Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and Vinclozolin; Proposed Tolerance Revocations, 14618-14623 [05-5724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14618
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
for these sources. The RACT standard
differs from the standard applicable to
BACT, the ‘‘best available control
technology’’ defined at section 169(3) of
the Act. See also 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12).
The RACT standard is also less stringent
than LAER, the lowest achievable
emission rate, which is defined at
section 171(3) of the Act. Thus, a New
Source Review determination for a
source subject to Rule 358 could require
a control technology or an emission rate
which is more stringent that the floor
created by Rule 358.
The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that do not affect EPA’s
current action but are recommended for
the next time the local agency modifies
the rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes Rule 358 fulfills
all relevant requirements, we are
proposing to fully approve it as
described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30
days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period
that would cause us to reconsider our
proposed approval, we intend to
publish a final approval action that will
incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
Also, because our proposed action is
based on a parallel processing submittal,
the adopted and submitted version of
Rule 358 must be similar in meaning
and content to the February 11, 2005
version of the rule published in the
Arizona Administrative Register
submitted for parallel processing.
Should there be substantial and
meaningful differences between the two
submitted rules, we will publish a new
proposal based on the most recent
adopted and submitted version of Rule
358.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:19 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This proposed
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compound.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 8, 2005.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–5718 Filed 3–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2004–0421; FRL–7701–4]
Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon,
Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and
Vinclozolin; Proposed Tolerance
Revocations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
revoke specific tolerances for residues of
the herbicide alachlor, insecticides
carbaryl, diazinon, disulfoton, and
pirimiphos-methyl, and fungicide
vinclozolin. Some of these specific
tolerances correspond to commodities
either no longer considered to be
significant livestock feed items or which
have registration restrictions against
feeding to livestock. Other tolerances
are associated with food registrations
that EPA canceled or for which the
Agency deleted food uses following
requests for voluntary cancellation or
use deletion by the registrants. EPA
expects to determine whether any
individuals or groups want to support
these tolerances. The regulatory actions
proposed in this document contribute
toward the Agency’s tolerance
reassessment requirements of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
of 1996. By law, EPA is required by
August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
in existence on August 2, 1996. The
regulatory actions proposed in this
document pertain to the proposed
revocation of 15 tolerances and
tolerance exemptions of which 9 would
be counted as tolerance reassessments
toward the August, 2006 review
deadline.
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Comments must be received on
or before May 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number OPP–2004–0421, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Agency Website: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail. Comments may be sent by
e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
Attention: Docket ID number OPP–
2004–0421.
• Mail. Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001, Attention:
docket ID number OPP–2004–0421.
• Hand Delivery. Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
number OPP–2004–0421. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
docket ID number OPP–2004–0421.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’
systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
DATES:
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:13 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102)
(FRL–7181–7).
Docket. 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:
Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (703) 308–8037; email address: nevola.joseph@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 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14619
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
Unit IA. 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/.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket
ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
14620
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency
to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency
Proposes to Revoke?
This proposed rule provides a
comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining
a tolerance proposed for revocation. If
EPA receives a comment within the 60day period to that effect, EPA will not
proceed to revoke the tolerance
immediately. However, EPA will take
steps to ensure the submission of any
needed supporting data and will issue
an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The
order would specify data needed and
the time frames for its submission, and
would require that within 90–days some
person or persons notify EPA that they
will submit the data. If the data are not
submitted as required in the order, EPA
will take appropriate action under
FFDCA.
EPA issues a final rule after
considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed
rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal,
you may also submit an objection at the
time of the final rule. If you fail to file
an objection to the final rule within the
time period specified, you will have
waived the right to raise any issues
resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the
final rule cannot be raised again in any
subsequent proceedings.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is proposing to revoke certain
tolerances for residues of the herbicide
alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon,
disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and
the fungicide vinclozolin because the
specific tolerances correspond to
commodities which are either no longer
considered to be significant livestock
feed items or which have restrictions
against feeding to livestock, or to uses
no longer current or registered under
FIFRA in the United States. It is EPA’s
general practice to propose revocation of
those tolerances for residues of pesticide
active ingredients on crop uses for
which there are no active registrations
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:19 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
under FIFRA, unless any person in
comments on the proposal indicates a
need for the tolerance to cover residues
in or on imported commodities or
domestic commodities legally treated.
1. Alachlor. Active registrations for
use of the herbicide alachlor have
restrictions against feeding peanut
forage; peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and
soybean, hay to livestock. Also, peanut
forage is no longer considered a
significant livestock feed item. The
restrictions against the feeding of
alachlor treated soybean forage and hay
for all alachlor products occurred with
the June 22, 1994 cancellation of two
registrations which had lacked the
restriction. These cancellations had
followed publication of a notice in the
Federal Register of March 17, 1994 (59
FR 12599) (FRL–4764–1) which
announced EPA’s receipt of requests to
voluntarily cancel certain registrations.
The restrictions against the feeding of
alachlor treated peanut forage and hay
for all alachlor products have been on
labels since 1993.
The tolerances for peanut forage,
peanut hay, soybean forage, and
soybean hay were recommended by the
Agency for revocation in the 1998
Alachlor RED. A printed copy of the
Alachlor RED 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
https://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 (703) 605–6000;
internet athttps://www.ntis.gov/. An
electronic copy of the Alachlor RED is
available on the internet at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/
status.htm.
Therefore, because there is no longer
a need for them, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.249
for residues of alachlor and its
metabolites on peanut, forage; peanut,
hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay.
2. Carbaryl. Because flax straw is no
longer a regulated feed item (no longer
considered a raw agricultural
commodity (RAC) of flax), the tolerance
is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40
CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of
carbaryl, including its hydrolysis
product 1-naphthol, calculated as 1naphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or on
flax, straw.
Because bean forage and bean hay are
no longer considered significant
livestock feed items, the tolerances are
no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of
carbaryl, including its hydrolysis
product 1-naphthol, calculated as lnaphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or on
bean, forage and bean, hay.
Because pineapple bran is no longer
a regulated feed item (no longer
considered a RAC of pineapple), the
tolerance is no longer needed.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(4) for
residues of carbaryl in or on pineapple
bran. Note, the separate tolerance on
pineapple is maintained.
3. Diazinon. There have been no
registered uses of diazinon on coffee
beans and dandelions since 1995 and
1991, respectively. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.153(a)(1) for residues of the
insecticide diazinon (O,O-diethyl O-[6methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate) in or on
coffee bean and dandelion, leaves.
4. Disulfoton. There have been no
registered uses of disulfoton on hops
since 1991. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.183(a) for the combined residues of
the insecticide O,O-diethyl S-[2(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate
and its cholinesterase-inhibiting
metabolites, calculated as demeton, in
or on hop, dried cones.
5. Pirimiphos-methyl. There have
been no registered uses of pirimiphosmethyl on kiwifruits for at least 10–
years. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.409(a)(1) for the combined residues
of the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl, O[2- diethylamino-6-methyl-4pyrimidinyl) O,O-dimethyl
phosphorothioate, the metabolite O-[2ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-yl)
O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate and, in
free and conjugated form, the
metabolites 2-diethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol), 2-ethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol, and 2-amino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol in or on kiwifruit.
In 2001, EPA published an Interim
Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(IRED) for pirimiphos-methyl and made
a determination that pirimiphos-methyl
residues of concern do not concentrate
in wheat flour. Because the tolerance is
no longer needed, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.409(a)(2) for residues of pirimiphosmethyl and its metabolites in or on
wheat flour as a result of application to
stored wheat grain.
A printed copy of the pirimiphosmethyl IRED may be obtained from
EPA’s National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
OH 45242–2419, telephone 1–800–490–
9198; fax 1–513–489–8695; internet at
https://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 (703) 605–6000;
internet at https://www.ntis.gov/. An
electronic copy of the pirimiphosmethyl IRED is available on the internet
at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
reregistration/status.htm.
6. Vinclozolin. In the Federal Register
notice of August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44134)
(FRL–6795–7), EPA announced use
cancellations for certain vinclozolin
registrations, including uses of the
fungicide vinclozolin on onions and
raspberries with a last date for legal use
as December 15, 2001. EPA believes that
there has been sufficient time for treated
commodities to have cleared the
channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40
CFR 180.380(a) for the combined
residues of the fungicide vinclozolin
and its metabolites containing the 3,5dichloroaniline moiety in or on onion,
dry bulb and raspberry.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the
maximum level for residues of pesticide
chemicals legally allowed in or on RACs
and processed foods. Section 408 of
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as
amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public
Law 104–70, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on RACs and
processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)).
Without a tolerance or exemption, food
containing pesticide residues is
considered to be unsafe and therefore
‘‘adulterated’’ under section 402(a) of
the FFDCA. Such food may not be
distributed in interstate commerce (21
U.S.C. 331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use
pesticide to be sold and distributed, the
pesticide must not only have
appropriate tolerances under the
FFDCA, but also must be registered
under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et seq.). Food-use
pesticides not registered in the United
States must have tolerances in order for
commodities treated with those
pesticides to be imported into the
United States.
EPA’s general practice is to propose
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crops for
which FIFRA registrations no longer
exist and on which the pesticide may
therefore, no longer be used in the
United States. EPA has historically been
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:19 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
concerned that retention of tolerances
that are not necessary to cover residues
in or on legally treated foods may
encourage misuse of pesticides within
the United States. Nonetheless, EPA
will establish and maintain tolerances
even when corresponding domestic uses
are canceled if the tolerances, which
EPA refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are
necessary to allow importation into the
United States of food containing such
pesticide residues. However, where
there are no imported commodities that
require these import tolerances, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential
misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the
Agency believes that retention of import
tolerances not needed to cover any
imported food may result in
unnecessary restriction on trade of
pesticides and foods. Under section 408
of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be
established or maintained if EPA
determines that the tolerance is safe
based on a number of factors, including
an assessment of the aggregate exposure
to the pesticide and an assessment of
the cumulative effects of such pesticide
and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity. In
doing so, EPA must consider potential
contributions to such exposure from all
tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such
that the tolerances in aggregate are not
safe, then every one of these tolerances
is potentially vulnerable to revocation.
Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are
included in the aggregate and
cumulative risk assessments, the
estimated exposure to the pesticide
would be inflated. Consequently, it may
be more difficult for others to obtain
needed tolerances or to register needed
new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to
revoke tolerances for residues on crops
uses for which FIFRA registrations no
longer exist, unless someone expresses
a need for such tolerances. Through this
proposed rule, the Agency is inviting
individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and
the tolerances that are needed to cover
imported commodities.
Parties interested in retention of the
tolerances should be aware that
additional data may be needed to
support retention. These parties should
be aware that, under FFDCA section
408(f), if the Agency determines that
additional information is reasonably
required to support the continuation of
a tolerance, EPA may require that
parties interested in maintaining the
tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14621
is not submitted, EPA may issue an
order revoking the tolerance at issue.
C. When do These Actions Become
Effective?
EPA is proposing that revocation of
these tolerances become effective on the
date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register because their
associated uses have been canceled for
several years. The Agency believes that
treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of
trade. However, if EPA is presented
with other information and that
information is verified, the Agency will
consider extending the expiration date
of the tolerance. If you have comments
regarding existing stocks and whether
the effective date allows sufficient time
for treated commodities to clear the
channels of trade, please submit
comments as described under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Any commodities listed in this
proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the
channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to
FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established
by FQPA. Under this section, any
residues of these pesticides in or on
such food shall not render the food
adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that: (1) The residue is
present as the result of an application or
use of the pesticide at a time and in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA,
and (2) the residue does not exceed the
level that was authorized at the time of
the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption
from tolerance. Evidence to show that
food was lawfully treated may include
records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance
Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August
2006 to reassess the tolerances in
existence on August 2, 1996. As of
February 14, 2005, EPA has reassessed
over 7,140 tolerances. This document
proposes to revoke a total of 15
tolerances of which 9 would be counted
as tolerance reassessments toward the
August, 2006 review deadline of FFDCA
section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in
1996.
III. Are The Proposed Actions
Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance revocations in this
proposal are not discriminatory and are
designed to ensure that both
domestically-produced and imported
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
14622
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
foods meet the food safety standards
established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to
domestically produced and imported
foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the
United States tolerance reassessment
program under FQPA does not disrupt
international trade. EPA considers
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
in setting U.S. tolerances and in
reassessing them. MRLs are established
by the Codex Committee on Pesticide
Residues, a committee within the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, an
international organization formed to
promote the coordination of
international food standards. It is EPA’s
policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances
with Codex MRLs to the extent possible,
provided that the MRLs achieve the
level of protection required under
FFDCA. EPA’s effort to harmonize with
Codex MRLs is summarized in the
tolerance reassessment section of
individual Reregistration Eligibility
Decision documents. EPA has
developed guidance concerning
submissions for import tolerance
support of June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069)
(FRL–6559–3). This guidance will be
made available to interested persons.
Electronic copies are available on the
internet at https://www.epa.gov/. On the
Home Page select ‘‘Laws, Regulations,
and Dockets,’’ then select ‘‘Regulations
and Proposed Rules’’ and then look up
the entry for this document under
‘‘Federal Register--Environmental
Documents.’’ You can also go directly to
the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http:/
/www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to revoke specific tolerances
established under FFDCA section 408.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this type of action
(i.e., tolerance revocation for which
extraordinary circumstances do not
exist) from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this proposed
rule has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866 due to its
lack of significance, this proposed rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed rule does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:19 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104–4). Nor does it require any
special considerations as required by
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or
any other Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether revocations
of tolerances 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. This analysis
was published on December 17, 1997
(62 FR 66020), and was 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 proposed action will
not have a significant negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Specifically, as per the 1997
notice, EPA has reviewed its available
data on imports and foreign pesticide
usage and concludes that there is a
reasonable international supply of food
not treated with canceled pesticides.
Furthermore, for the pesticide named in
this proposed rule, the Agency knows of
no extraordinary circumstances that
exist as to the present proposal that
would change the EPA’s previous
analysis. Any comments about the
Agency’s determination should be
submitted to the EPA along with
comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule.
In addition, the Agency has determined
that this action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This proposed
rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal
implications’’ as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November
6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that
have tribal implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 8, 2005.
Anne E. Lindsay,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.153
[Amended]
2. Section § 180.153 is amended by
removing the entries for coffee bean and
dandelion, leaves from the table under
paragraph (a)(1).
§ 180.169
[Amended]
3. Section § 180.169 is amended by
removing the entries for bean, forage;
bean, hay; and flax, straw from the table
under paragraph (a)(1) and the entry for
pineapple bran from the table under
paragraph (a)(4).
§ 180.183
[Amended]
4. Section § 180.183 is amended by
removing the entry for hop, dried cones
from the table under paragraph (a).
§ 180.249
[Amended]
5. Section § 180.249 is amended by
removing the entries for peanut, forage;
peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and
soybean, hay from the table under the
paragraph.
§ 180.380
[Amended]
6. Section § 180.380 is amended by
removing the entries for onion, dry bulb
and raspberry from the table under
paragraph (a).
§ 180.409
[Amended]
7. Section § 180.409 is amended by
removing the entry for kiwifruit from
the table under paragraph (a)(1) and
removing paragraph (a)(2).
[FR Doc. 05–5724 Filed 3–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL–7888–2]
North Carolina: Final Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:19 Mar 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
Send your written comments by
April 22, 2005.
DATES:
Send written comments to
Thornell Cheeks, North Carolina
Authorization Coordinator, RCRA
Programs Branch, Waste Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA,
30303–3104; (404) 562–8479. You may
also e-mail your comments to
Cheeks.Thornell@epa.gov or submit
your comments at https://
www.regulation.gov. Copies of the
applications submitted by North
Carolina can be examined during
normal business hours at the following
locations: EPA Region IV Library,
Atlanta Federal Center, Library, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303; phone number:(404) 562–8190,
or the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 29201, (919) 733–2178.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thornell Cheeks, North Carolina
Authorization Coordinator, RCRA
Programs Branch, Waste Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
GA, 30303–3104; (404) 562–8479.
For
additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the
‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
North Carolina has applied to
EPA for Final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to
grant final authorization to North
Carolina. In the ‘‘Rules and
Regulations’’ section of this Federal
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes
SUMMARY:
by an immediate final rule. EPA did not
make a proposal prior to the immediate
final rule because we believe this action
is not controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this
authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we get
written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment
period, the immediate final rule will
become effective on the date it
establishes, and we will not take further
action on this proposal. If we get
comments that oppose this action, we
will withdraw the immediate final rule
and it will not take effect. We will then
respond to public comments in a later
final rule based on this proposal. You
may not have another opportunity for
comment. If you want to comment on
this action, you must do so at this time.
Dated: March 10, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05–5721 Filed 3–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
14623
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Part 207 and Appendix D to
Chapter 2
[DFARS Case 2003–D071]
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Component
Breakout
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule with request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
remove procedures for breaking out
components of end items for future
acquisitions. These procedures will be
relocated to the new DFARS companion
resource, Procedures, Guidance, and
Information. The proposed rule is a
result of a transformation initiative
undertaken by DoD to dramatically
change the purpose and content of the
DFARS.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted in writing to the
address shown below on or before May
23, 2005, to be considered in the
formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DFARS Case 2003–D071,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Defense Acquisition Regulations
Web site: https://emissary.acq.osd.mil/
dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2003–D071 in the subject
line of the message.
• Fax: (703) 602–0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, Attn: Mr. Euclides
Barrera, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD
3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3062.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council,
Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th
Street, Arlington, VA 22202–3402.
All comments received will be posted
to https://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/
dfars.nsf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr.
Euclides Barrera, (703) 602–0296.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DFARS Transformation is a major
DoD initiative to dramatically change
the purpose and content of the DFARS.
The objective is to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the
E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM
23MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14618-14623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2004-0421; FRL-7701-4]
Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and
Vinclozolin; Proposed Tolerance Revocations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke specific tolerances for
residues of the herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon,
disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and fungicide vinclozolin. Some of
these specific tolerances correspond to commodities either no longer
considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have
registration restrictions against feeding to livestock. Other
tolerances are associated with food registrations that EPA canceled or
for which the Agency deleted food uses following requests for voluntary
cancellation or use deletion by the registrants. EPA expects to
determine whether any individuals or groups want to support these
tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute
toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by
August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996.
The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the
proposed revocation of 15 tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which
9 would be counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006
review deadline.
[[Page 14619]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number OPP-2004-0421, by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-
docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0421.
Mail. Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001, Attention: docket ID number OPP-2004-0421.
Hand Delivery. Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0421. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number OPP-2004-
0421. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL-7181-7).
Docket. 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: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail
address: nevola.joseph@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 111)
Animal production (NAICS 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit IA. 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/.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket ID number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and
page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at
[[Page 14620]]
your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
D. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the
Agency Proposes to Revoke?
This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and
the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90-
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data.
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take
appropriate action under FFDCA.
EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the
final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the
right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the
specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised
again in any subsequent proceedings.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for residues of the
herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, disulfoton, and
pirimiphos-methyl, and the fungicide vinclozolin because the specific
tolerances correspond to commodities which are either no longer
considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have
restrictions against feeding to livestock, or to uses no longer current
or registered under FIFRA in the United States. It is EPA's general
practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the
proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
1. Alachlor. Active registrations for use of the herbicide alachlor
have restrictions against feeding peanut forage; peanut, hay; soybean,
forage; and soybean, hay to livestock. Also, peanut forage is no longer
considered a significant livestock feed item. The restrictions against
the feeding of alachlor treated soybean forage and hay for all alachlor
products occurred with the June 22, 1994 cancellation of two
registrations which had lacked the restriction. These cancellations had
followed publication of a notice in the Federal Register of March 17,
1994 (59 FR 12599) (FRL-4764-1) which announced EPA's receipt of
requests to voluntarily cancel certain registrations. The restrictions
against the feeding of alachlor treated peanut forage and hay for all
alachlor products have been on labels since 1993.
The tolerances for peanut forage, peanut hay, soybean forage, and
soybean hay were recommended by the Agency for revocation in the 1998
Alachlor RED. A printed copy of the Alachlor RED 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 https://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 (703) 605-
6000; internet athttps://www.ntis.gov/. An electronic copy of the
Alachlor RED is available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
Therefore, because there is no longer a need for them, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.249 for residues of
alachlor and its metabolites on peanut, forage; peanut, hay; soybean,
forage; and soybean, hay.
2. Carbaryl. Because flax straw is no longer a regulated feed item
(no longer considered a raw agricultural commodity (RAC) of flax), the
tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl,
including its hydrolysis product 1-naphthol, calculated as 1-naphthyl
N-methylcarbamate, in or on flax, straw.
Because bean forage and bean hay are no longer considered
significant livestock feed items, the tolerances are no longer needed.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl, including its hydrolysis
product 1-naphthol, calculated as l-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or
on bean, forage and bean, hay.
Because pineapple bran is no longer a regulated feed item (no
longer considered a RAC of pineapple), the tolerance is no longer
needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.169(a)(4) for residues of carbaryl in or on pineapple bran. Note,
the separate tolerance on pineapple is maintained.
3. Diazinon. There have been no registered uses of diazinon on
coffee beans and dandelions since 1995 and 1991, respectively.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.153(a)(1) for residues of the insecticide diazinon (O,O-diethyl O-
[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate) in or on
coffee bean and dandelion, leaves.
4. Disulfoton. There have been no registered uses of disulfoton on
hops since 1991. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.183(a) for the combined residues of the insecticide O,O-
diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites, calculated as demeton, in or on
hop, dried cones.
5. Pirimiphos-methyl. There have been no registered uses of
pirimiphos-methyl on kiwifruits for at least 10-years. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(1) for the
combined residues of the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl, O-[2-
diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate, the
metabolite O-[2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-yl) O,O-dimethyl
phosphorothioate and, in free and conjugated form, the metabolites 2-
diethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol), 2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-
4-ol, and 2-amino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol in or on kiwifruit.
In 2001, EPA published an Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED) for pirimiphos-methyl and made a determination that
pirimiphos-methyl residues of concern do not concentrate in wheat
flour. Because the tolerance is no longer needed, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(2) for residues of
pirimiphos-methyl and its metabolites in or on wheat flour as a result
of application to stored wheat grain.
A printed copy of the pirimiphos-methyl IRED may be obtained from
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
[[Page 14621]]
OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet
at https://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 (703) 605-6000; internet at https://
www.ntis.gov/. An electronic copy of the pirimiphos-methyl IRED is
available on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
reregistration/status.htm.
6. Vinclozolin. In the Federal Register notice of August 22, 2001
(66 FR 44134) (FRL-6795-7), EPA announced use cancellations for certain
vinclozolin registrations, including uses of the fungicide vinclozolin
on onions and raspberries with a last date for legal use as December
15, 2001. EPA believes that there has been sufficient time for treated
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.380(a) for the
combined residues of the fungicide vinclozolin and its metabolites
containing the 3,5-dichloroaniline moiety in or on onion, dry bulb and
raspberry.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on RACs and processed foods.
Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as amended by the FQPA of
1996, Public Law 104-70, authorizes the establishment of tolerances,
exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances,
and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on RACs and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without a tolerance or
exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be
unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA.
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and
distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances
under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et
seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must
have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides
to be imported into the United States.
EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore,
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
C. When do These Actions Become Effective?
EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerances become
effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register because their associated uses have been canceled for several
years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is
presented with other information and that information is verified, the
Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If
you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective
date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the
channels of trade, please submit comments as described under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an
application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that
was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the
dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
in existence on August 2, 1996. As of February 14, 2005, EPA has
reassessed over 7,140 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a
total of 15 tolerances of which 9 would be counted as tolerance
reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section
408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.
III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory
and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported
[[Page 14622]]
foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the United States tolerance
reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade.
EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S.
tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex
Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to
promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's
policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent
possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection
required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is
summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual
Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed
guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support of June 1,
2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available
to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet
at https://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations,
and Dockets,'' then select ``Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then
look up the entry for this document under ``Federal Register--
Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal
Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e.,
tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not
exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866
due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations as required by Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of
tolerances 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. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR
66020), and was 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 proposed action will not have a
significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its
available data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes
that there is a reasonable international supply of food not treated
with canceled pesticides. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this
proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that
exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous
analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be
submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.''``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 8, 2005.
Anne E. Lindsay,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
[[Page 14623]]
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.153 [Amended]
2. Section Sec. 180.153 is amended by removing the entries for
coffee bean and dandelion, leaves from the table under paragraph
(a)(1).
Sec. 180.169 [Amended]
3. Section Sec. 180.169 is amended by removing the entries for
bean, forage; bean, hay; and flax, straw from the table under paragraph
(a)(1) and the entry for pineapple bran from the table under paragraph
(a)(4).
Sec. 180.183 [Amended]
4. Section Sec. 180.183 is amended by removing the entry for hop,
dried cones from the table under paragraph (a).
Sec. 180.249 [Amended]
5. Section Sec. 180.249 is amended by removing the entries for
peanut, forage; peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay from the
table under the paragraph.
Sec. 180.380 [Amended]
6. Section Sec. 180.380 is amended by removing the entries for
onion, dry bulb and raspberry from the table under paragraph (a).
Sec. 180.409 [Amended]
7. Section Sec. 180.409 is amended by removing the entry for
kiwifruit from the table under paragraph (a)(1) and removing paragraph
(a)(2).
[FR Doc. 05-5724 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
