2.0
Fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon......................         0.05

Goat, fat..................................................            1
Goat, meat.................................................            1
Goat, meat byproducts......................................            1
Grain, aspirated fractions.................................          5.0
Grape......................................................         0.05
Grass, forage, except bermudagrass.........................            2
Grass, hay, except bermudagrass............................            2
Hazelnut...................................................          0.1
Hog, fat...................................................            1
Hog, meat..................................................            1
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................            1
Horse, fat.................................................            1
Horse, meat................................................            1
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................            1
Lemon......................................................          0.5
Nut, macadamia.............................................         0.05
Olive......................................................            1
Papaya.....................................................          0.5
Peach......................................................          0.1
Pear.......................................................            1
Pea, field, seed...........................................          0.1
Pea, field, vines..........................................            2
Pea, field, hay............................................            2
Pecan......................................................         0.05
Peppermint, tops...........................................          1.5
Pineapple..................................................          0.1
Pineapple, process residue.................................          0.4
Sheep, fat.................................................            1
Sheep, meat................................................            1
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................            1
Sorghum, grain, forage.....................................            2
Sorghum, grain, grain......................................          0.5
Sorghum, grain, stover.....................................            2
Spearmint, tops............................................          1.5
Sugarcane, cane............................................          0.2
Sugarcane, molasses........................................          0.7
Walnut.....................................................         0.05
Wheat, bran................................................          0.7
Wheat, forage..............................................            2
Wheat, grain...............................................          0.5
Wheat, hay.................................................            2
Wheat, straw...............................................          1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                     Parts per    Revocation
                                                  million        Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catfish.......................................          2.0     06/30/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, bran...............................................          0.7
Barley, grain..............................................          0.2
Barley, hay................................................            2
Barley, straw..............................................          1.5
Cactus.....................................................         0.05
Clover, forage.............................................          0.1
Clover, hay................................................          1.0
Oat, forage................................................            2
Oat, grain.................................................          0.1
Oat, hay...................................................            2
Oat, straw.................................................          1.5
Trefoil, forage............................................          0.1
Trefoil, hay...............................................          1.5
Vetch, forage..............................................          0.1
Vetch, hay                                                           1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Sec.  180.111  [Amended]

    4. Section 180.111 is amended by removing the entries for flax,
straw; lespedeza, seed; lespedeza, straw; vetch, seed; and vetch, straw
from the table in paragraph (a)(1).
    5. Section 180.116 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a) and footnote 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.116  Ziram; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond.....................................................       0.1\1\
Apple......................................................       7.0\1\
Apricot....................................................       7.0\1\
Blackberry.................................................       7.0\1\
Blueberry..................................................       7.0\1\
Cherry, sweet..............................................       7.0\1\
Cherry, tart...............................................       7.0\1\
Grape......................................................          7.0
Huckleberry................................................          7.0
Peach......................................................          7.0
Pear.......................................................       7.0\1\
Pecan......................................................          0.1
Quince.....................................................       7.0\1\
Strawberry.................................................          7.0
Tomato.....................................................       7.0\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some of these tolerances were established on the basis of data
  acquired at the public hearings held in 1950 (formerly Sec.   180.101)
  and the remainder were established on the basis of pesticide petitions
  presented under the procedure specified in the amendment to the
  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by Public Law 518, 83d Congress
  (68 Stat. 511)

* * * * *
    6. Section 180.121 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.121  Methyl parathion; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *