[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56425-56433]
[DOCID:fr27se06-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586; FRL-8089-5]

Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, and MCPA; Proposed Tolerance
Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for herbicides
propanil, triallate, and MCPA. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain
tolerances for the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and
MCPA. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances for the
herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0586. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
3057-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7805P), 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
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(f) if needed.
The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its
submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or
persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not
submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action
under FFDCA.
    EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised
again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham,
triallate, and MCPA in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The safety finding
determination of ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' is discussed in
detail in each

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the FQPA
Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision (TRED) for
the active ingredients. 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
452427-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom and from the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone
1-800-553-6847 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet at http://www.ntis.gov.

Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on propanil,
phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA at the internet at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm
 and in public dockets

EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0348 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0033 (propanil); EPA-HQ-OPP-
2004-0384 (phenmedipham); and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0156 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-
0239 (MCPA) at http://www.regulations.gov.

    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. The evaluation of whether a tolerance is safe is a
separate inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of a tolerance when data
show that (1) lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result
in a higher residue level on the commodity and (2) the tolerance
remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue level allowed under the
tolerance. In REDs, Chapter IV on Risk management, Reregistration, and
Tolerance Reassessment typically describes the regulatory position,
FQPA assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of
safety for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and
children. In particular, the human health risk assessment document
which supports the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether
the Agency has concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation
of the dietary risk associated with the active ingredient and whether
it can determine that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate
mitigation) that no harm to any population subgroup will result from
aggregate exposure.
    Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative
Record and paper copies are available in the public docket for this
proposed rule, while 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-

006-0586, 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.
    With respect to the tolerances that are proposed in this document
to be modified, unless technical (e.g., commodity tolerance
nomenclature revision), EPA has found that these tolerances are safe in
accordance with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A), and 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 section 408(b)(2)(C). These findings are discussed in
detail in each RED. 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 the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The registrations for these
pesticide chemicals were canceled because the registrant failed to pay
the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled
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 domestic commodities legally treated.
    1. Propanil. Currently, in 40 CFR 180.274 (a)(1) and (2),
tolerances are established for the combined residues of propanil and
its metabolites (calculated as propanil) in or on both raw agricultural
commodities (RACs) and processed foods and feeds. EPA is proposing to
revise the tolerance expression to specify the residues of concern and
combine the RACs and processed foods and feed tolerances in accordance
with FFDCA 408 as amended by FQPA (1996) in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read
as follows: Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
herbicide propanil (3', 4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites
convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA).
    Tolerances currently exist for rice milling fractions and rice
polishings. Rice milling fractions are no longer considered a
significant animal 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/[fxsp0
]opptsfrs/publications/[fxsp0]OPPTS--Harmonized/[fxsp0]860--

Residue--[fxsp0]Chemistry--Test--[fxsp0]Guidelines/Series. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the
combined residues of propanil in or on rice milling fractions and rice,
polishings at 10 parts per million (ppm).
    The registered uses on barley, oat, and wheat (small grains) have
been voluntarily cancelled (68 FR 68901, December 10, 2003) (FRL-7332-
5), (68 FR 38328, June 27, 2003) (FRL-7310-6). In the absence of
registered uses, the tolerances associated with the small grains should
be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on
barley, straw; oat, straw; and wheat, straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain
at .2 ppm; oat, grain at .2 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm.
    Two studies depicting the magnitude of regulated propanil residues
in or on rice, grain exceeded the established tolerance of 2 ppm in or
on treated rice, grain samples demonstrating residues ranging from 0.03
ppm to 8.7 ppm. Based on these data, EPA determined the tolerance
should be 10 ppm on rice, grain. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil
residues of concern in or on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 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.
    A rice processing study showed no concentration of residues in
polished rice and average concentration factors of 3.5x for rice, hulls
and 4.6x for rice, bran. The highest average field trial (HAFT)
propanil residues found in rice were 8.7 ppm. Based on this HAFT and
the observed concentration factors, the maximum expected residues are
30.45 ppm in or on rice, hulls (8.7 x 3.5) and 40.02 ppm in or on rice,
bran (8.7 x 4.6). These expected residues are higher in the processed
commodities than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm for rice, grain.
Based on these data, EPA has determined that the tolerances should be
30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40 ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to increase tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined
propanil residues of concern in or on rice, hulls from 10 to 30 ppm and
rice, bran from 10 to 40 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.
     The potential for secondary transfer of propanil residues to
animal commodities exists because the herbicide is registered for use
on rice, which may be used as animal feed. Based on a maximum
theoretical dietary burden (x) and using the residues levels found in
dairy cattle and milk fed 15 ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of: 0.035
ppm in milk, 0.31 ppm in liver, 0.77 ppm in kidney, <  0.05 ppm (non-
detectable) in muscle, and 0.10 ppm in fat. Based on these data, the
Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.05 ppm in cattle, meat;
goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat; and 1.0 ppm in
cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts;
horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,meat byproducts. In addition, the
term ``negligible residue'' and its designation, ``(N)'' associated
with the milk and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform
to current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing in
40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern to
maintain and revise the tolerances in or on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to
0.05 ppm and cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep,
fat from 0.1(N) ppm to 0.10 ppm; to decrease and revise the tolerances
in or on cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep,
meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm; and to increase and revise the tolerances
in or on cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat
byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,meat byproducts from
0.1(N) to 1.0 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.
    Maximum propanil residues were 0.212 ppm and 0.372 ppm,
respectively, in eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15 ppm (0.9x), and
50 ppm (3.1x). Residues in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50
ppm (3.1x) dose groups were 0.183-0.236, and 0.824-1.755 ppm,
respectively. Residues in muscle were <  0.050-0.076 and 0.087-0.161 ppm
from the 0.9x and 3.1x dose groups, respectively. In fat, propanil
residues of concern were <  0.05 ppm (<  non-detectable) up to 0.9x
feeding levels, and <  0.139-0.348 ppm at 3.1x. Based on these data, the
Agency has determined that the propanil tolerances should be 0.30 ppm
for egg; 0.05 ppm for poultry, fat; 0.50 ppm for poultry, meat
byproducts; and 0.10 ppm for poultry, meat. In addition, the term
``negligible residue'' and its designation, ``(N)'' associated with the
egg and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to current
Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR
180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern to increase
and revise the tolerance for egg from 0.05(N) to 0.30 ppm; to decrease
and revise the tolerance in or on poultry, fat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm;
to increase and revise the tolerance for poultry, meat byproducts from
0.1(N) to 0.50 ppm; and maintain and revise the tolerance in or on
poultry, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.10 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.
    Residues of propanil and its metabolites, determined as base-
releasable 3, 4 DCA and expressed as propanil equivalents, were <  0.01-
0.03 ppm in or on the edible portions of crayfish (1x maximum season
rate). Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerance should
be 0.05 ppm on crayfish. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of
concern in or on crayfish at 0.05 ppm.
     In addition, the ``N'' (negligible residues) designation
correlated with tolerances is being removed to conform to current
Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or
on rice, straw from 75(N) ppm to 75 ppm.
    2. Phenmedipham. The current tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.278
refers to phenmedipham as methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-
methylcarbanilate which should be changed to the more appropriate
chemical name, 3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate.
Therefore, EPA proposes to change the chemical name in 40 CFR
180.278(a) for residues of the herbicide phenmedipham to 3-
methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate.
    Spinach field trial residue data generated at the 1x seasonal
application rate and 14-22 day pre-harvest interval (PHI) resulted in
residues ranging from 2.1-3.6 ppm. Additional trials conducted at
similar rates and PHIs yielded residues ranging from <  0.05 to 0.17
ppm. Based on the more recent residue data and use pattern, EPA has
determined the tolerance on spinach should be 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for
residues of phenmedipham in or on spinach from 0.5 ppm to 4.0 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.
    Sugar beet processing studies indicate that phenmedipham residues
of concern concentrated 3x in dried pulp, 1.3x in molasses, and did not
concentrate in sugar. Because of the concentration factors associated
with dried pulp and molasses, the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm for raw
beet, sugar, roots and beet, sugar, tops is not adequate to cover the
dried pulp and molasses from sugar beets; therefore, the Agency has
determined that tolerances should be established for beet, sugar, dried
pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. EPA is proposing
to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of
phenmedipham in or on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet,
sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm.
    In addition, the ``N'' (negligible residues) designation that is
correlated with some of the tolerances is being removed to conform to
current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in or on
beet, garden at 0.2(N) ppm to beet, garden, roots at 0.2 ppm; beet,
sugar, roots at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops at 0.1(N)
ppm to 0.1 ppm.
    3. Triallate. The available data, reflecting the maximum registered
use patterns, indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of
concern were 0.26 ppm in or on barley, straw;

0.12 ppm in or on the seed and pods of succulent peas; 0.39 ppm in or
on the vines of succulent peas; 0.27 ppm in or on the vines of dried
peas; 0.73 ppm in or on the straw (hay) of succulent peas; 0.36 ppm in
or on the straw of dried peas; and 0.94 ppm in or on wheat, straw in
the states of: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. In addition, the term ``negligible residue'' and its
designation, ``(N)'' associated with the barley, grain tolerance is
being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Based
on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.3 ppm
on barley, straw; 1.0 ppm on pea, field, hay; 0.5 ppm on pea, field,
vines; 0.2 ppm on pea, succulent; and 1.0 ppm on wheat, straw and
recodified under 40 CFR 180.314(c) as regional tolerances. Therefore,
EPA is proposing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined
residues of concern to be increased in or on barley, straw from 0.05 to
0.3 ppm; pea, field, hay from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; pea, field, vines from
0.05 to 0.5 ppm; pea, succulent from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm; wheat, straw from
0.05 to 1.0 ppm; and reclassified from 40 CFR 180.314(a) to 40 CFR
180.314(c) for barley, grain at 0.05 ppm and wheat, grain at 0.05 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.
     Lentil, hay is no longer considered significant livestock feed
item and has been removed from Table 1 (OPPTS GLN 860.1000) and lentil,
seed is covered by the established pea tolerance in accordance with 40
CFR 180.1(h). As a result, EPA proposes removing the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.314(a) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on
lentil, hay at 0.05 ppm and lentil, seed at 0.05 ppm.
    Sugar beet processing studies were conducted on sugar beets treated
at 5x the seasonal application rate resulting in maximum residues of
0.14 ppm in root, 0.30 ppm in dried pulp, and <  0.03 ppm in sugar and
molasses. Therefore, EPA is proposing to maintain the tolerances and
correct the terminology for sugar beets to include roots in 40 CFR
180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on
beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm; and
beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm.
    The available data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns,
indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of concern were <
0.02 ppm in or on the seed and pods of pea, dry and 0.94 ppm on wheat,
straw. Because of similar cultural practices and identical use rates,
wheat, straw data is used to support tolerances for barley, hay and
wheat, hay. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances
should be 0.2 ppm for pea, dry and 1.0 ppm for barley, hay and wheat,
hay by translating the data from wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined
triallate residues of concern in or on barley, hay at 1.0 ppm; pea, dry
at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the
establishment of these tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue.
    Although tolerances are established on animal feed items,
tolerances on the edible tissues of animals are not necessary because
the available residue data generated using exaggerated rates indicate
there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in meat, milk,
poultry, and eggs as a result of ingestion of pesticide residues on raw
agricultural commodities in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3).
    4. MCPA. The current tolerance expression 40 CFR 180.339(a)
regulates residues of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
(MCPA) from application of the herbicide in acid form or in the form of
its sodium, ethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine,
isopropanolamine, diisopropanolamine, triisopropanolamine, or
dimethylamine salts or isooctyl or butoxyethyl esters and 40 CFR
180.339(b) tolerances are established for combined negligible residues
(N) of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its
metabolite 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol. Based on toxicity data for 2-
methyl-4-chlorophenol, a currently regulated livestock metabolite, EPA
determined that it is of significantly less concern than the parent
compound and therefore can be excluded from the tolerance expression.
Although the chemical name for MCPA has been presented as ``(2-methyl-
4-chlorophenoxy)acetic acid'', under current chemical naming
conventions the ``(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid'' designation
is preferred. EPA determined the residues to be regulated in plant
commodities (40 CFR 180.339(a)) are parent, free and conjugated MCPA.
When MCPA is applied in various forms (e.g. ethanolamine and other
salts and esters), a single common moiety is released that is the
pesticidally active component and serves as the basis for tolerance
regulation. Therefore, EPA is proposing to change the tolerance
expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a) to read as follows: tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2-
methylphenoxy)acetic acid)], both free and conjugated, resulting from
the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or
its 2-ethylhexyl ester and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) to read as follows:
tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-
chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)] resulting from the direct
application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-
ethylhexyl ester. 40 CFR 180.339 (a) and (b) will be revised to read 40
CFR 180.339 (a)(1) and (2) for consistency. Lastly, the term
``negligible residue'' and its designation, ``(N)'', associated with
some tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy
and practice.
    Currently, tolerances exist reflecting uses of MCPA on rice,
sorghum, flax (straw) and canarygrass. The uses on rice, sorghum, and
canarygrass are no longer registered uses (69 FR 39467, June 30, 2004)
(FRL-7363-4) (71 FR 24687, April 26, 2006) (FRL-8059-2). EPA policy no
longer requires tolerances to be established for flax, straw.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR
180.339(a)(1) for the combined MCPA residues of concern in or on flax,
straw at 2 ppm; grass, canary, annual, straw at 0.1 ppm; canary,
annual, seed at 0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1(N) ppm; rice, straw at 2
ppm; sorghum, forage at 20 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.1 ppm; and sorghum,
grain, stover at 20 ppm.
    The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined
residues of MCPA and its metabolites are <  0.29 ppm in or on alfalfa,
forage and <  1.07 ppm in or on alfalfa, hay. Alfalfa, forage and
alfalfa, hay data will also be used to satisfy crop field trial
requirements for the clover, forage; clover hay; lespedeza, forage;
lespedeza, hay; trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; and
vetch, hay. Ordinarily, the Agency would not translate data from
alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay to support uses on clover, forage;
clover hay; lespedeza, forage; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, forage;
trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; and vetch, hay; however, because the only
supported use of MCPA on these crops is to the crops underseeded to
small grains it is reasonable to use alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay
data to support these uses. Based on these data, EPA has determined the
tolerance should be 0.5 ppm in or on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage;
lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage;

and vetch, forage; and 2.0 ppm in or on alfalfa, hay; clover hay;
lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to increase tolerances and revise the terminology to include
forage consistently in 40 CFR 180.339 (a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or
on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage;
and vetch, forage from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and alfalfa, hay; clover hay;
lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay from 0.1 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.
    The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined
residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 0.72 ppm in or on wheat, grain
and 21.4 ppm in or on wheat, straw. Based on the HAFT residue of 0.08
ppm for wheat, grain, expected MCPA residues of concern in or on wheat
bran and germ will not exceed the established tolerance of 0.1 ppm for
wheat, grain and for wheat processed commodities. Because of similar
cultural practices and identical use rates, wheat residue field trial
data is used to support tolerances for barley, oat, and rye. Based on
these data, EPA has determined the tolerance should be 1.0 ppm in or on
barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and wheat, grain and 25 ppm in
or on barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or on barley, grain; oat, grain;
rye, grain; and wheat, grain from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm and barley, straw;
oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw from 2 to 25 ppm. The Agency
determined that these increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
    The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined
residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 19.4 ppm (7 day PHI) in or on
wheat, forage, 39.5 ppm and 111 ppm (7 and14 day PHIs, respectively) in
or on wheat, hay. Also, these data are translated to support tolerances
for barley, hay and oat, hay and oat, forage and rye, forage. Based on
these data, EPA determined the tolerances should be 20 ppm on oat,
forage; rye, forage; and wheat, forage and 115 ppm on barley, hay; oat,
hay; and wheat, hay. EPA is proposing tolerances be established in 40
CFR 180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or on wheat, forage at 20
ppm; and barley, hay; oat, hay; and wheat, hay at 115 ppm; and maintain
tolerances for oat, forage and rye, forage at 20 ppm. The Agency
determined that these newly established tolerances are safe; i.e. there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemicals residue.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology and
tolerances to conform to current Agency practice at 40 CFR 180.339 as
follows: ``grass, pasture and grass, rangeland at 300 ppm to grass,
forage at 300 ppm;'' ``peavines at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, vines at 0.1
ppm;'' ``peavines, hay at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, hay at 0.1 ppm;''
``vegetables, seed and pod at 0.1 ppm to pea, dry at 0.1 ppm and pea,
succulent at 0.1 ppm;'' ``cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat;
and sheep, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog,
meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts;
and cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat
at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm;'' and ``milk at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm.''

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

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA,
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported
into the United States.
    EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of the 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 propanil, phenmedipham,
triallate, and MCPA, and a TRED for propanil. REDs and TREDs contain
the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides,
including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to
confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions
under which these uses and products will be eligible for
reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment,
modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED
recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in
some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the
FQPA 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. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
    Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure

to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no 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 proposed rule and has
concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide
residues of concern in or on those commodities.

C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

    EPA is proposing that modifications, establishment, commodity
terminology revisions, and revocation of these tolerances become
effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register because their associated uses have been canceled for several
years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is
presented with information that existing stocks would still be
available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider
extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments
regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows
sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade,
please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA,
and
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates when the
pesticide was applied to such food.

III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?

    The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory
and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
    The tolerance actions in this proposal apply equally to
domestically-produced and imported foods. In making its tolerance
decisions, the Agency seeks to harmonize with international standards
whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and
agricultural practices. EPA considers the international Maximum Residue
Limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as
required by section 408(b)(4) of the FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a
joint United Nations 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 also considers
MRLs established in Canada and Mexico. EPA may establish a tolerance
that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4)
requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the reasons
for departing from the Codex level. Specific tolerance actions in this
proposed rule are discussed in Unit II.A. EPA's efforts to harmonize
with MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of
individual REDs and TREDs as mentioned in Unit II.A. EPA has developed
guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR
35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available
to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet
at http://www.epa.gov. On the Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations, and

Dockets,'' then select Regulations and Proposed Rules and then look up
the entry for this document under ``Federal Register--Environmental
Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 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), respectively, and were provided to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning
the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions
must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance
exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small
entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of
all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any
particular revocation (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 EPA's previous
analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be
submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 20, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
    2. Section 180.274 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.274  Propanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of the herbicide propanil (3', 4'-dichloropropionanilide) and its
metabolites convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA) in or on the
following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................         0.10
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................          1.0
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.05
Crayfish...................................................         0.05
Egg........................................................         0.30
Goat, fat..................................................         0.10
Goat, meat byproducts......................................          1.0
Goat, meat.................................................         0.05
Hog, fat...................................................         0.10
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................          1.0
Hog, meat..................................................         0.05
Horse, fat.................................................         0.10
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................          1.0
Horse, meat................................................         0.05
Milk.......................................................         0.05
Poultry, fat...............................................         0.05
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.50
Poultry, meat..............................................         0.10
Rice, bran.................................................           40
Rice, grain................................................           10
Rice, hulls................................................           30
Rice, straw................................................           75
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.10
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................          1.0
Sheep, meat................................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. Section 180.278 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.278  Phenmedipham; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of the herbicide phenmedipham (3-

methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate) in or on the following
food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet, garden, roots........................................          0.2
Beet, sugar, dried pulp....................................          0.5
Beet, sugar, molasses......................................          0.2
Beet, sugar, roots.........................................          0.1
Beet, sugar, tops..........................................          0.1
Spinach....................................................          4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    4. Section 180.314 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.314  Triallate; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. [Reserved]
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide (S-2, 3, 4-trichloroallyl
diisopropylthiocarbamate) and its metabolite 2, 3, 3-trichloroprop-2-
enesulfonic acid (TCPSA) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain..............................................         0.05
Barley, hay................................................          1.0
Barley, straw..............................................          0.3
Beet, sugar, dried pulp....................................          0.2
Beet, sugar, roots.........................................          0.1
Beet, sugar, tops..........................................          0.5
Pea, dry...................................................          0.2
Pea, field, hay............................................          1.0
Pea, field, vines..........................................          0.5
Pea, succulent.............................................          0.2
Wheat, grain...............................................         0.05
Wheat, hay.................................................          1.0
Wheat, straw...............................................          1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
    5. Section 180.339 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.339  MCPA; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid), both free and
conjugated, resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium
or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on the
following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage............................................          0.5
Alfalfa, hay...............................................          2.0
Barley, grain..............................................          1.0
Barley, hay................................................          115
Barley, straw..............................................           25
Clover, forage.............................................          0.5
Clover, hay................................................          2.0
Flax, seed.................................................          0.1
Grass, forage..............................................          300
Grass, hay.................................................           20
Lespedeza, forage..........................................          0.5
Lespedeza, hay.............................................          2.0
Oat, forage................................................           20
Oat, grain.................................................          1.0
Oat, hay...................................................          115
Oat, straw.................................................           25
Pea, dry...................................................          0.1
Pea, hay...................................................          0.1
Pea, succulent.............................................          0.1
Pea, vines.................................................          0.1
Rye, forage................................................           20
Rye, grain.................................................          1.0
Rye, straw.................................................           25
Trefoil, forage............................................          0.5
Trefoil, hay...............................................          2.0
Vetch, forage..............................................          0.5
Vetch, hay.................................................          2.0
Wheat, forage..............................................           20
Wheat, grain...............................................          1.0
Wheat, hay.................................................          115
Wheat, straw...............................................           25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA
((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid) resulting from the direct
application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-
ethylhexyl ester in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................          0.1
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................          0.1
Cattle, meat...............................................          0.1
Goat, fat..................................................          0.1
Goat, meat byproducts......................................          0.1
Goat, meat.................................................          0.1
Hog, fat...................................................          0.1
Hog, meat byproducts.......................................          0.1
Hog, meat..................................................          0.1
Horse, fat.................................................          0.1
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................          0.1
Horse, meat................................................          0.1
Milk.......................................................          0.1
Sheep, fat.................................................          0.1
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................          0.1
Sheep, meat................................................          0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E6-15841 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43766-43768]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0206; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-068-AD;
Amendment 39-17507; AD 2013-14-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of
spanwise cracks and corrosion in the wing center box upper skin and
rear spar upper chord between left buttock line (LBL) 70.50 and right
buttock line (RBL) 70.50 at body station (STA) 870. This AD requires
repetitive inspections of the wing center box for cracking around
certain fastener rows on the rear spar upper chord horizontal flange;
for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking of the rear
spar upper chord radius; for certain other airplanes, repetitive
inspections for damage, cracking, and corrosion of the pressure

seal; and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking and corrosion of the upper skin and rear spar upper
chord of the wing center box, which could result in loss of the
airplane wing and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 26, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 26,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013 (78 FR
15658). The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the wing
center box for cracking around certain fastener rows on the rear spar
upper chord horizontal flange; for certain airplanes, repetitive
inspections for cracking of the rear spar upper chord radius; for
certain other airplanes, repetitive inspections for damage, cracking,
and corrosion of the pressure seal; and repair if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Supportive Comments

    Boeing stated that it supports the NPRM (78 FR 15658, March 12,
2013).
    FedEx stated that the requirements proposed in the NPRM (78 FR
15658, March 12, 2013) would fit within the planned scheduled
maintenance check and not impact fleet availability or span-time of the
planned scheduled maintenance check.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed--except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 15658, March 12, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 15658, March 12, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  67 work-hours x $85                $0  $5,695 per inspection  $558,110 per
                              per hour = $5,695                      cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                              per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-14-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17507 ; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0206; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-068-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 26, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-
100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of spanwise cracks and corrosion
in the wing center box upper skin and rear spar upper chord between
left buttock line (LBL) 70.50 and right buttock line (RBL) 70.50 at
body station (STA) 870. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking and corrosion of the upper skin and rear spar upper chord
of the wing center box, which could result in loss of the airplane
wing and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-57-0187, dated March
8, 2012: Inspect the wing center box between LBL 70.50 and RBL
70.50, at STA 870, as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
(g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 727-57-0187, dated March 8, 2012. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 727-57-0187, dated March 8, 2012. If any crack, corrosion,
or damage is found during any inspection required by this AD, before
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (1) Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or detailed
inspection for cracking around the forward fastener row in the rear
spar upper chord horizontal flange.
    (2) Do a low frequency eddy current inspection for cracking
around the aft fastener row in the rear spar upper chord horizontal
flange.
    (3) Do a detailed or HFEC inspection for cracking in the rear
spar upper chord radius.
    (4) Do a detailed or HFEC inspection for cracking in the upper
skin around the forward fastener row common to the rear spar upper
chord horizontal flange.
    (5) Do a detailed inspection for damage, cracking, and corrosion
in the pressure seal.

(h) Exception to the Service Information

    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-57-0187, dated
March 8, 2012, specifies compliance times ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin.'' However, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance times ``after the
effective date of this AD.''

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 727-57-0187, dated
March 8, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-16927 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P