Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA); Proposed Action on Tolerance Exemption, 18689-18693 [E6-5399]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Resistance Check, Inspection, and Jumper
Installation
(h) Within 180 days after the effective date
of this AD: Perform the insulation resistance
check, general visual inspections, and
bonding jumper wire installations; in
accordance with Shorts Service Bulletin
SD330–28–37, SD360–28–23, SD360
SHERPA–28–3, or SD3 SHERPA–28–2; all
dated June 2004; as applicable. If any defect
or damage is discovered during any
inspection or check required by this AD,
before further flight, repair the defect or
damage using a method approved by either
the Manager, International Branch, ANM–
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or
the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (or its
delegated agent).
Note 4: For the purposes of this AD, a
general visual inspection is: ‘‘A visual
examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious
damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of
inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror
may be necessary to ensure visual access to
all surfaces in the inspection area. This level
of inspection is made under normally
available lighting conditions such as
daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or
droplight and may require removal or
opening of access panels or doors. Stands,
ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.’’
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
(j) British airworthiness directive G–2004–
0021 R1, dated September 15, 2004, also
addresses the subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 4,
2006.
Kevin M. Mullin,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–5357 Filed 4–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0227; FRL–8054–7]
Revisions to the Arizona State
Implementation Plan, Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal addresses the following local
rule: ADEQ R18–2—Appendix 8. In the
Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, we are approving this
local rule in a direct final action without
prior proposal because we believe these
SIP revisions are not controversial. If we
receive adverse comments, however, we
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the
comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
planned. For further information, please
see the direct final action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion
of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
procedures for the calculation of sulfur
emissions from copper smelters. We are
proposing to approve a local rule that
helps regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by May 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2006–0227, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send e-mail
directly to EPA, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the public comment.
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.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
PO 00000
18689
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06–3407 Filed 4–11–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HO–OPP–2006–0251; FRL–7771–3]
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA);
Proposed Action on Tolerance
Exemption
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document proposes
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(e)(1)
to revoke the existing exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the inert ingredient
tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA) (CAS
Reg. No. 97–99–4) under 40 CFR
180.910 because it does not meet the
safety requirements of FFDCA section
408(b)(2). While EPA has determined
that dietary risks from use of THFA
exceed the Agency’s level of concern,
limited uses of THFA may be permitted.
Therefore, EPA is also proposing to
establish for THFA an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance under 40
CFR 180.1263 that includes use
limitations. The regulatory action
proposed in this document contributes
toward the Agency’s tolerance
reassessment requirements under
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
18690
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
of 1996. By law, EPA is required by
August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
that were in existence on August 2,
1996. The regulatory action proposed in
this document pertains to the proposed
revocation of one tolerance which
would be counted as tolerance
reassessment toward the August 2006
review deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket identification
number (ID) No. EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–
0251, by one of the following methods:
• http:/ /www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• 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.
• Hand Delivery. Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB)
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention:
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–
0251. The docket facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the docket facility
is (703) 305–5805. 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 No. EPA–HQ– OPP–2006–
0251. 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.regulatioris.gov/, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov your e-mail address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the comment that is placed in
the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 the EPA
Docket Center homepage athttps://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket
are listed in the regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at
the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 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:
Karen Angulo, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
703–306–0404; e-mail address:
angulo.karen@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
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
Unit II. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
is proposing to establish a tolerance
exemption under § 180.1263 that
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
permits:
EPA is now in the process of
(1) Use as a seed treatment,
reassessing all inert ingredient
(2) Application at the time of
exemptions from the requirement of a
planting,
(3) Application to cotton, and,
tolerance (‘‘tolerance exemptions’’)
(4) Use in herbicides with one
established prior to August 2, 1996, as
application to wheat and barley prior to
required by the FFDCA section 408(q),
the pre-boot stage.
as amended by the FQPA. Inert
These limitations significantly reduce
ingredient chemicals must meet a high
the number of times that THFA may be
safety standard in order to merit an
applied per season - often to one
exemption from the numerical residue
application only -- and, therefore,
limitations that are imposed in a
reduce the potential for dietary
tolerance.
exposures below the Agency’s level of
1. In evaluating the inert ingredient
concern. Contributions to surface/
THFA, the Agency has determined that
dietary risks of concern may result from drinking water are not anticipated from
the use of THFA-containing pesticide
the use of THFA under the current
tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.910, products under the proposed use
limitations considering THFA’s
which allows an unlimited amount of
physical-chemical properties and
THFA to be applied to growing crops
biodegradation potential in the
and raw agricultural commodities after
environment. No residential risks of
harvest.
concern are anticipated at this time for
The hazard characterization of THFA
the new tolerance exemption.
shows effects of concern. Consistent
i. Cumulative effects from substances
systemic effects from repeated dermal
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
and oral exposure to THFA include
decreased body weight and body weight Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
gain. Effects were consistent over
to establish, modify, or revoke a
species and routes of exposure. While
tolerance, the Agency consider
no neurotoxicity studies were
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
performed, whole body spasms were
cumulative effects of a particular
reported in the subchronic inhalation
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
study.
substances that have a common
Developmental and reproductive
mechanism of toxicity.’’
effects of concern have been identified.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
Alterations in the male reproductive
has followed a cumulative risk approach
system from subchronic exposure to
based on a common mechanism of
THFA also indicates a concern for
toxicity, EPA has not made a common
alterations in the developing male
reproductive system. The available data mechanism of toxicity finding as to
THFA and any other substances and
show there is evidence of increased
THFA does not appear to produce a
susceptibility (both quantitative and
qualitative) of the offspring after in utero toxic metabolite produced by other
exposure to THFA, including decreased substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not
fetal body weights.
assumed that THFA has a common
The screening level dietary exposure
mechanism of toxicity with other
assessment showed that the risks were
substances. For information regarding
above the Agency’s level of concern for
EPA’s efforts to determine which
the general population and the most
chemicals have a common mechanism
highly exposed sub-population
of toxicity and to evaluate the
(children 1 to 2 years old). Because of
cumulative effects of such chemicals,
these risk levels, the unlimited
see the policy statements released by
exemption from a tolerance as is
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
currently granted to THFA under 40
concerning common mechanism
CFR 180.910 does not meet the safety
determinations and procedures for
requirements of FFDCA section
cumulating effects from substances
408(b)(2). Therefore, EPA is proposing
found to have a common mechanism on
to revoke the existing THFA tolerance
exemption, revocation to be effective 18 EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/.
months after publication of the final
ii. Determination of safety for U.S.
rule.
population, infants and children.
The assessment documents for THFA
Considering that dietary (food and
are available electronically under EPA–
drinking water) and residential risks are
HQ–OPP–2006–0251 at https://
not of concern under the use limitations
www.regulations.gov.
of the new exemption, EPA finds that
2. EPA has identified uses of THFA
exempting THFA with the limitations in
that do not pose risks of concern. EPA
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
II. Background and Statutory Findings
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18691
§ 180.1263 will be safe for the general
population including infants and
children.
iii. Analytical enforcement
methodology. An analytical method is
not required for the new tolerance
exemption for enforcement purposes
because the Agency is establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
taking this Action?
A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the
maximum level for residues of pesticide
chemicals legally allowed in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed
foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by the FQPA of 1996,
Public Law 104–170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and
revocation of tolerances for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed
foods. Without a tolerance or
exemption, food containing pesticide
residues is considered to be unsafe and
therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section
402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in
interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)).
For a food-use pesticide to be sold and
distributed, the pesticide must not only
have appropriate tolerances under the
FFDCA, but also must be registered
under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Food-use pesticides not registered in the
United States must have tolerances in
order for commodities treated with
those pesticides to be imported into the
United States.
C. When do these Actions Become
Effective?
EPA is proposing to revoke THFA’s
current tolerance exemption in 40 CFR
180.910, effective 18 months after the
date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. Any commodities
listed in this proposal treated with
pesticide products containing the inert
ingredient THFA, 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 pesticide chemicals 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
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18692
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the food under a tolerance or exemption
from tolerance. Evidence to show that
food was lawfully treated may include
records that verify the dates when the
pesticide was applied to such food.
EPA is proposing that the
establishment of a new tolerance
exemption under § 180.1263 for use of
THFA will become effective on the date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Applications for new
pesticide products that include THFA
will be subject to the limitations of the
new tolerance exemption as of the date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance
Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August
2006 to reassess the tolerancesand
exemptions from tolerances that were in
existence on August 2, 1996. This
document proposes to place an 18
month expiration date on one inert
ingredient tolerance exemption, which
will be counted in a final rule as a
tolerance reassessment toward the
August 2006 review deadline under
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by
FQPA in 1996.
III. Are the Proposed Actions
Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance revocation in this
proposal is not discriminatory and is
designed to ensure that both
domestically-produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standard
established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to
domestically produced and imported
foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the U.S.
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 (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:12 Apr 11, 2006
Jkt 208001
(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
This proposed rule establishes a
tolerance under section 408(d) of the
FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) 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 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 0MB 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 0MB 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).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.), the
Agency previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerances, raising of tolerance
levels, expansion of exemptions, or
revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these actions do not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. These analyses
for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance
revocations were published on May 4,
1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December
17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively,
and were provided to the chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account
this analysis, and available information
concerning the pesticides listed in this
proposed rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will
not have a significant negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Specifically, the Agency has
concluded in a memorandum dated May
25, 2001 that for import tolerance
revocation there is a negligible joint
probability of certain defined conditions
holding simultaneously which would
indicate an RFA/SBREFA concern and
require more analysis. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of
this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the
pesticide named in this proposed rule,
the Agency knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
present proposal that would change the
EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments
about the Agency’s determination
should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and
will be addressed prior to issuing a final
rule.
In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This proposed
rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
18693
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
*
*
*
*
3. Section 180.1263 is added to
subpart D to read as follows:
§ 180.1263 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol;
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA,
CAS Reg. No. 97–99–4) is exempt from
the requirement of a tolerance in or on
all raw agricultural commodities when
used in accordance with good
agricultural practices as an inert
ingredient applied only:
(a) For use as a seed treatment.
(b) For application at the time of
planting.
(c) For use on cotton.
(d) For use in herbicides with one
application to wheat and barley prior to
the pre-boot stage.
[FR Doc. E6–5399 Filed 4–11–06; 8:45 arn]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 06–611; MB Docket No. 06–59, RM–
11319]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Gravette, AR and Southwest City, MO
Jkt 208001
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and
post-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
*
*
*
Limits
*
15:12 Apr 11, 2006
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
PART 180—[AMENDED]
2. Section 180.910 is amended by
revising the entry for Tetrahydrofurfuryl
alcohol in the table to read as follows:
*
*
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA) (CAS Reg. No 97–99–4)
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Inert ingredients
AGENCY:
Dated: April 6, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
Uses
*
*
*
*
Expires [insert date 18 months after date of
publication of the Final rule in the FEDERAL
REGISTER]
*
*
*
*
SUMMARY: This document sets forth a
proposal to amend the FM Table of
Allotments, section 73.202(b) of the
Commission’s rules. The Audio Division
requests comment on a petition filed by
KERM, Inc. pursuant to section 1.420(i)
of the Commission’s rules. Petitioner
proposes to change the community of
license for Station KURM–FM from
Southwest City, Missouri, to Gravette,
Arkansas, and to change the FM Table
of Allotments by deleting Channel 262A
at Southwest City, Missouri, and by
adding Channel 262A at Gravette,
Arkansas, as the community’s first local
aural broadcast service. The proposed
coordinates for Channel 262A at
Gravette, Arkansas, are 36–25–54 NL
and 94–30–46 WL. The allotment will
require a site restriction of 5.4 km (3.4
miles) west of Gravette.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before May 8, 2006, and reply comments
on or before May 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for the petitioner as follows:
Dan J. Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of
Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Road,
Arlington, Virginia 22201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah A. Dupont, Media Bureau (202)
418–7072.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
*
Solvent/cosolvent
06–59; adopted March 15, 2006, and
released March 17, 2006. The full text
of this Commission document is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center
(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of
this decision may also be purchased
from the Commission’s copy 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. This document does
not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
The Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding. Members of the public
should note that from the time a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making is issued until
the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings,
such as this one, which involve channel
allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for
rules governing permissible ex parte
contacts.
E:\FR\FM\12APP1.SGM
12APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18689-18693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HO-OPP-2006-0251; FRL-7771-3]
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol (THFA); Proposed Action on Tolerance
Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(e)(1) to revoke the existing exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the inert
ingredient tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA) (CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4)
under 40 CFR 180.910 because it does not meet the safety requirements
of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). While EPA has determined that dietary risks
from use of THFA exceed the Agency's level of concern, limited uses of
THFA may be permitted. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to establish
for THFA an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR
180.1263 that includes use limitations. The regulatory action proposed
in this document contributes toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment
requirements under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA)
[[Page 18690]]
of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the
tolerances that were in existence on August 2, 1996. The regulatory
action proposed in this document pertains to the proposed revocation of
one tolerance which would be counted as tolerance reassessment toward
the August 2006 review deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket identification
number (ID) No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0251, by one of the following methods:
http:/ /www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
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.
Hand Delivery. Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0251. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is (703) 305-5805. 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 No. EPA-HQ- OPP-
2006-0251. 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.regulatioris.gov/, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the 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 the EPA Docket Center
homepage athttps://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 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: Karen Angulo, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: 703-306-0404; e-mail address: angulo.karen@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 be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
[[Page 18691]]
II. Background and Statutory Findings
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA is now in the process of reassessing all inert ingredient
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance (``tolerance
exemptions'') established prior to August 2, 1996, as required by the
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by the FQPA. Inert ingredient
chemicals must meet a high safety standard in order to merit an
exemption from the numerical residue limitations that are imposed in a
tolerance.
1. In evaluating the inert ingredient THFA, the Agency has
determined that dietary risks of concern may result from the use of
THFA under the current tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.910, which
allows an unlimited amount of THFA to be applied to growing crops and
raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
The hazard characterization of THFA shows effects of concern.
Consistent systemic effects from repeated dermal and oral exposure to
THFA include decreased body weight and body weight gain. Effects were
consistent over species and routes of exposure. While no neurotoxicity
studies were performed, whole body spasms were reported in the
subchronic inhalation study.
Developmental and reproductive effects of concern have been
identified. Alterations in the male reproductive system from subchronic
exposure to THFA also indicates a concern for alterations in the
developing male reproductive system. The available data show there is
evidence of increased susceptibility (both quantitative and
qualitative) of the offspring after in utero exposure to THFA,
including decreased fetal body weights.
The screening level dietary exposure assessment showed that the
risks were above the Agency's level of concern for the general
population and the most highly exposed sub-population (children 1 to 2
years old). Because of these risk levels, the unlimited exemption from
a tolerance as is currently granted to THFA under 40 CFR 180.910 does
not meet the safety requirements of FFDCA section 408(b)(2). Therefore,
EPA is proposing to revoke the existing THFA tolerance exemption,
revocation to be effective 18 months after publication of the final
rule.
The assessment documents for THFA are available electronically
under EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0251 at https://www.regulations.gov.
2. EPA has identified uses of THFA that do not pose risks of
concern. EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance exemption under
Sec. 180.1263 that permits:
(1) Use as a seed treatment,
(2) Application at the time of planting,
(3) Application to cotton, and,
(4) Use in herbicides with one application to wheat and barley
prior to the pre-boot stage.
These limitations significantly reduce the number of times that THFA
may be applied per season - often to one application only -- and,
therefore, reduce the potential for dietary exposures below the
Agency's level of concern. Contributions to surface/drinking water are
not anticipated from the use of THFA-containing pesticide products
under the proposed use limitations considering THFA's physical-chemical
properties and biodegradation potential in the environment. No
residential risks of concern are anticipated at this time for the new
tolerance exemption.
i. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to THFA and any other
substances and THFA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that THFA has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's
efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/cumulative/.
ii. Determination of safety for U.S. population, infants and
children. Considering that dietary (food and drinking water) and
residential risks are not of concern under the use limitations of the
new exemption, EPA finds that exempting THFA with the limitations in
Sec. 180.1263 will be safe for the general population including
infants and children.
iii. Analytical enforcement methodology. An analytical method is
not required for the new tolerance exemption for enforcement purposes
because the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for taking this Action?
A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104-170, authorizes the
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or exemption, food containing
pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and distributed, the
pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances under the FFDCA,
but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). Food-
use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances
in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported
into the United States.
C. When do these Actions Become Effective?
EPA is proposing to revoke THFA's current tolerance exemption in 40
CFR 180.910, effective 18 months after the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register. Any commodities listed in this
proposal treated with pesticide products containing the inert
ingredient THFA, 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
pesticide chemicals 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
[[Page 18692]]
the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the
dates when the pesticide was applied to such food.
EPA is proposing that the establishment of a new tolerance
exemption under Sec. 180.1263 for use of THFA will become effective on
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Applications for new pesticide products that include THFA will be
subject to the limitations of the new tolerance exemption as of the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the
tolerancesand exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on
August 2, 1996. This document proposes to place an 18 month expiration
date on one inert ingredient tolerance exemption, which will be counted
in a final rule as a tolerance reassessment toward the August 2006
review deadline under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.
III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International
Obligations?
The tolerance revocation in this proposal is not discriminatory and
is designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. 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 (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3).
This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic
copies are available on the internet at 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
This proposed rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office
of Management and Budget (0MB) 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 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 0MB
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 0MB 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).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C 601 et
seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels,
expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance
establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were
published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR
66020), respectively, and were provided to the chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this
analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in
this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed
action will not have a significant negative economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Specifically, the Agency has
concluded in a memorandum dated May 25, 2001 that for import tolerance
revocation there is a negligible joint probability of certain defined
conditions holding simultaneously which would indicate an RFA/SBREFA
concern and require more analysis. (This Agency document is available
in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticide
named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that would change
the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the Agency's
determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the
proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule.
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
[[Page 18693]]
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: April 6, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.910 is amended by revising the entry for
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol in the table to read as follows:
Sec. 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol Expires [insert Solvent/cosolvent
(THFA) (CAS Reg. No 97-99-4) date 18 months
after date of
publication of
the Final rule in
the Federal
Register]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section 180.1263 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1263 Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.
Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol (THFA, CAS Reg. No. 97-99-4) is exempt
from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural
commodities when used in accordance with good agricultural practices as
an inert ingredient applied only:
(a) For use as a seed treatment.
(b) For application at the time of planting.
(c) For use on cotton.
(d) For use in herbicides with one application to wheat and barley
prior to the pre-boot stage.
[FR Doc. E6-5399 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 arn]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S