Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions, 4032-4037 [05-1624]
Download as PDF
4032
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 the
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.
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
timothy. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues
of bifenazate in these feed commodities.
Dated: January 14, 2005.
These tolerances will expire and are
Betty Shackleford,
revoked on December 31, 2007.
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
DATES: This regulation is effective
of Pesticide Programs.
January 28, 2005. Objections and
I Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
requests for hearings must be received
amended as follows:
on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
PART 180—AMENDED
objection or hearing request follow the
I 1. The authority citation for part 180
detailed instructions as provided in
continues to read as follows:
Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
docket for this action under docket
I 2. Section 180.588 is amended by
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
adding text to paragraph (b) to read as
0012. All documents in the docket are
follows:
listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/
§ 180.588 Quinoxyfen; tolerances for
/www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
residues.
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
Time-limited tolerances are established
for residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen, material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
5,7-dichloro-4-(4publicly available only in hard copy
fluorophenoxy)quinoline in connection
form. Publicly available docket
with use of the pesticide under section
materials are available either
18 emergency exemptions granted by
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
EPA. The time-limited tolerances will
copy at the Public Information and
expire and are revoked on the date
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
specified in the following table:
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
Expiration/
Parts per
Commodity
revocation
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
million
date
through Friday, excluding legal
Pumpkin ............
0.30
12/31/07 holidays. The docket telephone number
Squash, winter ..
0.30
12/31/07 is (703) 305–5805.
Vegetable,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
cucurbit, subBarbara Madden, Registration Division
group 9A .......
0.30
12/31/07 (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
*
*
*
*
*
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
[FR Doc. 05–1638 Filed 1–27–05; 8:45 am]
(703) 305–6463; e-mail address:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
Madden.Barbara@epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0012; FRL–7696–2]
Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
time-limited tolerances for the
combined residues of bifenazate in or on
timothy hay and timothy forage. This
action is in response to EPA’s granting
of an emergency exemption under
section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
authorizing use of the pesticide on
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
40 CFR Part 180
PO 00000
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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
the section above. 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 and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
EPA, on its own initiative, in
accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a,
is establishing tolerances for the
combined residues of the insecticide
bifenazate, (1-methylethyl 2-(4methoxy[1,1’-biphenyl]-3yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-yl, 1-methylethyl ester,
in or on timothy, hay at 150 parts per
million (ppm) and timothy, forage at 50
ppm. These tolerances will expire and
are revoked on December 31, 2007. EPA
will publish a document in the Federal
Register to remove the revoked
tolerances from the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA
requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance for pesticide
chemical residues in food that will
result from the use of a pesticide under
an emergency exemption granted by
EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such
tolerances can be established without
providing notice or period for public
comment. EPA does not intend for its
actions on section 18 related tolerances
to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 of the FFDCA
and the new safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions. Section
408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to
establish a tolerance or an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance on
its own initiative, i.e., without having
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
received any petition from an outside
party.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA
to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. . . .’’
Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes
EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if
EPA determines that ‘‘emergency
conditions exist which require such
exemption.’’ This provision was not
amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA has
established regulations governing such
emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part
166.
EPA has received objections to a
tolerance it established for bifenazate on
a different food commodity. The
objections were filed by the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
raised several issues regarding aggregate
exposure estimates and the additional
safety factor for the protection of infants
and children. Although these objections
concern separate rulemaking
proceedings under the FFDCA, EPA has
considered whether it is appropriate to
establish this emergency exemption
tolerance for bifenazate while the
objections are still pending.
Factors taken into account by EPA
included how close the Agency is to
concluding the proceedings on the
objections, the nature of the current
action, whether NRDC’s objections
raised frivolous issues, and extent to
which the issues raised by NRDC had
already been considered by EPA.
Although NRDC’s objections are not
frivolous, the other factors all support
establishing this tolerance at this time.
First, the objections proceeding is
unlikely to conclude prior to when
action is necessary on this petition.
NRDC’s objections raise complex legal,
scientific, policy, and factual matters.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4033
EPA has published a notice describing
the nature of the NRDC’s objections in
more detail. This notice offered an
opportunity for the public to comment
on this matter and published in the
Federal Register of June 19, 2002 (67 FR
41628) (FRL–7167–7). EPA is now
examining the extensive comments
received. Second, the nature of the
current action is extremely timesensitive and addresses an emergency
situation. Third, the issues raised by
NRDC are not new matters but questions
that have been the subject of
considerable study by EPA and
comment by stakeholders. Accordingly,
EPA is proceeding with establishing the
tolerance for bifenazate.
III. Emergency Exemption for
Bifenazate on Timothy and FFDCA
Tolerances
The banks grass mite became a pest of
economic significance for timothy
growers beginning in 2002 when it was
recognized that the pest had developed
resistance to the registered alternatives.
Based on information submitted by the
State, without the use of bifenazate to
control banks grass mites, many timothy
growers will experience significant
economic losses. Dietary risk will be
minimal because the bulk of the treated
hay will be used as horse feed. EPA has
authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of bifenazate on timothy, hay and
timothy, forage for control of banks
grass mites in Nevada. After having
reviewed the submission, EPA concurs
that emergency conditions exist for this
State.
As part of its assessment of this
emergency exemption, EPA assessed the
potential risks presented by residues of
bifenazate in or on timothy. In doing so,
EPA considered the safety standard in
section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and
EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section
18. Consistent with the need to move
quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine
situation and to ensure that the resulting
food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing
this tolerance without notice and
opportunity for public comment as
provided in section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA. Although these tolerances will
expire and are revoked on December 31,
2007, under section 408(l)(5) of the
FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in
excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerance remaining in or on timothy,
hay and timothy, forage after that date
will not be unlawful, provided the
pesticide is applied in a manner that
was lawful under FIFRA, and the
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4034
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
residues do not exceed a level that was
authorized by these tolerances at the
time of that application. EPA will take
action to revoke these tolerances earlier
if any experience with, scientific data
on, or other relevant information on this
pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
Because these tolerances are being
approved under emergency conditions,
EPA has not made any decisions about
whether bifenazate meets EPA’s
registration requirements for use on
timothy or whether a permanent
tolerance for this use would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances,
EPA does not believe that these
tolerances serve as a basis for
registration of bifenazate by a State for
special local needs under FIFRA section
24(c). Nor do these tolerances serve as
the basis for any State other than
Nevada to use this pesticide on this crop
under section 18 of FIFRA without
following all provisions of EPA’s
regulations implementing FIFRA section
18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For
additional information regarding the
emergency exemption for bifenazate,
contact the Agency’s Registration
Division at the address provided under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. For
further discussion of the regulatory
requirements of section 408 of the
FFDCA and a complete description of
the risk assessment process, see the final
rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances
(62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997)
(FRL–5754–7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess
the hazards of bifenazate and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the
FFDCA, for time-limited tolerances for
the combined residues of bifenazate, (1methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1’biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate)
and diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4methoxy-[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-yl, 1methylethyl ester, in or on timothy, hay
at 150 ppm and timothy, forage at 50
ppm.
Timothy is a member of the grass,
forage, fodder, and hay crop group. No
timothy residue data were submitted for
this specific emergency exemption
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
request. The proposed use rate of
bifenazate for timothy is similar to rates
for registered uses. Based on data
contained in the Food and Feed Crops
of the United States (second edition;
forage grass monograph), approximately
3,700 pounds of hay may be produced
per acre. Based on the application rate
of 0.50 lbs per acre and the expected
hay production, a theoretical bifenazate
residue of 135 ppm was calculated.
Assuming 25% dry matter content for
forage and a 80% dry matter content for
hay, a theoretical residue of 42 ppm was
calculated for timothy, forage. To ensure
that the tolerance levels are adequate,
the Agency is establishing levels slightly
higher than estimated (150 ppm for
timothy, hay and 50 ppm for timothy,
forage).
Under the emergency exemption,
timothy is being grown as a premium
feed for race horses. However, it is
possible that a fraction of the treated
crop may be diverted to cattle (timothy
is not a poultry feed crop). Timothy is
not consumed by humans, any
inadvertent exposure to residues of
bifenazate from this emergency
exemption will result from the
consumption of meat or milk. Currently
there are bifenazate tolerances
established for residues of bifenazate in
or on ruminant meat, meat byproducts,
milk and fat. These tolerances are based
on conservative assumptions that the
entire livestock diet contains tolerance
level residues of bifenazate. Therefore,
the Agency has concluded that the
established ruminant tolerances are
sufficient to cover any dietary exposure
to bifenazate resulting from the
requested timothy use.
Residues of bifenazate in or on
timothy are not expected to increase
dietary exposure. The use of bifenazate
on timothy is not expected to result in
exceedances of the tolerances that
already exist for meat and milk.
Therefore, establishing the timothy
tolerances will not increase the most
recent estimated aggregate risks
resulting from use of bifenazate, as
discussed in the February 4, 2004
Federal Register (69 FR 5289, FRL–
7335–6) Final Rule establishing
tolerances for combined residues of
bifenazate, (hydrazine carboxylic acid,
2-(4-methoxy-[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-yl-, 1methylethyl ester) and
diazenecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy[1,1’-biphenyl]-3-yl-, 1-methylethyl ester
in or on potatoes, because in that prior
action, risk was estimated assuming all
meat and milk products contained
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
tolerance level residues. Refer to the
February 4, 2004 Federal Register
document for a detailed discussion of
the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety. EPA relies upon
that risk assessment and the findings
made in the Federal Register document
in support of this action. Below is a
brief summary of the aggregate risk
assessment.
An endpoint for acute dietary
exposure was not identified since no
effects were observed that could be
attributable to a single dose in oral
toxicity studies, including
developmental and maternal toxicity in
the developmental toxicity studies.
Therefore, an acute dietary risk
assessment was not conducted.
Using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM) an analysis evaluated
the individual food consumption as
reported by respondents in the United
States Department of Agriculture 1994–
1996 and 1998 nationwide Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) and accumulated exposure to
bifenazate for each commodity. The
chronic dietary exposure analysis
assumed tolerance level residues and
100% crop treated for all registered and
proposed crops excluding tomato where
average field trial residues were used.
DEEMTM (ver 7.73) default processing
factors were assumed for all
commodities excluding apple juice,
grape juice, wine/sherry, tomato paste,
and tomato puree. The processing
factors for these commodities were
reduced to 0.23, 0.17, 0.17, 5.0, and 5.0,
respectively, based on data from
processing studies.
Using the exposure assumptions
described, EPA concluded that exposure
to bifenazate from food will utilize 25%
of the cPAD for the U.S. population,
60% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year
old, 86% of the cPAD for children 1–2
years old (the most highly exposed
population subgroup), and 17% of the
cPAD for females 13–49 years old.
Based on the use pattern, chronic
residential exposure to residues of
bifenazate is not expected. However,
there is potential for chronic dietary
exposure to bifenazate in drinking
water. After calculating DWLOCs and
comparing them to the EECs for surface
water and ground water, EPA does not
expect the aggregate exposure to exceed
100% of the cPAD, as shown in Table
1:
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4035
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER) EXPOSURE TO BIFENAZATE
cPAD mg/
kg/day
Population Subgroup
Surface
Water EEC
(ppb)
%cPAD
(Food)
Ground
Water EEC
(ppb)
Chronic
DWLOC
(ppb)
U.S. population
0.01
25
6.4
<0.001
260
All Infants (<1 year old)
0.01
60
6.4
<0.001
75
Children (1–2 years old)
0.01
86
6.4
<0.001
14
Females (13–49 years old)
0.01
17
6.4
<0.001
290
Short-term and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Bifenazate is currently registered for
use on the following residential nondietary sites: Commercial application to
ornamental plants (including bedding
plants, flowering plants, foliage plants,
bulb crops, perennials, trees and shrubs;
not turf) and all fruit trees which will
not bear fruit for a minimum of 12
months as well as application by
residents/homeowners. EPA anticipates
only short-term dermal and short-term
inhalation exposure from the residential
uses. The Agency assumed that
residential applications will be made
via pump up sprayers, garden hose-end
sprayers or similar ‘‘homeowner’’
pesticide devices. Exposure from a hoseend sprayer was assessed rather than
that of a compressed air sprayer. For the
treatment of shrubs and ornamentals,
EPA assumed 100 gallons of finish spray
are applied per day. The unit exposure
value for a residential handler using
open pour mixing/loading for a garden
hose-end sprayer is 11 milligrams/
pound (mg/lb) handled (dermal) and
0.013 mg/lb handled. Exposures were
calculated using the Agency’s draft
Residential Standard Operating
Procedures.
Using the exposure assumptions
described for short-term exposures, EPA
concluded that food and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate
MOEs of 2,000 for the U.S. population,
2,100 for youth 13–19 years old, 2,400
for adults 20–49 years old, 2,200 for
females 13–49 years old, and 2,300 for
adults 50+ years old. These aggregate
MOEs do not exceed the Agency’s level
of concern for aggregate exposure to
food and residential uses. In addition,
short-term DWLOCs were calculated
and compared to the EECs for chronic
exposure of bifenazate in ground water
and surface water. After calculating
DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EECs for surface water and ground
water, EPA does not expect short-term
aggregate exposure to exceed the
Agency’s level of concern, as shown in
Table 2:
TABLE 2.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SHORT-TERMEXPOSURE TO BIFENAZATE
Aggregate
MOE (Food
+ Residential)
Population Subgroup
Aggregate
Level of
Concern
(LOC)
Surface
Water EEC
(ppb)
Ground
Water EEC
(ppb)
Short-Term
DWLOC
(ppb)
U.S. population
2,000
100
6.4
<0.001
3,500
Youth, (13–19 years old)
2,100
100
6.4
<0.001
3,000
Adults, (20–49 years old)
2,400
100
6.4
<0.001
3,500
Females, (13–49 year old)
2,200
100
6.4
<0.001
3,000
Adults (50+ years old)
2,300
100
6.4
<0.001
3,500
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account non-dietary, nonoccupational exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Residential intermediate-term aggregate
exposure (30 days to 6 months) is not
expected from use of this chemical.
Thus, the intermediate-term risk for the
public consists of food and water
exposures which were previously
addressed.
EPA has classified bifenazate as ‘‘not
likely’’ to be a human carcinogen.
Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure
and risk assessment was not performed.
Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
certainty that no harm will result to the
general population, and to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to
bifenazate residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(example—gas chromatography) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. International Residue Limits
Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not
have maximum residue limits for
residues of bifenazate in/on the
proposed crop. Therefore,
harmonization is not an issue.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for the combined residues of bifenazate,
(1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1’biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate)
and diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4methoxy-[1,1’-biphenyl]3-yl, 1methylethyl ester, in or on timothy, hay
at 150 ppm and timothy, forage at 50
ppm.
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4036
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
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.
Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to
reflect the amendments made to the
FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue
to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the
necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA
provides essentially the same process
for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation
for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance issued by EPA under new
section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and
409 of the FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days,
rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an
Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
you must identify docket ID number
OPP–2005–0012 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 March 29, 2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection
must specify the specific provisions in
the regulation that you object to, and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of
the factual issues(s) on which a hearing
is requested, the requestor’s contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any
evidence relied upon by the objector (40
CFR 178.27). Information submitted in
connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of
the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
your request to the Office of the Hearing
Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of
the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Office of the Hearing
Clerk is (202) 564–6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition
to filing an objection or hearing request
with the Hearing Clerk as described in
Unit VII.A., you should also send a copy
of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is
described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by the docket ID
number OPP–2005–0012, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001. In person or by courier, bring a
copy to the location of the PIRIB
described in ADDRESSES. You may also
send an electronic copy of your request
via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov.
Please use an ASCII file format and
avoid the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of
electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file
format. Do not include any CBI in your
electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a
Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted
if the Administrator determines that the
material submitted shows the following:
There is a genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility
that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established resolve
one or more of such issues in favor of
the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual
issues(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify
the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes timelimited tolerances under section 408 of
the FFDCA. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 under 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 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). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a FIFRA
section 18 exemption under section 408
of the FFDCA, such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the
issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. 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
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 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.
Dated: January 14, 2005.
Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
IX. Congressional Review Act
47 CFR Part 73
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, 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).
[DA 05–36; MB Docket No. 03–181, RM–
10758, and RM–11123]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.572 is amended by
alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
I
§ 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
Timothy, forage
Timothy, hay .....
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Expiration/
Revocation
Date
*
50
150
*
247A at Blanchard, Oklahoma, are 35–
07–21 North Latitude and 97–40–18
West Longitude.
DATES:
Effective February 25, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
PART 180—AMENDED
*
4037
*
12/31/07
12/31/07
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–1624 Filed 1–27–05; 8:45 am]
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 03–181,
adopted January 5, 2005, and released
January 10, 2005. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this decision also
may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, (800) 378–3160,
or via the company’s Web site, https://
www.bcpiweb.com. The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
Order in a report to be sent to Congress
and the General Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Blanchard, Elmore City, Weatherford
and Wynnewood, OK
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the
request of Wright Broadcasting Systems,
Inc., licensee of FM Station KWEY,
Channel 247C1, Weatherford,
Oklahoma, deletes Channel 247C1 at
Weatherford, Oklahoma, from the FM
Table of Allotments, allots Channel
247A at Blanchard, Oklahoma, as the
community’s first local FM service, and
modifies the license of FM Station
KWEY to specify operation on Channel
247A at Blanchard. Channel 247A can
be allotted to Blanchard, Oklahoma, in
compliance with the Commission’s
minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of
2.1 km (1.3 miles) southwest of
Blanchard. The coordinates for Channel
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
I
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Oklahoma, is
amended by removing Channel 247C1 at
Weatherford and by adding Blanchard,
Channel 247A.
I
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–1605 Filed 1–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 18 (Friday, January 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4032-4037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1624]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0012; FRL-7696-2]
Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for the
combined residues of bifenazate in or on timothy hay and timothy
forage. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency
exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on timothy.
This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of
bifenazate in these feed commodities. These tolerances will expire and
are revoked on December 31, 2007.
DATES: This regulation is effective January 28, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0012. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
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 electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S.
Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6463; e-mail address: Madden.Barbara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS code 111)
Animal production (NAICS code 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
[[Page 4033]]
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 the
section above. 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 and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, is establishing tolerances for the combined residues of
the insecticide bifenazate, (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-
3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-
[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl, 1-methylethyl ester, in or on timothy, hay at 150
parts per million (ppm) and timothy, forage at 50 ppm. These tolerances
will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2007. EPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from
the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 of the FFDCA and the new safety standard to
other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA
to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or
State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that
``emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This
provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency
exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
EPA has received objections to a tolerance it established for
bifenazate on a different food commodity. The objections were filed by
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and raised several issues
regarding aggregate exposure estimates and the additional safety factor
for the protection of infants and children. Although these objections
concern separate rulemaking proceedings under the FFDCA, EPA has
considered whether it is appropriate to establish this emergency
exemption tolerance for bifenazate while the objections are still
pending.
Factors taken into account by EPA included how close the Agency is
to concluding the proceedings on the objections, the nature of the
current action, whether NRDC's objections raised frivolous issues, and
extent to which the issues raised by NRDC had already been considered
by EPA. Although NRDC's objections are not frivolous, the other factors
all support establishing this tolerance at this time. First, the
objections proceeding is unlikely to conclude prior to when action is
necessary on this petition. NRDC's objections raise complex legal,
scientific, policy, and factual matters. EPA has published a notice
describing the nature of the NRDC's objections in more detail. This
notice offered an opportunity for the public to comment on this matter
and published in the Federal Register of June 19, 2002 (67 FR 41628)
(FRL-7167-7). EPA is now examining the extensive comments received.
Second, the nature of the current action is extremely time-sensitive
and addresses an emergency situation. Third, the issues raised by NRDC
are not new matters but questions that have been the subject of
considerable study by EPA and comment by stakeholders. Accordingly, EPA
is proceeding with establishing the tolerance for bifenazate.
III. Emergency Exemption for Bifenazate on Timothy and FFDCA Tolerances
The banks grass mite became a pest of economic significance for
timothy growers beginning in 2002 when it was recognized that the pest
had developed resistance to the registered alternatives. Based on
information submitted by the State, without the use of bifenazate to
control banks grass mites, many timothy growers will experience
significant economic losses. Dietary risk will be minimal because the
bulk of the treated hay will be used as horse feed. EPA has authorized
under FIFRA section 18 the use of bifenazate on timothy, hay and
timothy, forage for control of banks grass mites in Nevada. After
having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions
exist for this State.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of bifenazate in or on
timothy. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section
408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance
under section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to
move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent
non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA.
Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31,
2007, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide
not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or
on timothy, hay and timothy, forage after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful
under FIFRA, and the
[[Page 4034]]
residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these tolerances
at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether bifenazate
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on timothy or whether a
permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe that these tolerances serve as a
basis for registration of bifenazate by a State for special local needs
under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances serve as the basis
for any State other than Nevada to use this pesticide on this crop
under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's
regulations implementing FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part
166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for
bifenazate, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address
provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of
bifenazate and to make a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for time-limited
tolerances for the combined residues of bifenazate, (1-methylethyl 2-
(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl, 1-
methylethyl ester, in or on timothy, hay at 150 ppm and timothy, forage
at 50 ppm.
Timothy is a member of the grass, forage, fodder, and hay crop
group. No timothy residue data were submitted for this specific
emergency exemption request. The proposed use rate of bifenazate for
timothy is similar to rates for registered uses. Based on data
contained in the Food and Feed Crops of the United States (second
edition; forage grass monograph), approximately 3,700 pounds of hay may
be produced per acre. Based on the application rate of 0.50 lbs per
acre and the expected hay production, a theoretical bifenazate residue
of 135 ppm was calculated. Assuming 25% dry matter content for forage
and a 80% dry matter content for hay, a theoretical residue of 42 ppm
was calculated for timothy, forage. To ensure that the tolerance levels
are adequate, the Agency is establishing levels slightly higher than
estimated (150 ppm for timothy, hay and 50 ppm for timothy, forage).
Under the emergency exemption, timothy is being grown as a premium
feed for race horses. However, it is possible that a fraction of the
treated crop may be diverted to cattle (timothy is not a poultry feed
crop). Timothy is not consumed by humans, any inadvertent exposure to
residues of bifenazate from this emergency exemption will result from
the consumption of meat or milk. Currently there are bifenazate
tolerances established for residues of bifenazate in or on ruminant
meat, meat byproducts, milk and fat. These tolerances are based on
conservative assumptions that the entire livestock diet contains
tolerance level residues of bifenazate. Therefore, the Agency has
concluded that the established ruminant tolerances are sufficient to
cover any dietary exposure to bifenazate resulting from the requested
timothy use.
Residues of bifenazate in or on timothy are not expected to
increase dietary exposure. The use of bifenazate on timothy is not
expected to result in exceedances of the tolerances that already exist
for meat and milk. Therefore, establishing the timothy tolerances will
not increase the most recent estimated aggregate risks resulting from
use of bifenazate, as discussed in the February 4, 2004 Federal
Register (69 FR 5289, FRL-7335-6) Final Rule establishing tolerances
for combined residues of bifenazate, (hydrazine carboxylic acid, 2-(4-
methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl-, 1-methylethyl ester) and
diazenecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl-, 1-
methylethyl ester in or on potatoes, because in that prior action, risk
was estimated assuming all meat and milk products contained tolerance
level residues. Refer to the February 4, 2004 Federal Register document
for a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety. EPA relies upon that risk assessment and the
findings made in the Federal Register document in support of this
action. Below is a brief summary of the aggregate risk assessment.
An endpoint for acute dietary exposure was not identified since no
effects were observed that could be attributable to a single dose in
oral toxicity studies, including developmental and maternal toxicity in
the developmental toxicity studies. Therefore, an acute dietary risk
assessment was not conducted.
Using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\) an analysis evaluated the
individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the United
States Department of Agriculture 1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and
accumulated exposure to bifenazate for each commodity. The chronic
dietary exposure analysis assumed tolerance level residues and 100%
crop treated for all registered and proposed crops excluding tomato
where average field trial residues were used. DEEM\TM\ (ver 7.73)
default processing factors were assumed for all commodities excluding
apple juice, grape juice, wine/sherry, tomato paste, and tomato puree.
The processing factors for these commodities were reduced to 0.23,
0.17, 0.17, 5.0, and 5.0, respectively, based on data from processing
studies.
Using the exposure assumptions described, EPA concluded that
exposure to bifenazate from food will utilize 25% of the cPAD for the
U.S. population, 60% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year old, 86% of
the cPAD for children 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed population
subgroup), and 17% of the cPAD for females 13-49 years old. Based on
the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of bifenazate
is not expected. However, there is potential for chronic dietary
exposure to bifenazate in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and
comparing them to the EECs for surface water and ground water, EPA does
not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown
in Table 1:
[[Page 4035]]
Table 1.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non- Cancer) Exposure to Bifenazate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup cPAD mg/kg/ %cPAD Water EEC Water EEC Chronic
day (Food) (ppb) (ppb) DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 0.01 25 6.4 <0.001 260
--------------------------------------------------------------
All Infants (<1 year old) 0.01 60 6.4 <0.001 75
--------------------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) 0.01 86 6.4 <0.001 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
Females (13-49 years old) 0.01 17 6.4 <0.001 290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
Bifenazate is currently registered for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: Commercial application to ornamental
plants (including bedding plants, flowering plants, foliage plants,
bulb crops, perennials, trees and shrubs; not turf) and all fruit trees
which will not bear fruit for a minimum of 12 months as well as
application by residents/homeowners. EPA anticipates only short-term
dermal and short-term inhalation exposure from the residential uses.
The Agency assumed that residential applications will be made via pump
up sprayers, garden hose-end sprayers or similar ``homeowner''
pesticide devices. Exposure from a hose-end sprayer was assessed rather
than that of a compressed air sprayer. For the treatment of shrubs and
ornamentals, EPA assumed 100 gallons of finish spray are applied per
day. The unit exposure value for a residential handler using open pour
mixing/loading for a garden hose-end sprayer is 11 milligrams/pound
(mg/lb) handled (dermal) and 0.013 mg/lb handled. Exposures were
calculated using the Agency's draft Residential Standard Operating
Procedures.
Using the exposure assumptions described for short-term exposures,
EPA concluded that food and residential exposures aggregated result in
aggregate MOEs of 2,000 for the U.S. population, 2,100 for youth 13-19
years old, 2,400 for adults 20-49 years old, 2,200 for females 13-49
years old, and 2,300 for adults 50+ years old. These aggregate MOEs do
not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure to food
and residential uses. In addition, short-term DWLOCs were calculated
and compared to the EECs for chronic exposure of bifenazate in ground
water and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to
the EECs for surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect short-
term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as
shown in Table 2:
Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Short-Term Exposure to Bifenazate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate
Aggregate Level of Surface Ground Short-Term
Population Subgroup MOE (Food + Concern Water EEC Water EEC DWLOC (ppb)
Residential) (LOC) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 2,000 100 6.4 <0.001 3,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
Youth, (13-19 years old) 2,100 100 6.4 <0.001 3,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adults, (20-49 years old) 2,400 100 6.4 <0.001 3,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
Females, (13-49 year old) 2,200 100 6.4 <0.001 3,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adults (50+ years old) 2,300 100 6.4 <0.001 3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account non-
dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and
water (considered to be a background exposure level). Residential
intermediate-term aggregate exposure (30 days to 6 months) is not
expected from use of this chemical. Thus, the intermediate-term risk
for the public consists of food and water exposures which were
previously addressed.
EPA has classified bifenazate as ``not likely'' to be a human
carcinogen. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure and risk assessment
was not performed.
Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
bifenazate residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (example--gas chromatography) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not have maximum residue limits for
residues of bifenazate in/on the proposed crop. Therefore,
harmonization is not an issue.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for the combined residues of
bifenazate, (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-
yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) and diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-
[1,1'-biphenyl]3-yl, 1-methylethyl ester, in or on timothy, hay at 150
ppm and timothy, forage at 50 ppm.
[[Page 4036]]
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
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. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the
FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0012 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 March 29,
2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by the docket ID number OPP-2005-0012, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the
PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an electronic copy of
your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes time-limited tolerances under section
408 of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions 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 under 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 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). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA
section 18 exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, such as the
tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 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
[[Page 4037]]
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 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.
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
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: January 14, 2005.
Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Registration Division, 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 180.572 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per Revocation
million Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Timothy, forage............................... 50 12/31/07
Timothy, hay.................................. 150 12/31/07
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-1624 Filed 1-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S