[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 56851]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Neighborhood
Environmental Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The purpose of this research is to conduct a nation-wide
survey to update the scientific evidence of the relationship between
aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0762.
    Title: Neighborhood Environmental Survey.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Respondents: 12,656 respondents affected by airport noise.
    Frequency: One time per respondent.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Five minutes for a mail
survey, twenty minutes for a telephone survey for selected respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,637 hours.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on November 21, 2017.
Barbara L. Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-25844 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: 	Korbin Smith, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD  -  EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
FROM: 	SC&A, Incorporated
DATE: 	October 2020
SUBJECT: 	Cost Estimates for Carbon Black Production National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR)  -  Proposed Rule
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum documents the estimated costs associated with the proposed amendments to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP as a result of the EPA's RTR pursuant to CAA section 112(d) and (3) and "other actions".
Specifically, the following estimated costs are included:
 Process vent emissions control  -  associated costs (Section 2.0)
 Boiler/Process Heater Tune-up Requirements (Section 3.0)
All costs presented in this memorandum are in 2019 dollars.
2.0 PROCESS VENT EMISSIONS CONTROL  -  ASSOCIATED COSTS
Emissions limits in the 2002 NESHAP for the Carbon Black Production source category were set for process vents associated with the main unit filter (MUF). Process vents at the MUF that have a HAP concentration of the emission stream equal or great than 260 parts per million by volume (ppmv) must reduce emissions of HAP by using a flare meeting the requirements of subpart SS, or reduce emissions of total HAP by 98 weight-percent or to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv), whichever is less stringent.
In this proposal, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), the EPA is proposing to expand the existing emission limit for carbon black production process vents associated with the MUF, to include all carbon black production process vents. The estimated costs associated with the EPA's proposed expansion of the rule to apply to all production process vents are presented in section 2.1.
The EPA is also proposing that owners and operator of carbon black production process vents subject to the rule conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance with the NESHAP. Currently, the NESHAP only requires an initial performance test to determine compliance with standards. The estimated costs associated with this proposal are presented in section 2.2.
2.1 Process Vents After the MUF Costs  -  Initial Applicability Performance Test
The estimated costs associated with the EPA's proposed expansion of the rule to apply to all process vents includes the estimated cost of initial applicability performance tests to determine applicability of requirements to process vents after the MUF. This requirement is a one-time cost that would not be incurred again unless facilities exceeded the 260 ppmv applicability threshold.
To estimate these costs, the EPA assumes that a facility would hire an outside contractor to conduct testing. Testing costs assume that there are three production lines per facility, and two process vents per production line that would need to be tested to determine applicability of requirements (6 tests over 3 days). These process vents include the first process vent after the production line MUF and the first process vent after the dryer. The estimated initial performance test cost per facility is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Initial Applicability Performance Test Unit Cost Per Facility[a]
Labor Cost Elements
                                 Cost Element
                            Labor Category[c][,][d]

                              Project Management
                               Senior Scientist
                                   Mid-Level
                                   Scientist
                                    Junior
                                   Scientist
                                     Total
Person-Hours
                                      28
                                      40
                                      48
                                      40
                                      156
Rate[b]
                                     $110
                                      $84
                                      $49
                                      $28

Labor Costs
                                    $3,087
                                    $3,342
                                    $2,329
                                    $1,112
                                    $9,870
Other Non-Labor Cost Elements
Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

Travel

                                    $3,380
Equipment Supplies

                                    $8,100
Total

                                    $21,350
[a] Costs reflect the labor and nonlabor costs to conduct a performance test for three production lines for two process vents per production line per facility. Labor hours assume one hour per process vent to conduct test for two process vents using EPA Method 25A (with moisture correction). It is assumed that testing would require an on-site crew of three/day with two tests being conducted per day (6 tests over 3 days).
[b] Labor costs assume employer compensation/overhead equal to 30 percent of employee wages, based on 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistic wages. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf
c Labor category Bureau of Labor Statistic wages: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000; https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/chemists-and-materials-scientists.htm#tab-5.
[d] For Senior, Mid-Level and Junior Scientist wages, the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics annual salaries for a Chemist were used. The top 10 percent annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Senior Scientist wage; the average annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Mid-Level Scientist wage, and the bottom 10 percent annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Junior Scientist wage.
For purposes of control costs, the EPA assumes that the process vent hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentration of vent streams after the MUF will fall under the HAP applicability concentration threshold (260 ppmv) and will not be subject to control or other compliance requirements under the carbon black production NESHAP.
2.2 Main Unit Filter Process Vent Costs  -  Performance Test Costs
The estimated cost for owners and operator of carbon black production process vents subject to the rule to conduct performance tests every 5 years to demonstrate continued compliance with the NESHAP assumes that each of the existing facilities will need to conduct a performance test for the main unit filter process vent for three production lines per facility. It is assumed that all but one facility complies with the carbon black production process vent affected source requirements by routing emissions to an incinerator. The remaining facility is assumed to comply with the carbon black production process vent affected source requirements by routing emissions to a flare.
To estimate these costs, the EPA assumes that a facility would hire an outside contractor to conduct testing. Testing costs assume that there are three production lines per facility, and one process vent per production line that would need to be tested to determine applicability of requirements (3 tests over 3 days). The estimated main unit filter process vent affected source compliance cost per facility associated with the requirement to conduct three performance tests per facility is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Main Unit Filter Process Vent Performance Test Costs Per Facility[a]
Labor Cost Elements
                                 Cost Element
                             Labor Category[c][,d]

                              Project Management
                               Senior Scientist
                                    Junior
                                   Scientist
                                     Total
Person-Hours
                                      28
                                      40
                                      40
                                      108
Rate[b]
                                     $110
                                      $84
                                      $28

Labor Costs
                                    $3,087
                                    $3,342
                                    $1,112
                                    $7,541
Other Non-Labor Cost Elements
Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

Travel

                                    $2,500
Equipment Supplies

                                    $5,200
Total

                                    $15,241
[a] Costs reflect the labor and nonlabor costs to conduct a performance test for three production lines for one process vent per production line per facility. Labor hours assume one hour per process vent to conduct test for one process vent using EPA Method 25A (with moisture correction). It is assumed that testing would require an on-site crew of three/day with one test being conducted per day (3 tests over 3 days).
[b] Labor costs assume employer compensation/overhead equal to 30 percent of employee wages, based on 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistic wages. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf
[c] Labor category Bureau of Labor Statistic wages: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#11-0000; https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/chemists-and-materials-scientists.htm#tab-5.
[d] For Senior, Mid-Level and Junior Scientist wages, the 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics annual salaries for a Chemist were used. The top 10 percent annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Senior Scientist wage; the average annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Mid-Level Scientist wage, and the bottom 10 percent annual salary divided by 2,080 hours was used for the Junior Scientist wage.
3.0 BOILER/PROCESS HEATER TUNE-UP REQUIREMENTS
As a result of the EPA's assessment of NESHAP requirements that currently apply to the carbon black production source category under 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY, the EPA was made aware that there may be instances where carbon black production process vent affected sources that route emissions to a boiler/process heater for use as fuel gas may not be subject to any requirements. In order to address such instances, the EPA is proposing that applicable process vents that route emissions to a boiler/process heater for use as fuel gas must conduct annual tune up requirements specified in §63.1103(f)(3)(iii) of the proposed rule. The proposed annual boiler/process heater tune-up requirements are similar to what is included for gas 1 units under the Boiler MACT. A gas 1 unit under the Boiler MACT is a unit that uses natural gas, refinery gas, or "other" similar gases, i.e. landfill gas.
The estimated cost to conduct an annual tune-up on a carbon black production boiler used when estimating costs of similar provisions under the Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Boiler MACT) is based on the cost estimate provided by Dr. H.M. Eckerlin and E.W. Soderberg of the Industrial Extension Service USI Boiler Efficiency Program.[,] Their report indicates in their 2004 report that the initial set-up for a boiler tune-up ranges from $3,000 to $7,000 per boiler, and thereafter, an annual tune-up costs $1,000 per boiler per year. For the Boiler MACT analysis, an average of $5,000 per boiler initial set-up cost was annualized over five years for an annualized cost of $1,580 per boiler. For this analysis, we assumed that the initial set-up for a boiler tune-up is $6,750 (in $2019) per boiler per year, and thereafter, an annual tune up cost of $1,350 (in $2019) per boiler per year.
The USI study and other literature suggest that annual boiler tune-ups can improve combustion efficiency between 1 and 5 percent, and often the fuel savings cover the cost of conducting a tune-up. The cost estimate for the tune-up in this analysis includes inspection of the burner, cleaning and repairs to the burner as necessary, inspection and adjustment of the flame pattern, inspection and calibration of the air-to-fuel ratio controls, minimizing total emissions of CO consistent with the manufacturer's specifications, and measurement of CO emissions before and after the tune-up.


[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37646-37655]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0483; FRL-8131-6]

Chlorpropham, Linuron, Pebulate, Asulam, and Thiophanate-methyl;
Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the herbicides linuron
and pebulate and the fungicide thiophanate-methyl. Also, EPA is
modifying certain tolerances for the herbicides chlorpropham, linuron,
asulam and the fungicide thiophanate-methyl. In addition, EPA is
establishing new tolerances for the herbicides chlorpropham, linuron,
asulam and the fungicide thiophanate-methyl. The regulatory actions in
this document are part of the Agency's reregistration program under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended
by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 11, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 10, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0483. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 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 Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, 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), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    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. 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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0483 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 10,
2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0483, 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>.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of September 20, 2006 (71 FR 54953) (FRL-
8078-2), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, remove, modify, and
establish certain tolerances and/or tolerance exemption for residues
for the herbicides chlorpropham, linuron, asulam and pebulate and the
fungicide thiophanate-methyl. Also, the proposal of September 20, 2006
(71 FR 54953) (FRL-8078-2) provided a 60-day comment period which
invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance
retention under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
standards.
    EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific
tolerances for residues of the herbicides chlorpropham, linuron, asulam
and pebulate and the fungicide thiophanate-methyl in or on commodities
listed in the regulatory text.
    EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order 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 the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of
the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under the FQPA. The
safety finding determination of ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' is
found in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and
Report on FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim Risk
Management Decision (TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs
recommend certain tolerance actions to be implemented to reflect
current use patterns, to meet safety findings and change commodity
names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies
of REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center
for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
OH 45242-2419, telephone: 1-800-490-9198; fax: 1-513-489-8695; internet
at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom and from the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161, telephone: 1-800-553-6847 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet at http://www.ntis.gov.
 Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the

internet at http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

    In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and
tolerance exemptions because these specific tolerances and exemptions
correspond to uses no longer current or registered under FIFRA in the
United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer
necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on
domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but
imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke
those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide
active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the
proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to
cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities
legally treated.
    EPA's policy is to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for
residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal
demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following
conditions applies:
    1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting
additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking
the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment
identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
    2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer
needed.
    3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the
tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA.
    This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In
response to the proposal published in the Federal Register of September
20, 2006 (71 FR 54953) (FRL-8078-2), EPA received two comments during
the 60-day public comment period, as follows:
    Comment. A comment was received from a private citizen that
expressed concern with pesticide residues in general and that pesticide
residue levels should be zero. Concern was also expressed for the
number of chemicals found in the bodies of adults and children.
    Agency response. The private citizen's comment did not take issue
with the Agency's conclusion that certain tolerances should be revoked,
established and modified. The Agency conducts a detailed risk
assessment to determine whether establishing and/or increasing
tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
Also, it is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances
for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which
FIFRA registrations no longer exist.
    Comment. Cerexagri, Inc. commented that the term postharvest
associated with the tolerances for thiophanate-methyl residues of
concern on apple, apricot, cherry, peach and plum is not appropriate
because the use patterns are based on pre-harvest applications.
Cerexagri, Inc. also took issue with the increase of the tolerance for
thiophanate-methyl residues of concern on canola at 0.1 parts per
million (ppm) to 0.2 ppm. They cited data and analytical methods which
indicate the tolerance increase is not appropriate.
    Agency response. The thiophanate-methyl Residue Chemistry Chapter
and RED included recommendations that certain tolerances be designated
as postharvest. The Agency agrees that the uses of thiophanate-methyl
include pre-harvest applications such that the post-harvest designation
is not appropriate.

Therefore, the Agency has determined that the postharvest designation
should not be linked to the tolerances in the 40 CFR. Therefore, EPA is
removing the references to ``postharvest'' from the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.371. Cerexagri, Inc, also commented on the proposed tolerance
level increase for canola from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm.
    Setting the tolerance on canola at 0.2 ppm was recommended in the
thiophanate-methyl RED based on an enforcement method limit of
quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm. Crexagri believes that the tolerance on
canola should remain at 0.1 ppm, the current tolerance level, based on
an appropriate enforcement method LOQ of 0.025 ppm. The field trial
data showed non-detectable residues of thiophanate-methyl and one
sample with detection equivalent to 0.018 ppm of the metabolite methyl
2-benzimidazolyl carbamate (MBC). Later, Cerexagri submitted an
addendum to the crop field trial data which details an estimation of a
practical limit of detection (LOD) of 0.005 ppm in/on canola seed for
MBC. The Agency believes that a viable LOQ is usually about 3x the
method LOD, and therefore, an LOD would correspond to about a 0.015 ppm
for the method. Consequently, the Agency believes that an LOD of 0.025
ppm is a conservative estimate. Based on the estimated method LOQ for
the metabolite MBC, the Agency agrees that the canola seed tolerance
should remain at 0.1 ppm in 40 CFR 180.371(c).
    1. Chlorpropham. A plant commodity tolerance on potato for
chlorpropham is currently regulated for residues of CIPC (isopropyl m-
chlorocarbanilate) and its metabolite 1-hydroxy-2-propyl 3'-
chlorocarbanilate (calculated as CIPC) in 40 CFR 180.181. Because the
regulated metabolite was not detected in potato following treatment
with radiolabelled 14C-chlorpropham, EPA determined that the tolerance
expression for plants should be expressed in terms of chlorpropham per
se. Meanwhile, the current interim milk and livestock tolerances in 40
CFR 180.319 are regulated for isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (CIPC)
residues. However, based on available ruminant data that show residues
of chlorpropham and its metabolite 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-sulfonic
acid (4-HSA) in milk and edible tissues, EPA determined that the
tolerance expression should be expressed in terms of the combined
residues of chlorpropham and 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-sulfonic acid (4-
HSA) and recodified under 40 CFR 180.181 as permanent tolerances.
Therefore, EPA is recodifying plant tolerances for chlorpropham from 40
CFR 180.181(a) to (a)(1) and regulate the plant regulator and herbicide
chlorpropham (isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (CIPC) in plants. Also, EPA
is removing the interim milk and livestock tolerances (meat, fat, and
meat byproducts of cattle, hog, horse, goat, and sheep) for
chlorpropham in 40 CFR 180.319, recodify them as permanent tolerances
in 40 CFR 180.181(a)(2) and regulate tolerances there for the plant
growth regulator and herbicide chlorpropham (isopropyl m-
chlorocarbanilate [CIPC]) and its metabolite 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-
sulfonic acid (4-HSA).
    In addition, based on ruminant feeding data and the calculated
maximum theoretical dietary burden (MTDB) estimates, EPA determined
that tolerances on the meat of cattle, hog, horse, goat, and sheep
should be increased from 0.05 to 0.06 parts per million (ppm), the
limit of quantitation (LOQ). Also, based on exaggerated feeding study
data that showed combined residues of concern in kidney at about 0.3
ppm, the Agency determined that tolerances for kidney of cattle, hog,
horse, goat, and sheep should be separated from their existing meat
byproduct tolerances at 0.05 ppm and increased to 0.30 ppm. Since the
combined residues of concern were shown to be near or below the LOQ
(0.06 ppm), the Agency determined that tolerances for meat byproducts,
except kidney of cattle, hog, horse, goat, and sheep should be
increased from 0.05 to 0.06 ppm. In addition, based on ruminant feeding
data that showed combined residues of concern in fat at 0.17 ppm, the
Agency determined that tolerances for the fat of cattle, hog, horse,
goat, and sheep should be increased from 0.05 to 0.20 ppm. Moreover,
based on ruminant feeding data and the maximum tolerated dietary burden
(MTDB) burden estimates that showed combined residues of concern to be
0.25 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance for milk should be
increased from 0.05 to 0.30 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing
tolerances in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.181(a)(2) for the combined
residues of chlorpropham and 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-sulfonic acid (4-
HSA) as follows: Milk from 0.05 to 0.30 ppm; cattle, fat; hog, fat;
horse, fat; goat, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.05 to 0.20 ppm; cattle,
meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; goat, meat; and sheep, meat from 0.05 to
0.06 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; hog, meat byproducts,
except kidney; horse, meat byproducts, except kidney; goat, meat
byproducts, except kidney; and sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney
from 0.05 to 0.06 ppm; and cattle, kidney; hog, kidney; horse, kidney;
goat, kidney; and sheep, kidney from 0.05 to 0.30 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 potato field trial data that show chlorpropham
residues as high as 24 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance in
newly recodified 40 CFR 180.181(a)(1) should be decreased from 50 to 30
ppm. The term ``postharvest'' associating these tolerances with the
timing of the use is being removed, since the enforcement Agency would
not know whether a commodity bore residues resulting from postharvest
treatment. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in newly
recodified 40 CFR 180.181(a)(1) in or on potato, postharvest from 50 to
30 ppm and revising potato, postharvest to potato.
    Based on available potato processing data that demonstrate an
average concentration factor of chlorpropham residues at 3X, and the
highest average field trial (HAFT) whole potato residue of 12.0 ppm,
the Agency determined that residues in the wet potato peel would be 36
ppm; therefore, a tolerance should be established on potato, wet peel
at 40 ppm. (Residues did not concentrate in potato granules, flakes or
chips.) Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in newly recodified
40 CFR 180.181(a)(1) for the chlorpropham residues of concern or on
potato, wet peel at 40 ppm.
    2. Linuron. According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which
is currently expressed as ``residues of the herbicide linuron (3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea)'' in 40 CFR 180.184(a) and (c),
should be modified to include metabolites that can be converted to 3,4-
dichloroaniline that are of toxicological concern. Consequently, EPA is
establishing the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.184(a) to regulate
the combined residues of the herbicide linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-
1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in/on food commodities and in 40
CFR 180.184(c) to regulate the combined residues of the herbicide
linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its
metabolites convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron
in/on food commodities.

    The feeding of treated soybean forage or hay to livestock is
prohibited as stated on the registration labels and therefore, the
tolerances are no longer needed. Consequently, EPA is revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184(a) soybean, forage and soybean, hay.
    Based on field trial data that indicate linuron residues of concern
in or on field corn stover are as high as 5.5 ppm, the Agency
determined that a tolerance should be 6.0 ppm on corn, field, stover.
The RED indicates a data deficiency for corn, sweet, stover; however,
the field corn stover data can be translated to sweet corn stover,
therefore, the Agency has determined the tolerance for corn, sweet,
stover can be increased from 1.0 to 6.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the combined residues
of the herbicide linuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on corn, field, stover and
corn, sweet, stover from 1.0 to 6.0 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 order to conform to current Agency practice, EPA is revising the
commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for corn, grain (inc. pop)
at 0.25 ppm into corn, field, grain and corn, pop, grain. However,
because there are no active U.S. registrations for the use of linuron
on popcorn, the tolerance is no longer needed and should be revoked.
Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(a) on corn,
pop, grain. In addition, based on field trial data that indicate
linuron residues of concern in or on corn grain as high as 0.06 ppm,
the Agency determined that the corn, field, grain tolerance should be
decreased from 0.25 to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the combined residues of the
herbicide linuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on corn, field, grain from
0.25 to 0.1 ppm.
    Ruminant feeding data at an exaggerated level (6.9x) show that
linuron residues of concern expected at a 1x feeding level are 0.16 ppm
in fat, 0.07 ppm in meat, 1.9 ppm in liver and kidney, and 0.05 ppm in
milk. Based on these expected residue levels, the Agency determined
that the tolerances for the fat of cattle, goat, horse and sheep should
be decreased from 1.0 to 0.2 ppm; meat tolerances of cattle, goat,
horse and sheep should be decreased from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm; meat byproduct
tolerances of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep should be separated into
tolerances for meat byproducts, except kidney and liver, and decreased
from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm; kidney of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, which
should be established separately and increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm;
liver of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, which should be established
separately and increased from 1.0 to 2.0 ppm; and a tolerance for milk
should be established at 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing
tolerances from 1.0 ppm in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the following: Cattle,
fat; goat, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat; each to 0.2 ppm; cattle,
meat; cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver; goat, meat;
goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver; horse, meat; horse,
meat byproducts, except, kidney and liver; sheep, meat and sheep, meat
byproducts, except kidney and liver; each from 1.0 ppm to 0.1 ppm.
Also, EPA is establishing separate tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for
the following commodities: Cattle, kidney; cattle, liver; goat, kidney;
goat, liver; horse, kidney; horse, liver; sheep, kidney; and sheep,
liver; each at 2.0 ppm. In addition, EPA is establishing a tolerance in
40 CFR 180.184(a) in milk 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.
    Based on ruminant feeding data and an estimated dietary burden in
swine that is much less than that for beef and dairy cattle, the Agency
calculated likely linuron residues of concern to be less than 0.007 ppm
in hog fat, 0.003 ppm in hog meat, and 0.08 ppm in hog liver and
kidney; therefore, the Agency determined the tolerances should be
decreased to 0.05 ppm, 0.05 ppm and 0.1 ppm for hog fat, hog meat and
hog meat byproducts, respectively. Therefore, EPA is decreasing
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the combined residues of the
herbicide linuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on hog, fat and hog, meat
from 1.0 to 0.05 ppm; and hog, meat byproducts from 1.0 to 0.1 ppm.
    Based on field trial data, the Agency determined that linuron
residues of concern were non-detectable (< 0.05 ppm) in or on parsnips.
Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the
combined residues of the herbicide linuron and its metabolites
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on
parsnip (with or without tops) from 0.5 to 0.05 ppm and revising the
commodity terminology to parsnip, roots and parsnip, tops.
    Since completion of the Linuron TRED, data deficiencies for cotton
gin byproducts have been adequately addressed. Based on more recent
cotton storage stability and field trial data reflecting all cotton
growing regions of the U.S. submitted in response to the TRED, the
maximum residues of linuron in or on stripper cotton gin byproducts
were 3.32 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be
established for cotton gin byproducts at 5.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the combined residues
of the herbicide linuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on cotton, gin byproducts
at 5.0 ppm.
    Because use of linuron on potatoes and celery is restricted to east
of the Rocky Mountains, and use on wheat is restricted to the states of
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the Agency determined that tolerances on
celery, potato, and the forage, grain, hay and straw of wheat should be
recodified as regional registrations. Also, based on field trial data
that indicate combined linuron residues of concern were nondetectable
(< 0.05 ppm) in or on all but one sample (0.07 ppm) of potato,
nondetectable (< 0.03 ppm) in or on wheat grain, and as high as 2.0 ppm
in or on wheat straw, the Agency determined that the tolerances should
be decreased from 1.0 to 0.2 ppm on potato and from 0.25 to 0.05 ppm on
wheat, grain, and increased to 0.5 to 2.0 ppm on wheat straw.
Therefore, EPA is recodifying tolerances on celery, potato, and the
forage, grain, hay and straw of wheat from 40 CFR 180.184(a) to (c) for
the combined residues of the herbicide linuron and its metabolites
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron as follows:
Potato decreased from 1.0 to 0.2 ppm; wheat, grain decreased from 0.25
to 0.05 ppm; and wheat, straw increased from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm and
correcting 180.1(N) to 180.1(M). 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.
    Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4) has submitted
petitions (PP 8E5027 and PP 8E5028) requesting the establishment of
tolerances on celeriac and rhubarb based on use directions and data
translated from carrots and celery, respectively. Based on field trial
data that show linuron residues of concern for carrot samples treated
at 0.75X were as high as 0.56 ppm and celery samples treated at 1X were
as high as 0.42 ppm, the Agency determined that tolerances should be
established at 1.0 ppm on

celeriac and 0.5 ppm on rhubarb. Therefore, EPA is establishing
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184(a) for the combined residues of the
herbicide linuron and its metabolites convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron in or on celeriac at 1.0 ppm and
rhubarb at 0.5 ppm.
    Although additional data are anticipated in 2007 in response to the
TRED, tolerances associated with sorghum and sweet corn have been
reassessed at the current tolerance levels. The Agency determined that
the tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residues. EPA is maintaining the tolerance level and revising the
commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.184(a) to conform to current Agency
practice as follows: ``Sorghum, forage'' to ``sorghum, grain, forage''
at 1.0 ppm; ``corn, fresh (inc. sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed)'' to ``corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed'' at
0.25 ppm; and splitting ``soybean, (dry or succulent)'' to separate
tolerances fo ``soybean, seed'' and ``soybean, vegetable'' both at 1.0
ppm.
    3. Pebulate. The last U.S. registration was cancelled October 24,
2003 due to non-payment of registration fees and a notice was published
in the Federal Register on November 6, 2003 (68 FR 62785, FRL-7331-3).
Therefore, tolerances are no longer needed and EPA is revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.238 for residues of pebulate (S-propyl
butylethylthiocarbamate) in or on beet, sugar roots; beet sugar, tops;
and tomato.
    4. Asulam. The tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.360 currently
regulates asulam (methyl sulfanilylcarbamate) per se. The Agency
recommended in the asulam TRED that the tolerance expression be revised
to include metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety because in
the absence of toxicological data the Agency assumed these compounds to
be potentially comparable in toxicity to the parent compound, asulam.
Therefore, EPA is revising the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.360
to read as follows: ``(a) General. Tolerances are established for the
combined residues of asulam (methyl sulfanilylcarbamate) and its
metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety in or on the following
food commodities.''
    Based on field trial data that showed asulam residues of concern as
high as 0.23 ppm and a correction for a 70% loss of residues during
storage, the Agency calculated that the maximum residue should be 0.71
ppm, and determined that the tolerance on sugarcane should be increased
form 0.1 to 1.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerance in 40
CFR 180.360(a) for the combined residues of asulam and its metabolites
containing the sulfanilamide moiety in or on sugarcane, cane from
0.1(N) to 1.0 ppm. The Agency is removing the ``N'' (negligible
residues) to conform to current Agency Administrative practice. The
Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on available sugarcane processing data that show an average
concentration factor of asulam residues at 48x and a HAFT residue value
that when corrected for a 70% loss in storage is expected to be 0.557
ppm (0.167 ppm/0.3), the Agency calculated that the residues would be
about 26.7 ppm and determined a tolerance should be established for
sugarcane molasses at 30 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.360(a) for the combined residues of asulam and
its metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety in or on sugarcane,
molasses at 30 ppm.
    Based on a 1.2x exaggerated feeding study, animal metabolism data
and a ruminant diet containing 10% molasses (a livestock feed item),
the Agency determined that because the anticipated residues of asulam
and sulfanilamide containing metabolites in milk are < 0.025 ppm, in/on
fat, liver, and muscle are < 0.05 ppm, and kidney is 0.12 ppm, that
tolerances should be established in milk, and on the fat and meat of
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05 ppm, and meat byproducts
of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.360(a) for the combined residues
of asulam and its metabolites containing the sulfanilamide moiety in/on
commodities, as follows: Cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat;
and sheep, fat; cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and
sheep, meat at 0.05 ppm; and cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat
byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,
meat byproducts at 0.2 ppm; and milk at 0.05 ppm.
    5. Thiophanate-methyl. Currently, the tolerances for thiophanate-
methyl are expressed in 40 CFR 180.371(a) in terms of thiophanate-
methyl(dimethyl regulates thiophanate-methyl and its oxygen analogue
dimethyl-4,4-o-phenylenebis(allophonate), and its benzimidazole-
containing metabolites (calculated as thiophanate-methyl); and in 40
CFR 180.371(b) and (c) in terms of thiophanate-methyl and its
metabolite (methyl 2-benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC)). The Agency has
determined that the residues of concern for plant and animal
commodities for tolerance enforcement consists of the parent and its
metabolite methyl 2-benzimidazolyl carbamate (MBC). Therefore, EPA is
amending the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.371(a), (b), and (c) so
as to regulate tolerances for the combined residues of thiophanate-
methyl (dimethyl[(1,2-phenylene) bis(iminocarbonothioyl)]
bis(carbamate)) and its metabolite methyl 2-benzimidazoyl carbamate
(MBC), calculated as thiophanate-methyl in/on food commodities.
    EPA no longer considers dry apple pomace, banana pulp, and bean
forage and hay, and peanut forage to be significant animal feed items
and tolerances are no longer needed (A listing of significant food and
feed commodities is found 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/

860--Residue--Chemistry--Test--Guidelines/Series/). Currently, there is
a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371 on peanut (forage and hay). Based on
field trial data that show thiophanate-methyl residues of concern as
high as 3.76 ppm, the Agency has determined that the tolerance on
peanut hay should be decreased from 15.0 to 5.0 ppm. In addition,
thiophanate-methyl registrations were approved by EPA to be amended to
delete use on celery by request of the registrant in 1997 (62 FR 67365,
FRL-5761-8). Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.371(a) on apple, dry pomace; banana, pulp; bean (forage and hay),
and celery, and revise the commodity terminology from peanut (forage
and hay) into separate tolerance for peanut, forage and peanut, hay,
and revoke peanut forage, and decrease peanut, hay from 15.0 to 5.0
ppm.
    Based on available exaggerated (10x) poultry feeding data, EPA
determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite
thiophanate-methyl residues of concern in poultry commodities and
therefore, the tolerance for egg (the only existing poultry commodity
tolerance) is no longer needed under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). Therefore, EPA
is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371 for egg.
    Based on the available ruminant feeding study, the Agency
determined that the thiophanate-methyl residues of

concern in milk and animal tissues were at the combined limit of
quantitations (LOQs) of 0.05 ppm. Therefore, the tolerances for the
milk and fat, meat and meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse, and
sheep should be increased to 0.15 ppm. Since the tolerance should be
0.15 ppm for all meat byproducts which includes liver and kidney
tissues, the tolerances should be revised from ``meat byproducts,
except liver and kidney'' to ``meat byproducts'' and the tolerances for
``horse, liver'' and ``cattle, goat, and sheep liver and kidney''
should be removed. Further, the Agency is removing the ``(N)''
(negligible residues) designation to conform to current Agency
administrative practice. Therefore, EPA is increasing the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.371 for the combined residues of thiophanate-methyl and
methyl 2-benzimidazolyl carbamate in or on milk from 0.1 to 0.15 ppm;
cattle, goats, horses, and sheep meat and fat from 0.1(N) to 0.15 ppm;
revising ``cattle, goats, and sheep meat byproducts, except liver and
kidney at 0.1(N)'' and ``horse, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.1(N)'' to ``cattle, goats, horses, and sheep meat byproducts at 0.15
ppm''; and removing cattle, goats, and sheep liver each at 2.5 ppm;
horse, liver at 1.0 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.2(N) ppm; and goat and
sheep kidney each at 0.2 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased
tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
    Based on field trial data that show thiophanate-methyl residues of
concern as high as 16.25 ppm in/on tart and sweet cherries, 6.22 ppm on
strawberries, less than the LOQ (< 0.1 ppm) on wheat, the Agency
determined that the tolerances should be increased on cherries from
15.0 to 20.0, on strawberries from 5.0 to 7.0 ppm, and on wheat, grain
from 0.05 to 0.1 ppm. Therefore, EPA is increasing and revising the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(a) for the combined residues of
thiophanate-methyl and methyl 2-benzimidazolyl carbamate in/on cherry,
postharvest at 15.0 to cherry, sweet and cherry, tart at 20.0 ppm,
strawberry from 5.0 to 7.0 ppm, and wheat, grain from 0.05 to 0.1 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 the available field trial data that indicate thiophanate-
methyl and methyl 2-benzimidazolyl carbamate residues of concern were
less than 2.0 ppm in/on apples, less than the combined LOQs (< 0.1 ppm
each) in/on almond nutmeat and as high as 0.49 ppm in/on almond hulls,
< 0.1 ppm in/on pecans and peanut nutmeat, as high as 0.19 ppm in/on dry
beans (as high as 1.43 ppm on snap beans), as high as 2.55 ppm in/on
peaches, and less than 0.5 ppm in/on plums, the Agency determined that
established tolerances should be decreased for apples; almonds; almond,
hulls; dry beans; peaches; peanuts; peanut hay; pecans; and plums.
Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(a) for
the combined residues of thiophanate-methyl and methyl 2-benzimidazolyl
carbamate in/on apple, postharvest from 7.0 to 2.0 ppm; almond from
0.2(N) to 0.1 ppm; almond, hulls from 1.0 to 0.5 ppm; dry, beans from
2.0 to 0.2 ppm and revise the commodity terminology from bean (snap and
dry) to bean, snap, succulent at 0.2 ppm and bean, dry, seed at 0.2
ppm; peach, postharvest from 15.0 to 3.0 ppm; peanut from 0.2(N) to 0.1
ppm; pecans from 0.2 ppm to 0.1 ppm, and revise the commodity
terminology from plum, postharvest from 15.0 to 0.5 ppm.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(h), residues in/on nectarines are
covered by the reassessed tolerance on peaches, and therefore the
tolerance on postharvest nectarines is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to remove the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371(a) on nectarine,
postharvest.
    Based on plum processing data form plums treated at 10x that show
thiophanate-methyl residues of concern do not concentrate in prunes,
the Agency determined that the tolerance on plum, prune, postharvest is
no longer needed since residues in/on prunes would be covered by the
reassessed tolerance on plum, postharvest at 0.5 ppm. Therefore, EPA is
removing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371(a) on plum, prune,
postharvest.
    Based on field trial data that show thiophanate-methyl residues of
concern in or on dry bulb onions as high as 0.30 ppm, the Agency
determined that the tolerance onion, dry should be decreased from 3.00
to 0.5 ppm and residues on garlic are covered by the bulb onion
tolerance in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(h). EPA is decreasing the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371 for the combined thiophanate-methyl
residues of concern in/on onion, dry from 3.0 to 0.5 ppm and revising
the term to onion, bulb.
    Based upon the HAFT residues of 0.2 ppm in/on soybeans and the
observed 6.5X concentration factor for hulls, the Agency determined
that a separate tolerance should be established on soybean hulls at 1.5
ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.371(a)
for the combined residues of thiophanate-methyl and methyl 2-
benzimidazolyl carbamate in/on soybean, hulls at 1.5 ppm.
    The available field trial residue data in/on cucumbers, melons,
pumpkins, and squash are adequate to support a cucurbit vegetable group
9 tolerance at 1.0 ppm. Because a crop group tolerance covers all of
the cucurbit vegetables, individual tolerances are no longer needed.
Therefore, EPA is removing the individual tolerances in 40 CFR
180.371(a) in/on cucumber, melon, pumpkin, and squash at 1.0 ppm, and
combining them into a crop group tolerance on vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9 at 1.0 ppm.
    As discussed in the comments in Unit II.A., the thiophanate-methyl
Residue Chemistry Chapter and RED included recommendations that certain
tolerances be designated as postharvest when the use is not solely
postharvest. Therefore, the term postharvest should be removed. The
Agency has determined that timings of treatment should not be included
as part of these tolerances because a tolerance enforcement agency
collecting and analyzing samples wouldn't know whether a commodity bore
residues resulting from a seed treatment. The Agency is revising
commodity terminology to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore,
EPA is revising tolerances in 40 CFR 180.371(a) as follows: ``Apple,
postharvest'' to ``apple;'' ``apricot, postharvest'' to ``apricot;''
``cherry, postharvest'' to ``cherry;'' ``peach, postharvest'' to
``peach;'' ``plum, postharvest'' to ``plum;'' ``sugar beet, roots'' to
``beet, sugar, roots;'' ``sugar beet, tops'' to ``beet, sugar, tops;''
``soybean'' to ``soybean, seed;'' ``sugarcane, seed piece treatment
PRE-H'' to ``sugarcane, cane'' and in 40 CFR 180.371(b) from ``cotton''
to ``cotton, undelinted seed.''

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

    EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a
tolerance under section 408(e) of FFDCA. In this final rule, EPA is
establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the
tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of
pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine
whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The safety finding
determination is found in detail

in each Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) and Tolerance
Reassessment Document (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 pebulate and thiophanate-methyl
and TREDs for chlorpropham, linuron, and asulam, which had REDs
completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation
of the data base for these pesticides, including statements regarding
additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm
the potential human health and environmental risk assessments
associated with current product uses, and 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 made final in this document do
not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary.
    EPA's general practice is to revoke 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.
    When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible
pesticide residues 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). If there is no
reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat,
milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established
for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6(c)).

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    These actions become effective on the date of publication of this
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.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall
be subject to section 408(1)(5) of FFDCA, as established by the 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 that the
pesticide was applied to such food.

III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final
Action?

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as required by Section 408(b)(4)
of FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA 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 the proposed rule cited in Unit II.A.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule EPA establishes tolerances under section 408(e)
of FFDCA, and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established
under section 408 of FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has exempted these types of actions (i.e., 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 rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this 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 final 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 104-13, 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 rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight
conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or
tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number
of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint
probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect
to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the
docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in
this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances
that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's
previous analysis. 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 final 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 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 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 rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 180.181 is amended by revising the heading and paragraph (a)
to read as follows:

Sec. 180.181  Chlorpropham; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
plant regulator and herbicide chlorpropham (isopropyl m-
chlorocarbanilate (CIPC) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potato...............................................                 30
Potato, wet peel.....................................                 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
plant regulator and herbicide chlorpropham (isopropyl m-
chlorocarbanilate (CIPC) and its metabolite 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-
sulfonic acid (4-HSA) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.20
Cattle, kidney.......................................               0.30
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.06
Cattle, meat byproducts except kidney................               0.06
Goat, fat............................................               0.20
Goat, kidney.........................................               0.30
Goat, meat...........................................               0.06
Goat, meat byproducts except kidney..................               0.06
Hog, fat.............................................               0.20
Hog, kidney..........................................               0.30
Hog, meat............................................               0.06
Hog, meat byproducts except kidney...................               0.06
Horse, fat...........................................               0.20
Horse, kidney........................................               0.30
Horse, meat..........................................               0.06
Horse, meat byproducts except kidney.................               0.06
Milk.................................................               0.30
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.20
Sheep, kidney........................................               0.30
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.06
Sheep, meat byproducts except kidney.................               0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 180.184, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec. 180.184  Linuron; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asparagus............................................                7.0
Carrot, roots........................................                1.0
Cattle, fat..........................................                0.2

Cattle, kidney.......................................                2.0
Cattle, liver........................................                2.0
Cattle, meat.........................................                0.1
Cattle, meat byproducts except kidney and liver......                0.1
Celeriac.............................................                1.0
Corn, field, forage..................................                1.0
Corn, field, grain...................................                0.1
Corn, field, stover..................................                6.0
Corn, sweet, forage..................................                1.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......               0.25
Corn, sweet, stover..................................                6.0
Cotton, gin byproducts...............................                5.0
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................               0.25
Goat, fat............................................                0.2
Goat, kidney.........................................                2.0
Goat, liver..........................................                2.0
Goat, meat...........................................                0.1
Goat, meat byproducts except kidney and liver........                0.1
Hog, fat.............................................               0.05
Hog, meat............................................               0.05
Hog, meat byproducts.................................                0.1
Horse, fat...........................................                0.2
Horse, kidney........................................                2.0
Horse, liver.........................................                2.0
Horse, meat..........................................                0.1
Horse, meat byproducts except kidney and liver.......                0.1
Milk.................................................               0.05
Parsnip, roots.......................................               0.05
Parsnip, tops........................................               0.05
Rhubarb..............................................                0.5
Sheep, fat...........................................                0.2
Sheep, kidney........................................                2.0
Sheep, liver.........................................                2.0
Sheep, meat..........................................                0.1
Sheep, meat byproducts except kidney and liver.......                0.1
Sorghum, grain, forage...............................                1.0
Sorghum, grain, grain................................               0.25
Sorghum, grain, stover...............................                1.0
Soybean, seed........................................                1.0
Soybean, vegetable...................................                1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations, as defined in Sec. 180.1(m), are established
for the combined residues of the herbicide linuron (3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea) and its metabolites convertible
to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, in or on the following
food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celery...............................................                0.5
Parsley, leaves......................................               0.25
Potato...............................................                0.2
Wheat, forage........................................                0.5
Wheat, grain.........................................               0.05
Wheat, hay...........................................                0.5
Wheat, straw.........................................                2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Sec.  180.238  [Removed]

0
4. Section 180.238 is removed.

Sec.  180.319  [Amended]

0
5. Section 180.319 is amended by removing from the table the entry
isopropyl m-chlorocarbanilate (IPC).

0
6. Section 180.360, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.360  Asulam; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of asulam (methyl sulfanilylcarbamate) and its sulfanilamide containing
metabolites in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.05
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................                0.2
Goat, fat............................................               0.05
Goat, meat...........................................               0.05
Goat, meat byproducts................................                0.2
Hog, fat.............................................               0.05
Hog, meat............................................               0.05
Hog, meat byproducts.................................                0.2
Horse, fat...........................................               0.05
Horse, meat..........................................               0.05
Horse, meat byproducts...............................                0.2
Milk.................................................               0.05
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.05
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................                0.2
Sugarcane, cane......................................                1.0
Sugarcane, molasses..................................                 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
7. Section 180.371, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.371  Thiophanate-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of thiophanate-methyl (dimethyl [(1,2-phenylene) bis
(iminocarbonothioyl)] bis(carbamate)) and its metabolite methyl 2-
benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC), calculated as thiophanate-methyl in or
on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond...............................................                0.1
Almond, hulls........................................                0.5
Apple................................................                2.0
Apricot..............................................               15.0
Banana...............................................                2.0
Bean, dry, seed......................................                0.2
Bean, snap, succulent................................                0.2
Beet, sugar, roots...................................                0.2
Beet, sugar, tops....................................               15.0
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.15
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.15
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.15
Cherry, sweet........................................               20.0
Cherry, tart.........................................               20.0
Goat, fat............................................               0.15
Goat, meat...........................................               0.15
Goat, meat byproducts................................               0.15
Grape................................................                5.0
Horse, fat...........................................               0.15
Horse, meat..........................................               0.15
Horse, meat byproducts...............................               0.15
Milk.................................................               0.15
Onion, bulb..........................................                0.5
Onion, green.........................................                3.0
Peach................................................                3.0
Peanut...............................................                0.1
Peanut, hay..........................................                5.0
Pear.................................................                3.0
Pecan................................................                0.1
Pistachio............................................                0.1
Plum.................................................                0.5
Potato...............................................                0.1
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.15
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.15
Sheep, meat byproducts...............................               0.15
Soybean, seed........................................                0.2
Soybean, hulls.......................................                1.5
Strawberry...........................................                7.0
Sugarcane, cane......................................                0.1
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9.........................                1.0
Wheat, grain.........................................                0.1
Wheat, hay...........................................                0.1
Wheat, straw.........................................                0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Tolerances are established for
the combined residues of thiophanate-methyl (dimethyl [(1,2-phenylene)
bis (iminocarbonothioyl)] bis(carbamate)) and its metabolite methyl 2-
benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC), calculated as thiophanate-methyl in or
on the following commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Commodity                             Parts per million   Expiration/Revocation Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blueberry......................................................                1.5                       6/30/09
Citrus.........................................................                0.5                       6/30/09
Cotton, gin byproducts.........................................                5.0                      12/31/07
Cotton, undelinted seed........................................               0.05                      12/31/07
Mushroom.......................................................               0.01                      12/31/07
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8...................................                0.5                      12/31/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with a
regional registration, as defined in 180.1(m), are established for the
combined residues of thiophanate-methyl(dimethyl[(1,2-
phenylene)bis(iminocarbonothioyl)]bis(carbamate)) and its metabolite
methyl 2-benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC), calculated as thiophanate-
methyl in or on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canola, seed...............................................          0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-13420 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S