Inorganic Bromide; Proposed Tolerance Actions, 30845-30848 [E6-8398]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to
approve two separate State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Governor of New
Mexico. The first submittal, dated
September 7, 2004, adopts local
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
and incorporates by reference the
Federal National AAQS for the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New
Mexico area. The second submittal,
dated July 28, 2005, revises the Variance
Procedure for the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, New Mexico area.
We are proposing to approve these two
separate SIP revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, section 110.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD–L), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/
courier by following the detailed
instructions in the Addresses section of
the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alan Shar, Air Planning Section (6PD–
L), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at (214) 665–
6691, or shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this action rule,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please
note that if EPA receives relevant
adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if
that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that
are not the subject of an adverse
comment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: May 19, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 06–4920 Filed 5–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0123; FRL–8061–7]
Inorganic Bromide; Proposed
Tolerance Actions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that 12
specific inorganic bromide tolerances
have been reassessed and is proposing
to revoke them because they are no
longer needed. These twelve tolerances
are for residues of inorganic bromide
from pre-plant (non-food) use in or on
raw agricultural commodities grown in
soil fumigated with combinations of
chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and
propargyl bromide. Although methyl
bromide is used as an agricultural
pesticide, the Agency considers its
application as a soil fumigant to be a
non-food use because it is quickly
degraded or metabolized in the soil, and
subsequently incorporated into natural
plant constituents.Methyl bromide is
also emitted to the atmosphere.
Residues of the parent compound are
not likely to be found in foods as a
result of prior treatment of fields. While
residues of inorganic bromide may be
present, these residues are
indistinguishable from background
because of inorganic bromide’s ubiquity
in the environment. In addition, the
Agency has concluded that inorganic
bromide residue from such use is not of
risk concern and has determined those
twelve tolerances to be safe.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to
revoke them because no tolerances are
needed for those non-food uses and the
Agency considers these tolerances to be
reassessed. Furthermore, since methyl
bromide, when applied as a pre-plant
soil fumigant is a non-food use, it
should be added as an entry to 40 CFR
180.2020 noting the non-food use
determination. The regulatory actions
proposed in this document contribute
toward the Agency’s tolerance
reassessment requirements under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30845
(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
that were in existence on August 2,
1996. The regulatory actions proposed
in this document pertain to the
proposed revocation of 12 tolerances
that count as tolerance reassessments
toward the August 2006 review
deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0123, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building); 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
docket telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–
0123. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket
without change and may be made
available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The Federal regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket
and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
30846
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov,
or, if only available in hard copy, at the
OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Weiss, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (703) 308–8293; email address: weiss.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
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. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
Previously, EPA had established
tolerances for residues of inorganic
bromide for soil treatment with methyl
bromide. However, EPA has classified
methyl bromide as a non-food use
pesticide with regard to its soil fumigant
uses and proposes to revoke tolerances
for inorganic bromide. The Agency
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stated that although methyl bromide is
used as an agricultural pesticide, it is
considered a non-food use chemical for
soil fumigation uses since it is quickly
degraded or metabolized in the soil, and
subsequently incorporated into natural
plant constituents. Methyl bromide is
also emitted to the atmosphere.
Residues of the parent compound are
not likely to be found in foods as a
result of prior treatment of fields. While
residues of inorganic bromide may be
present, these residues are
indistinguishable from background
because of inorganic bromide’s ubiquity
in the environment. Therefore,
tolerances are not required for soil
fumigant uses of methyl bromide, and
tolerances currently established for
residues of inorganic bromide resulting
from methyl bromide soil fumigation
(40 CFR 180.199) should be revoked.
Supporting documents are available in
the docket of this proposed rule.
Tolerances and tolerance exemptions
established under part 180 apply to
residues from only preharvest
application, unless otherwise specified,
in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(i). On
April 17, 2003 (68 FR 18935) (FRL–
7180–2), EPA made pesticide tolerance
nomenclature changes including a
nomenclature change in 40 CFR part
180 regarding the term ‘‘preharvest’’
such that in 40 CFR 180.199(c) the
regional tolerance for ‘‘ginger, roots, preH and post-H’’ was revised to ‘‘ginger,
roots, postharvest.’’ Nevertheless, the
tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.199(c) applies to the raw
agricultural commodity grown in soil
fumigated with combinations of methyl
bromide and chloropicrin, and therefore
the regional tolerance on ginger, roots,
postharvest should be revoked because
that tolerance is no longer needed for
soil fumigant use and use on ginger,
roots, post-harvest is covered by a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.123.
Considering all the above factors (that
the only residue of concern in pre-plant
soil fumigation with methyl bromide is
methyl bromide per se and there being
no reasonable expectation of methyl
bromide residues in most crops planted
and grown in the fumigated soil, and
that inorganic bromide is not of risk
concern), as well as the low likelihood
of identifying control samples for
tolerance enforcement which would be
bromide-free, the conclusion that soil
fumigation uses of methyl bromide
should be considered non-food uses
means that the tolerances for residues of
inorganic bromide resulting from such
use are therefore unnecessary.
Accordingly, EPA believes that the 12
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.199(a) for
residues of inorganic bromides in or on
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules
broccoli, cauliflower, eggplants,
muskmelons, peppers, pineapples,
strawberries, and tomatoes; in 40 CFR
180.199(b) on asparagus, lettuce, and
onions (dry bulb); and in 40 CFR
180.199(c) on ginger, roots are not
required under FFDCA and can be
revoked. The Agency considers the
twelve tolerances to be reassessed and
counts them toward meeting the
tolerance reassessment requirements
listed in FFDCA section 408(q).
Furthermore, since methyl bromide,
when applied as a pre-plant soil
fumigant is a non-food use, it should be
added as an entry to 40 CFR 180.2020
noting the non-food use determination.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
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 FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such
food may not be distributed in interstate
commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed,
the pesticide must not only have
appropriate tolerances under 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 that revocation of
these tolerances become effective on the
date of publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. The Agency has
determined that there is no reasonable
expectation that residues of the
pesticides listed in this proposed rule
will be found on the commodities
discussed in this proposed rule and
therefore the lack of the tolerances does
not prevent sale of the commodities.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance
Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August
2006 to reassess the tolerances in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
existence on August 2, 1996. As of May
18, 2006, EPA has reassessed over 8,130
tolerances. This document proposes to
revoke a total of 12 tolerances and
counts them 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
foods meet the food safety standard
established by 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
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30847
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 the fact that
there is no reasonable expectation that
residues of the pesticides listed in this
proposed rule will be found on the
commodities discussed in this proposed
rule (so that the lack of the tolerance
could not prevent sale of the
commodity), the Agency hereby certifies
that this proposed action will not have
a significant negative economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. In a memorandum dated May
25, 2001, EPA determined that eight
conditions must all be satisfied in order
for an import tolerance or tolerance
exemption revocation to adversely affect
a significant number of small entity
importers, and that there is a negligible
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
30848
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules
joint probability of all eight conditions
holding simultaneously with respect to
any particular revocation. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of
this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the
pesticide named in this proposed rule,
the Agency knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
present proposal that would change 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
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
Pesticide Chemical
Chemical CAS Reg. No.
Methyl Bromide
74–83–9
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–8398 Filed 5–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 03–123; FCC 06–57]
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities; Video Relay Service
Interoperability
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
and how an open global database of
proxy numbers of Video Relay Service
(VRS) users may be created so that a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
*
*
*
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 19, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended asfollows:
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.
§ 180.199
[Removed]
2. Section 180.199 is removed.
3. Section 180.2020 is amended by
adding alphabetically the following
entry to the table to read as follows.
§ 180.2020
Non-food determinations.
*
*
*
Limits
*
*
Uses
When applied as a preplant soil fumigant
*
*
hearing person may call a VRS user
through any VRS provider without
having to ascertain the first VRS user’s
current Internet-Protocol (IP) address.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
July 17, 2006. Reply comments are due
on or before July 31, 2006. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) proposed information
collection requirements must be
submitted by the general public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before July
31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [CG Docket number 03–
123 and/or FCC Number 06–57], by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
PO 00000
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.
All pre-plant soil uses
• People with Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone (202) 418–0539 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. In addition, a
copy of any comments on the PRA
information collection requirements
contained herein should be submitted to
Leslie Smith, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 1–A804, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or
via the Internet to Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov,
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk
Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or
via the Internet to
Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via
fax at (202) 395–5167.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30845-30848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8398]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123; FRL-8061-7]
Inorganic Bromide; Proposed Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that 12 specific inorganic bromide
tolerances have been reassessed and is proposing to revoke them because
they are no longer needed. These twelve tolerances are for residues of
inorganic bromide from pre-plant (non-food) use in or on raw
agricultural commodities grown in soil fumigated with combinations of
chloropicrin, methyl bromide, and propargyl bromide. Although methyl
bromide is used as an agricultural pesticide, the Agency considers its
application as a soil fumigant to be a non-food use because it is
quickly degraded or metabolized in the soil, and subsequently
incorporated into natural plant constituents.Methyl bromide is also
emitted to the atmosphere. Residues of the parent compound are not
likely to be found in foods as a result of prior treatment of fields.
While residues of inorganic bromide may be present, these residues are
indistinguishable from background because of inorganic bromide's
ubiquity in the environment. In addition, the Agency has concluded that
inorganic bromide residue from such use is not of risk concern and has
determined those twelve tolerances to be safe. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to revoke them because no tolerances are needed for those
non-food uses and the Agency considers these tolerances to be
reassessed. Furthermore, since methyl bromide, when applied as a pre-
plant soil fumigant is a non-food use, it should be added as an entry
to 40 CFR 180.2020 noting the non-food use determination. The
regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute toward the
Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements under 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 that were in existence on August
2, 1996. The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to
the proposed revocation of 12 tolerances that count as tolerance
reassessments toward the August 2006 review deadline.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0123. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
[[Page 30846]]
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation for this docket facility are from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Weiss, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8293; e-mail
address: weiss.steven@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. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
Previously, EPA had established tolerances for residues of
inorganic bromide for soil treatment with methyl bromide. However, EPA
has classified methyl bromide as a non-food use pesticide with regard
to its soil fumigant uses and proposes to revoke tolerances for
inorganic bromide. The Agency stated that although methyl bromide is
used as an agricultural pesticide, it is considered a non-food use
chemical for soil fumigation uses since it is quickly degraded or
metabolized in the soil, and subsequently incorporated into natural
plant constituents. Methyl bromide is also emitted to the atmosphere.
Residues of the parent compound are not likely to be found in foods as
a result of prior treatment of fields. While residues of inorganic
bromide may be present, these residues are indistinguishable from
background because of inorganic bromide's ubiquity in the environment.
Therefore, tolerances are not required for soil fumigant uses of methyl
bromide, and tolerances currently established for residues of inorganic
bromide resulting from methyl bromide soil fumigation (40 CFR 180.199)
should be revoked. Supporting documents are available in the docket of
this proposed rule.
Tolerances and tolerance exemptions established under part 180
apply to residues from only preharvest application, unless otherwise
specified, in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(i). On April 17, 2003 (68 FR
18935) (FRL-7180-2), EPA made pesticide tolerance nomenclature changes
including a nomenclature change in 40 CFR part 180 regarding the term
``preharvest'' such that in 40 CFR 180.199(c) the regional tolerance
for ``ginger, roots, pre-H and post-H'' was revised to ``ginger, roots,
postharvest.'' Nevertheless, the tolerance expression in 40 CFR
180.199(c) applies to the raw agricultural commodity grown in soil
fumigated with combinations of methyl bromide and chloropicrin, and
therefore the regional tolerance on ginger, roots, postharvest should
be revoked because that tolerance is no longer needed for soil fumigant
use and use on ginger, roots, post-harvest is covered by a tolerance
under 40 CFR 180.123.
Considering all the above factors (that the only residue of concern
in pre-plant soil fumigation with methyl bromide is methyl bromide per
se and there being no reasonable expectation of methyl bromide residues
in most crops planted and grown in the fumigated soil, and that
inorganic bromide is not of risk concern), as well as the low
likelihood of identifying control samples for tolerance enforcement
which would be bromide-free, the conclusion that soil fumigation uses
of methyl bromide should be considered non-food uses means that the
tolerances for residues of inorganic bromide resulting from such use
are therefore unnecessary. Accordingly, EPA believes that the 12
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.199(a) for residues of inorganic bromides in
or on
[[Page 30847]]
broccoli, cauliflower, eggplants, muskmelons, peppers, pineapples,
strawberries, and tomatoes; in 40 CFR 180.199(b) on asparagus, lettuce,
and onions (dry bulb); and in 40 CFR 180.199(c) on ginger, roots are
not required under FFDCA and can be revoked. The Agency considers the
twelve tolerances to be reassessed and counts them toward meeting the
tolerance reassessment requirements listed in FFDCA section 408(q).
Furthermore, since methyl bromide, when applied as a pre-plant soil
fumigant is a non-food use, it should be added as an entry to 40 CFR
180.2020 noting the non-food use determination.
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 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 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 that revocation of these tolerances become
effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. The Agency has determined that there is no reasonable
expectation that residues of the pesticides listed in this proposed
rule will be found on the commodities discussed in this proposed rule
and therefore the lack of the tolerances does not prevent sale of the
commodities.
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 May 18, 2006, EPA has reassessed
over 8,130 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a total of 12
tolerances and counts them 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
foods meet the food safety standard established by 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
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 the
fact that there is no reasonable expectation that residues of the
pesticides listed in this proposed rule will be found on the
commodities discussed in this proposed rule (so that the lack of the
tolerance could not prevent sale of the commodity), the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions
must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance
exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small
entity importers, and that there is a negligible
[[Page 30848]]
joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with
respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is
available in the docket of this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the
pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no
extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposal that
would change 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 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: May 19, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
asfollows:
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. 180.199 [Removed]
2. Section 180.199 is removed.
3. Section 180.2020 is amended by adding alphabetically the
following entry to the table to read as follows.
Sec. 180.2020 Non-food determinations.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticide Chemical Chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits Uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methyl Bromide 74-83-9 When applied as a pre- All pre-plant soil uses
plant soil fumigant
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E6-8398 Filed 5-30-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S