Metolachlor, S-Metolachlor, Bifenazate, Buprofezin, and 2,4-D; Proposed Tolerance Actions, 30487-30493 [E9-15139]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the public on this proposal for the next
30 days. Unless we receive convincing
new information during the comment
period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate
these rules into the federally enforceable
SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 8, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9–15145 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0239; FRL–8411–5]
Metolachlor, S-Metolachlor, Bifenazate,
Buprofezin, and 2,4-D; Proposed
Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to modify,
establish and revoke certain tolerances
for the herbicides metolachlor and Smetolachlor and correct the tolerance
guava (from guave) on bifenazate and
buprofezin and 2,4-D on cranberry. The
regulatory actions proposed in this
document are in follow-up to the
Agency’s reregistration program under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance
reassessment program under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
section 408(q).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 25, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0239, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30487
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–
0239. 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 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 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 available
at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 either 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 Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
30488
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane
Smith, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (703) 308–
0048; e-mail address: smith.janescott@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.A. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
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?
EPA is proposing to modify, revoke,
and establish specific tolerances for
residues of the herbicides metolachlor,
S-metolachlor, bifenazate, buprofezin,
and 2,4-D in or on commodities listed
in the regulatory text.
EPA is proposing these tolerance
actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including
follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these
processes, EPA is required to determine
whether each of the amended tolerances
meets the safety standard of FFDCA.
The safety finding determination of
‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm’’ is
discussed in detail in each
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
and Report of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance
Reassessment Progress and Risk
Management Decision (TRED) for the
active ingredient. REDs and TREDs
recommend the implementation of
certain tolerance actions, including
modifications to reflect current use
patterns, meet safety findings, and
change commodity names and
groupings in accordance with new EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
policy. Printed copies of many REDs
and TREDs may be obtained from EPA’s
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
OH 45242–2419; telephone number: 1–
800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489–
8695; Internet at https://www.epa.gov/
ncepihom and from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA
22161; telephone number: 1–800–553–
6847 or (703) 605–6000; Internet at
https://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of
REDs and TREDs are available on the
Internet at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/reregistration/status.htm and
in the public docket, at https://
www.regulations.gov.
The selection of an individual
tolerance level is based on crop field
residue studies designed to produce the
maximum residues under the existing or
proposed product label. Generally, the
level selected for a tolerance is a value
slightly above the maximum residue
found in such studies, provided that the
tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate
inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of
a tolerance when data show that:
1. Lawful use (sometimes through a
label change) may result in a higher
residue level on the commodity.
2. The tolerance remains safe,
notwithstanding increased residue level
allowed under the tolerance.
In REDs, Chapter IV on ‘‘Risk
management, Reregistration, and
Tolerance reassessment’’ typically
describes the regulatory position, FQPA
assessment, cumulative safety
determination, determination of safety
for U.S. general population, and safety
for infants and children. In particular,
the human health risk assessment
document which supports the RED
describes risk exposure estimates and
whether the Agency has concerns. In
TREDs, the Agency discusses its
evaluation of the dietary risk associated
with the active ingredient and whether
it can determine that there is a
reasonable certainty (with appropriate
mitigation) that no harm to any
population subgroup will result from
aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to
harmonize tolerances with international
standards set by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, as described in Unit III.
Explanations for proposed
modifications in tolerances can be
found in the RED and TRED document
and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which
supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter
documents are found in the
Administrative Record and EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
electronic copies are available through
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system, regulations.gov at
https://www.regulations.gov. You may
search for docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0239, EPA–HQ–OPP–2002–
0223, EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0445, EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0674, EPA–HQ–OPP–
2007–0097, and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
1170, then click on that docket ID
number to view its contents.
EPA has determined that the aggregate
exposures and risks are not of concern
for the above-mentioned pesticide active
ingredients based upon the data
identified in the RED or TRED which
lists the submitted studies that the
Agency found acceptable.
EPA has found that the tolerances that
are proposed in this document to be
modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residues, in accordance with
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that
changes to tolerance nomenclature do
not constitute modifications of
tolerances). These findings are
discussed in detail in each RED or
TRED. The references are available for
inspection as described in this
document under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
In the Federal Register notices
published August 8, 2007 (72 FR 44439)
(FRL–8138–8) and May 21, 2008 (73 FR
29456) (FRL–8362–1), EPA proposed to
revoke, modify, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the herbicides
metolachlor and S-metolachlor as well
as tolerances for other pesticide
chemicals. These proposals provided a
60–day comment period which invited
public comment for consideration and
for support of tolerance retention under
FFDCA standards. These proposed
actions were finalized on September 10,
2008 (73 FR 52607) (FRL–8379–3) and
September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732)
(FRL–8375–2). The Agency received
comments to the proposal published
August 8, 2007 on S-metolachlor in
which we indicated we would respond
in the future. This action responds to
those comments and addresses other
tolerance actions associated with
metolachlor, S-metolachlor, bifenazate
and buprofezin. The proposal published
May 21, 2008 provides related
information on metolachlor and Smetolachlor.
1. Metolachlor/S-metolachlor. The
Agency received comments from
Syngenta (EPA–HQ–2007–0445–0013)
in response to the Federal Register
proposal published August 8, 2007 (73
FR 53732) as follows:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
(i) Revocation of tolerance in stone fruit–
Use of S-Metolachlor in stone fruit is an
important tool for Canadian fruit producers
and therefore, it would be beneficial to
maintain U.S. tolerances to avoid any trade
irritant issues for these crops being exported
from Canada to the U.S. Canada currently has
a tolerance of 0.1 ppm for S-metolachlor in
apples, apricots, cherries, peaches/
nectarines, pears and plums.
(ii) Increase in tolerance for Crop Group 6A
from 0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm–Canada currently
has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for S-metolachlor
in peas and snap beans. An increase in the
U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant
for these crops exported from the U.S. to
Canada.
(iii) Decrease in tolerance for Crop Group
6C from 0.3 ppm to 0.1 ppm–Canada
currently has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for Smetolachlor in dry beans. A decrease in the
U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant
for these crops exported from Canada to the
U.S.
(iv) Increase in tolerance for egg and meat
from 0.02 pm to 0.04 ppm–Canada currently
has a tolerance of 0.02 ppm for S-metolachlor
in eggs, meat of cattle, goats, hogs, poultry
and sheep. An increase in the U.S. tolerance
could result in a trade irritant for these
animal products exported from the U.S. to
Canada.
(v) Increase tolerance in animal liver from
0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm–Canada currently has
a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for S-metolachlor in
liver of cattle and poultry. An increase in the
U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant
for these animal products exported from the
U.S. to Canada.
The Agency responded to Syngenta’s
first comment (i) on September 17, 2008
(73 FR 53732). In response to the
remaining comments (ii)–(v), the
Agency has re-evaluated new and
existing data for the legume crop group
6, and existing data for cattle meat, fat
and liver, poultry meat, fat and egg for
both metolachlor and S-metolachlor
which, in general, the Agency agrees
with the comments. The maximum Smetolachlor residue field trial data in/
on legume vegetables support the
harmonization of the corresponding
legume vegetable crop group 6
tolerances with the Canadian MRLs at
0.3 ppm for existing S-metolachor
tolerances and the establishment of a
tolerance of 0.3 ppm in/on pea and
bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B
where maximum residues were 0.14
ppm. Extrapolating the residue data
from the ruminant feeding study to a 1x
feeding level for cattle, goats, horses,
and sheep the maximum combined
residues of concern for metolachlor and
S-metolachlor would be 0.01 ppm in
meat and fat and 0.03 ppm in liver; and
considering the harmonization of
tolerances with Canadian MRLs under
the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), the Agency
determined that the tolerances should
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30489
be decreased for cattle, goat, horse, and
sheep liver to 0.05 ppm and meat and
fat to 0.02 ppm. Based on feeding
studies in hens dosed up to 3.9x the
maximum theoretical dietary burden,
metolachlor and S-metolachlor residues
of concern were not detected (< 0.02
ppm the levels of quantitation (LOQ)) in
eggs, liver, fat, meat and meat
byproducts and the importance of
harmonizing MRLs with Canada, the
Agency determined the tolerances for
eggs and poultry meat and fat should be
0.02 ppm and poultry meat byproducts
(which includes liver) should be 0.05
ppm The Agency inadvertently
published the harmonized tolerances for
residues of S-metolachlor in/on cattle
meat and liver, poultry meat and egg in
the Federal Register published
September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732)
before proposing and receiving
comment which we are correcting with
this action. Therefore, EPA proposes the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) for
the combined S-metolachlor residues of
concern be established for pea and bean,
succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.30
ppm; increased in/on pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C from 0.10 ppm to 0.30 ppm;
decreased in/on vegetable, legume,
edible podded, subgroup 6A from 0.50
ppm to 0.30 ppm; cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep, liver from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm;
cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, meat and
fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; egg and
poultry, meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02
ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts
from 0.04 to 0.05 ppm. Also, EPA
proposes the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.368(a)(1) for the combined
metolachlor residues of concern be
increased in/on pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C
from 0.10 ppm to 0.3 ppm; decreased
in/on vegetable, legume, edible podded,
subgroup 6A from 0.50 ppm to 0.30
ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, liver
from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep, meat and fat from 0.04
to 0.02 ppm; egg and poultry, meat and
fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; and poultry,
meat byproducts from 0.04 to 0.05 ppm.
The Agency determined that the
increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to
the pesticide chemical residue.
Additional rotational crop field trials
conducted with S-metolachlor on wheat
and oats indicate that the maximum
residues levels were 0.40 ppm in/on oat
forage, 0.50 ppm in/on oat hay, 0.09
ppm in/on oat straw, <0.08 ppm in/on
wheat and oat grain, 0.47 ppm in/on
wheat forage, 0.26 ppm in/on wheat
hay, and 0.28 ppm in/on wheat straw.
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
30490
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Based on these residues levels and
translating these data to the other small
grains, the Agency has determined that
the tolerances should be 0.50 ppm for
barley, oat, wheat and millet hay; 0.10
ppm for millet, grain; and 0.50 ppm for
millet, forage and straw. Based on
residue data conducted on soybean,
corn, wheat and sorghum, the maximum
residues found on aspirated grain
fractions were 0.63 ppm; therefore, the
Agency has determined that the
tolerance for aspirated grain fractions
(AGF) should be 0.7 ppm. Rice straw is
no longer considered a significant
animal feed item, therefore, tolerances
are no longer required for rice straw.
Therefore, EPA proposes tolerances in
40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) be established for
the combined S-metolachlor residues of
concern in/on grain, aspirated fractions
at 0.70 ppm; and in 40 CFR
180.368(d)(2) be revoked on rice, straw
at 0.50 ppm; decreased on barley, oat,
and wheat, hay from 1.0 ppm to 0.50
ppm; established on millet, grain at 0.10
ppm; millet, forage at 0.50 ppm; millet,
hay at 0.50 ppm; and millet, straw at
0.50 ppm.
Additional rotational crop field trials
conducted on wheat and oats with
metolachlor indicate that the maximum
total residue levels were 0.35 ppm in/
on forage, 0.45 ppm in/on hay, 0.42
ppm in/on straw, and 0.03 ppm in/on
grain. Based on these residue levels and
translating these data to the other small
grains, the Agency has determined that
the tolerances for metolachlor residues
should be 0.80 ppm for barley, millet,
oat, and wheat hay; 0.10 ppm for barley,
buckwheat, millet, oat, rice, rye, and
wheat grain; and 0.50 ppm for millet,
oat, rye, and wheat forage and 0.80 ppm
for barley, millet, oat, rye, and wheat
straw. Rice straw is no longer
considered a significant animal feed
item, therefore, tolerances are no longer
required for rice straw. Currently, since
there are no active registrations with
uses of metolachlor on spinach, the
tolerance on spinach at 0.50 ppm
should be revoked. Therefore, EPA
proposes the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.368(d)(1) for the combined residues
of concern for metolachlor be
established on barley, millet, oat, and
wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm; increased on
barley, millet, oat, rye, and wheat straw
from 0.50 ppm to 0.80 ppm; and
revoked on rice, straw at 0.50 ppm and
in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) revoked on
spinach at 0.50 ppm. The Agency
determined that the increased tolerances
are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
In this action, the Agency has
proposed modifications to the
tolerances for the legume vegetable
subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) such that all
of the subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) have
the same tolerance of 0.30 ppm for both
metolachlor and S-metolachlor
consequently, these tolerances should
be consolidated as the vegetable,
legume, group 6 at 0.30 ppm. Therefore,
EPA proposes the tolerances be revised
in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) and (a)(2) for
the combined residues of concern for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor from
vegetable, legume, edible-podded,
subgroup 6A; pea and bean, succulent
shelled, subgroup 6B; and pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C to vegetable, legume, succulent or
dried, group 6.
2. Bifenazate. The Agency proposes
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.572(a) be
corrected to read guava rather than
guave.
3. Buprofezin. The Agency proposes
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.511(a) be
corrected to read guava rather than
guave.
4. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register of
June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL–
8122-7), the Agency incorrectly
proposed a tolerance action that
included the commodity cranberry in
berry, group 13 at 0.2 ppm in 40 CFR
180.142(a). That action removed the
individual cranberry tolerance at 0.5
ppm in 40 CFR 180.142(a). The proposal
was finalized September 12, 2007 (72
FR 52013) (FRL–8142–2). The berry
crop group 13 is not inclusive of
cranberries. Further, reestablishing the
cranberry tolerance at 0.5 ppm will
harmonize with the Canadian maximum
residue level (MRL) under the North
American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Therefore, the Agency
proposes reestablishing the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.142(a) for residues of 2,4-D
in/on cranberry at 0.5 ppm. The Agency
determined that the increased tolerances
are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue.
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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 that the actions
herein become effective on the date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
Any commodities listed in this
proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the
channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to
FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established
by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues
of these pesticides in or on such food
shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of
the Food and Drug Administration that:
1. The residue is present as the result
of an application or use of the pesticide
at a time and in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and
2. The residue does not exceed the
level that was authorized at the time of
the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
Evidence to show that food was lawfully
treated may include records that verify
the dates when the pesticide was
applied to such food.
III. Are the Proposed Actions
Consistent With International
Obligations?
The tolerance actions in this proposal
are not discriminatory and are designed
to ensure that both domestically
produced and imported foods meet the
food safety standards established by
FFDCA. The same food safety standards
apply to domestically produced and
imported foods.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/ World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level in a notice
published for public comment. EPA’s
effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is
summarized in the tolerance
reassessment section of individual REDs
and TREDs, and in the Residue
Chemistry document which supports
the RED and TRED, as mentioned in
Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in
this proposed rule and how they
compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are
discussed in Unit II.A.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to establish tolerances under
FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify
and revoke specific tolerances
established under FFDCA section 408.
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted these types of
actions (e.g., establishment and
modification of a tolerance and
tolerance revocation for which
extraordinary circumstances do not
exist) from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this 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,
entitled 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).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
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) (FRL–5753–1),
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 rule
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30491
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
9, 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: June 19, 2009
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
30492
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
PART 180—[AMENDED]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.142 is amended by
adding alphabectically the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
§ 180.142
2,4-D; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Cranberry ..................................
*
*
*
*
Parts per
million
*
0.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 180.368 is amended by
revising the table in paragraph (a)(1),
(a)(2), (d)(1) and (d)(2) to read as
follows:
§ 180.368
residues.
Parts per
million
Commodity
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Poultry, fat ................................
Poultry, meat ............................
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
Safflower, seed .........................
Sheep, fat .................................
Sheep, kidney ...........................
Sheep, liver ...............................
Sheep, meat .............................
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver .............
Sorghum, grain, forage .............
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
Soybean, forage .......................
Soybean, hay ............................
Soybean, seed ..........................
Tomato ......................................
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
subgroup 7A, except soybean ......................................
Vegetable, legume, succulent
or dried, group 6 ...................
(a) General. (1) * * *
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Parts per
million
0.30
1.0
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
6.0
0.10
6.0
6.0
0.10
6.0
4.0
0.10
0.50
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
10
0.20
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.50
0.20
20
0.40
0.20
Jkt 217001
15.0
0.30
Parts per
million
Commodity
Almond, hulls ............................
Animal feed, nongrass, group
18 ..........................................
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, kidney ............................
Cattle, liver ................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ..............
Corn, sweet, stover ..................
Cotton, gin byproducts .............
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Dill .............................................
Egg ...........................................
Goat, fat ....................................
Goat, kidney .............................
Goat, liver .................................
Goat, meat ................................
Goat, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Grass, forage ............................
Grass, hay ................................
Horse, fat ..................................
Horse, kidney ............................
Horse, liver ...............................
Horse, meat ..............................
Horse, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Milk ...........................................
Nut, tree, group 14 ...................
Okra ..........................................
Peanut ......................................
Peanut, hay ..............................
Peanut, meal ............................
Potato .......................................
0.04
1.0
0.30
4.0
5.0
8.0
0.20
0.10
(2) * * *
Metolachlor; tolerances for
Commodity
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
Asparagus .................................
Beet, sugar, molasses ..............
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ...............................
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, kidney ............................
Cattle, liver ................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, pop, grain ........................
Corn, pop, stover ......................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ..............
Corn, sweet, stover ..................
Cotton, gin byproducts .............
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Egg ...........................................
Garlic, bulb ...............................
Grain, aspirated fractions .........
Goat, fat ....................................
Goat, kidney .............................
Goat, liver .................................
Goat, meat ................................
Goat, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Grass, forage ............................
Grass, hay ................................
Horse, fat ..................................
Horse, kidney ............................
Horse, liver ...............................
Horse, meat ..............................
Horse, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Milk ...........................................
Onion, bulb ...............................
Onion, green .............................
Peanut ......................................
Peanut, hay ..............................
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.10
2.0
0.5
15.0
0.60
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.10
6.0
6.0
0.10
6.0
6.0
0.10
6.0
4.0
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.70
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
10.0
0.20
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.10
2.0
0.20
20.0
Commodity
Peanut, meal ............................
Poultry, fat ................................
Poultry, meat ............................
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
Pumpkin ....................................
Safflower, seed .........................
Shallot, bulb ..............................
Sheep, fat .................................
Sheep, kidney ...........................
Sheep, liver ...............................
Sheep, meat .............................
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver .............
Sorghum, grain, forage .............
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
Soybean, forage .......................
Soybean, hay ............................
Soybean, seed ..........................
Spinach .....................................
Squash, winter ..........................
Sunflower, seed ........................
Sunflower, meal ........................
Tomato, paste ...........................
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
except soybean, subgroup
7A ..........................................
Vegetable, fruiting, except tabasco pepper, group 8 ..........
Vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 4B ...............................
Vegetable, legume, succulent
or dried, group 6 ...................
Vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B ................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C .........................
Parts per
million
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
1.0
0.3
4.0
5.0
8.0
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.50
1.0
0.30
15.0
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.20
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
(1) * * *
Commodity
Animal feed, nongrass, group
18 ..........................................
Barley, grain .............................
Barley, hay ................................
Barley, straw .............................
Buckwheat, grain ......................
Millet, forage .............................
Millet, grain ...............................
Millet, hay .................................
Millet, straw ...............................
Oat, forage ................................
Oat, grain ..................................
Oat, hay ....................................
Oat, straw .................................
Rice, grain ................................
Rye, forage ...............................
Rye, grain .................................
Rye, straw .................................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
(2) * * *
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Parts per
million
1.0
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Commodity
Parts per
million
Animal feed, nongrass, group
18 ..........................................
Barley, grain .............................
Barley, hay ................................
Barley, straw .............................
Buckwheat, grain ......................
Millet, forage .............................
Millet, grain ...............................
Millet, hay .................................
Millet, straw ...............................
Oat, forage ................................
Oat, grain ..................................
Oat, hay ....................................
Oat, straw .................................
Rice, grain ................................
Rye, forage ...............................
Rye, grain .................................
Rye, straw .................................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 102–39
1.0
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
[FMR Case 2009–102–3; Docket No. 2009–
0002, Sequence 3]
RIN 3090–AI92
Federal Management Regulation;
Replacement of Personal Property
Pursuant to the Exchange/Sale
Authority
AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide
Policy, General Services Administration
(GSA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration (GSA) is proposing to
amend the Federal Management
Regulation (FMR) by making changes to
its policy on the replacement of
personal property pursuant to the
exchange/sale authority.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
*
*
*
*
*
comments in writing on or before July
4. Section 180.511 is amended by
27, 2009 to be considered in the
removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and
formulation of a final rule.
adding the following commodity to the
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: identified by FMR case 2009–102–3 by
any of the following methods:
§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for
• Regulations.gov: https://
residues.
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
(a) General. * * *
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
inputting ‘‘FMR Case 2009–102–3’’
Parts per
under the heading ‘‘Search Documents’’.
Commodity
million
Select the link ‘‘Send a Comment or
Guava .......................................
0.3 Submission’’ that corresponds with
FMR Case 2009–102–3. Follow the
instructions provided to complete the
*
*
*
*
*
‘‘Public Comment and Submission
5. Section 180.572 is amended by
Form’’. Please include your name,
removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and
company name (if any), and ‘‘FMR Case
adding the following commodity to the
2009–102–3’’ on your attached
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
§ 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for
• Mail: General Services
residues.
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041,
(a) General. * * *
ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC
20405.
Parts per
Commodity
million
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FMR Case 2009–102–3 in
Guava .......................................
0.9 all correspondence related to this case.
All comments received will be posted
*
*
*
*
*
without change to https://
[FR Doc. E9–15139 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am]
www.regulations.gov, including any
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Holcombe, Office of
Governmentwide Policy, Office of
Travel, Transportation, and Asset
Management (MT), (202) 501–3838 or
e-mail at robert.holcombe@gsa.gov. For
information pertaining to status or
publication schedules contact the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:15 Jun 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30493
Regulatory Secretariat, 1800 F Street,
NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC
20405, (202) 501–4755. Please cite FMR
Case 2009–102–3.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This proposed rule would remove the
exchange/sale prohibition on aircraft
and airframe structural components,
subject to certain conditions. These
commodities have been included on the
list of properties normally ineligible for
exchange/sale so that the acquisition
and disposal of these commodities
could be managed more closely. To
conduct an exchange/sale of such
commodities (which is encouraged to
reduce the agency costs of managing
their aircraft fleets), agencies have been
required to submit deviation requests
for approval by GSA. Adequate tools are
now available for managing these assets
without going through the timeconsuming and onerous deviation
process. Further, removing these
commodities from the ‘‘prohibited list’’
should not have a detrimental impact on
the donation of such property. Finally,
although agencies would no longer need
to request deviations from GSA, a
provision would be added to alert
agencies that they must comply with the
restrictions and limitations on the
disposal of aircraft and aircraft parts
contained in 41 CFR part 102–33.
This proposed rule would also
remove the prohibition on using scrap
in an exchange/sale transaction when
the property has utility and value at the
time an exchange/sale determination is
made. This clarification would address
situations where the dismantling or
removal of property may render the
property as ‘‘scrap’’, but where
replacement of similar property is still
required.
Finally, this proposed rule would
make a clerical correction to § 102–
39.80 to clarify that the time limit
restriction on use of exchange/sale
exchange allowances is the same as the
restriction for use of exchange/sale sales
proceeds.
B. Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is excepted from
the definition of ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’
under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
dated September 30, 1993 and,
therefore, was not subject to review
under Section 6(b) of that executive
order.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule is not required to
be published in the Federal Register for
comment. Therefore, the Regulatory
E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM
26JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30487-30493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0239; FRL-8411-5]
Metolachlor, S-Metolachlor, Bifenazate, Buprofezin, and 2,4-D;
Proposed Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to modify, establish and revoke certain
tolerances for the herbicides metolachlor and S-metolachlor and correct
the tolerance guava (from guave) on bifenazate and buprofezin and 2,4-D
on cranberry. The regulatory actions proposed in this document are in
follow-up to the Agency's reregistration program under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance
reassessment program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), section 408(q).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0239, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0239. 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 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 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
available at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 either 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
[[Page 30488]]
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-0048; e-mail
address: smith.jane-scott@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.A. 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?
EPA is proposing to modify, revoke, and establish specific
tolerances for residues of the herbicides metolachlor, S-metolachlor,
bifenazate, buprofezin, and 2,4-D in or on commodities listed in the
regulatory text.
EPA is proposing these tolerance actions to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety
standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) and Report of the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision
(TRED) for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the
implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to
reflect current use patterns, meet safety findings, and change
commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy.
Printed copies of many REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP),
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone number: 1-800-490-
9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet at https://www.epa.gov/ncepihom and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone number: 1-800-
553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; Internet at https://www.ntis.gov. Electronic
copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm and in the public
docket, at https://www.regulations.gov.
The selection of an individual tolerance level is based on crop
field residue studies designed to produce the maximum residues under
the existing or proposed product label. Generally, the level selected
for a tolerance is a value slightly above the maximum residue found in
such studies, provided that the tolerance is safe. The evaluation of
whether a tolerance is safe is a separate inquiry. EPA recommends the
raising of a tolerance when data show that:
1. Lawful use (sometimes through a label change) may result in a
higher residue level on the commodity.
2. The tolerance remains safe, notwithstanding increased residue
level allowed under the tolerance.
In REDs, Chapter IV on ``Risk management, Reregistration, and Tolerance
reassessment'' typically describes the regulatory position, FQPA
assessment, cumulative safety determination, determination of safety
for U.S. general population, and safety for infants and children. In
particular, the human health risk assessment document which supports
the RED describes risk exposure estimates and whether the Agency has
concerns. In TREDs, the Agency discusses its evaluation of the dietary
risk associated with the active ingredient and whether it can determine
that there is a reasonable certainty (with appropriate mitigation) that
no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure.
EPA also seeks to harmonize tolerances with international standards set
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, as described in Unit III.
Explanations for proposed modifications in tolerances can be found
in the RED and TRED document and in more detail in the Residue
Chemistry Chapter document which supports the RED and TRED. Copies of
the Residue Chemistry Chapter documents are found in the Administrative
Record and EPA's
[[Page 30489]]
electronic copies are available through EPA's electronic public docket
and comment system, regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov. You
may search for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0239, EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-
0223, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0445, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674, EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097,
and EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1170, then click on that docket ID number to view
its contents.
EPA has determined that the aggregate exposures and risks are not
of concern for the above-mentioned pesticide active ingredients based
upon the data identified in the RED or TRED which lists the submitted
studies that the Agency found acceptable.
EPA has found that the tolerances that are proposed in this
document to be modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residues, in accordance
with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that changes to tolerance
nomenclature do not constitute modifications of tolerances). These
findings are discussed in detail in each RED or TRED. The references
are available for inspection as described in this document under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
In the Federal Register notices published August 8, 2007 (72 FR
44439) (FRL-8138-8) and May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29456) (FRL-8362-1), EPA
proposed to revoke, modify, and establish specific tolerances for
residues of the herbicides metolachlor and S-metolachlor as well as
tolerances for other pesticide chemicals. These proposals provided a
60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration
and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. These
proposed actions were finalized on September 10, 2008 (73 FR 52607)
(FRL-8379-3) and September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732) (FRL-8375-2). The
Agency received comments to the proposal published August 8, 2007 on S-
metolachlor in which we indicated we would respond in the future. This
action responds to those comments and addresses other tolerance actions
associated with metolachlor, S-metolachlor, bifenazate and buprofezin.
The proposal published May 21, 2008 provides related information on
metolachlor and S-metolachlor.
1. Metolachlor/S-metolachlor. The Agency received comments from
Syngenta (EPA-HQ-2007-0445-0013) in response to the Federal Register
proposal published August 8, 2007 (73 FR 53732) as follows:
(i) Revocation of tolerance in stone fruit-Use of S-Metolachlor
in stone fruit is an important tool for Canadian fruit producers and
therefore, it would be beneficial to maintain U.S. tolerances to
avoid any trade irritant issues for these crops being exported from
Canada to the U.S. Canada currently has a tolerance of 0.1 ppm for
S-metolachlor in apples, apricots, cherries, peaches/nectarines,
pears and plums.
(ii) Increase in tolerance for Crop Group 6A from 0.3 ppm to 0.5
ppm-Canada currently has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for S-metolachlor in
peas and snap beans. An increase in the U.S. tolerance could result
in a trade irritant for these crops exported from the U.S. to
Canada.
(iii) Decrease in tolerance for Crop Group 6C from 0.3 ppm to
0.1 ppm-Canada currently has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for S-
metolachlor in dry beans. A decrease in the U.S. tolerance could
result in a trade irritant for these crops exported from Canada to
the U.S.
(iv) Increase in tolerance for egg and meat from 0.02 pm to 0.04
ppm-Canada currently has a tolerance of 0.02 ppm for S-metolachlor
in eggs, meat of cattle, goats, hogs, poultry and sheep. An increase
in the U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant for these
animal products exported from the U.S. to Canada.
(v) Increase tolerance in animal liver from 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm-
Canada currently has a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for S-metolachlor in
liver of cattle and poultry. An increase in the U.S. tolerance could
result in a trade irritant for these animal products exported from
the U.S. to Canada.
The Agency responded to Syngenta's first comment (i) on September
17, 2008 (73 FR 53732). In response to the remaining comments (ii)-(v),
the Agency has re-evaluated new and existing data for the legume crop
group 6, and existing data for cattle meat, fat and liver, poultry
meat, fat and egg for both metolachlor and S-metolachlor which, in
general, the Agency agrees with the comments. The maximum S-metolachlor
residue field trial data in/on legume vegetables support the
harmonization of the corresponding legume vegetable crop group 6
tolerances with the Canadian MRLs at 0.3 ppm for existing S-metolachor
tolerances and the establishment of a tolerance of 0.3 ppm in/on pea
and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B where maximum residues were
0.14 ppm. Extrapolating the residue data from the ruminant feeding
study to a 1x feeding level for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep the
maximum combined residues of concern for metolachlor and S-metolachlor
would be 0.01 ppm in meat and fat and 0.03 ppm in liver; and
considering the harmonization of tolerances with Canadian MRLs under
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Agency determined
that the tolerances should be decreased for cattle, goat, horse, and
sheep liver to 0.05 ppm and meat and fat to 0.02 ppm. Based on feeding
studies in hens dosed up to 3.9x the maximum theoretical dietary
burden, metolachlor and S-metolachlor residues of concern were not
detected (< 0.02 ppm the levels of quantitation (LOQ)) in eggs, liver,
fat, meat and meat byproducts and the importance of harmonizing MRLs
with Canada, the Agency determined the tolerances for eggs and poultry
meat and fat should be 0.02 ppm and poultry meat byproducts (which
includes liver) should be 0.05 ppm The Agency inadvertently published
the harmonized tolerances for residues of S-metolachlor in/on cattle
meat and liver, poultry meat and egg in the Federal Register published
September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732) before proposing and receiving comment
which we are correcting with this action. Therefore, EPA proposes the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) for the combined S-metolachlor
residues of concern be established for pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B at 0.30 ppm; increased in/on pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup 6C from 0.10 ppm to 0.30 ppm; decreased in/on
vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A from 0.50 ppm to 0.30
ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, liver from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm;
cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; egg
and poultry, meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; and poultry, meat
byproducts from 0.04 to 0.05 ppm. Also, EPA proposes the tolerances in
40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) for the combined metolachlor residues of concern
be increased in/on pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C from 0.10 ppm to 0.3 ppm; decreased in/on vegetable,
legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A from 0.50 ppm to 0.30 ppm; cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep, liver from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep, meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; egg and poultry,
meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts from
0.04 to 0.05 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerances
are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
Additional rotational crop field trials conducted with S-
metolachlor on wheat and oats indicate that the maximum residues levels
were 0.40 ppm in/on oat forage, 0.50 ppm in/on oat hay, 0.09 ppm in/on
oat straw, <0.08 ppm in/on wheat and oat grain, 0.47 ppm in/on wheat
forage, 0.26 ppm in/on wheat hay, and 0.28 ppm in/on wheat straw.
[[Page 30490]]
Based on these residues levels and translating these data to the other
small grains, the Agency has determined that the tolerances should be
0.50 ppm for barley, oat, wheat and millet hay; 0.10 ppm for millet,
grain; and 0.50 ppm for millet, forage and straw. Based on residue data
conducted on soybean, corn, wheat and sorghum, the maximum residues
found on aspirated grain fractions were 0.63 ppm; therefore, the Agency
has determined that the tolerance for aspirated grain fractions (AGF)
should be 0.7 ppm. Rice straw is no longer considered a significant
animal feed item, therefore, tolerances are no longer required for rice
straw. Therefore, EPA proposes tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) be
established for the combined S-metolachlor residues of concern in/on
grain, aspirated fractions at 0.70 ppm; and in 40 CFR 180.368(d)(2) be
revoked on rice, straw at 0.50 ppm; decreased on barley, oat, and
wheat, hay from 1.0 ppm to 0.50 ppm; established on millet, grain at
0.10 ppm; millet, forage at 0.50 ppm; millet, hay at 0.50 ppm; and
millet, straw at 0.50 ppm.
Additional rotational crop field trials conducted on wheat and oats
with metolachlor indicate that the maximum total residue levels were
0.35 ppm in/on forage, 0.45 ppm in/on hay, 0.42 ppm in/on straw, and
0.03 ppm in/on grain. Based on these residue levels and translating
these data to the other small grains, the Agency has determined that
the tolerances for metolachlor residues should be 0.80 ppm for barley,
millet, oat, and wheat hay; 0.10 ppm for barley, buckwheat, millet,
oat, rice, rye, and wheat grain; and 0.50 ppm for millet, oat, rye, and
wheat forage and 0.80 ppm for barley, millet, oat, rye, and wheat
straw. Rice straw is no longer considered a significant animal feed
item, therefore, tolerances are no longer required for rice straw.
Currently, since there are no active registrations with uses of
metolachlor on spinach, the tolerance on spinach at 0.50 ppm should be
revoked. Therefore, EPA proposes the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(d)(1)
for the combined residues of concern for metolachlor be established on
barley, millet, oat, and wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm; increased on barley,
millet, oat, rye, and wheat straw from 0.50 ppm to 0.80 ppm; and
revoked on rice, straw at 0.50 ppm and in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) revoked
on spinach at 0.50 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased
tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.
In this action, the Agency has proposed modifications to the
tolerances for the legume vegetable subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) such
that all of the subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) have the same tolerance of
0.30 ppm for both metolachlor and S-metolachlor consequently, these
tolerances should be consolidated as the vegetable, legume, group 6 at
0.30 ppm. Therefore, EPA proposes the tolerances be revised in 40 CFR
180.368(a)(1) and (a)(2) for the combined residues of concern for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor from vegetable, legume, edible-podded,
subgroup 6A; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B; and pea and
bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C to vegetable, legume,
succulent or dried, group 6.
2. Bifenazate. The Agency proposes the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.572(a) be corrected to read guava rather than guave.
3. Buprofezin. The Agency proposes the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.511(a) be corrected to read guava rather than guave.
4. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221)
(FRL-8122[dash]7), the Agency incorrectly proposed a tolerance action
that included the commodity cranberry in berry, group 13 at 0.2 ppm in
40 CFR 180.142(a). That action removed the individual cranberry
tolerance at 0.5 ppm in 40 CFR 180.142(a). The proposal was finalized
September 12, 2007 (72 FR 52013) (FRL-8142-2). The berry crop group 13
is not inclusive of cranberries. Further, reestablishing the cranberry
tolerance at 0.5 ppm will harmonize with the Canadian maximum residue
level (MRL) under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Therefore, the Agency proposes reestablishing the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.142(a) for residues of 2,4-D in/on cranberry at 0.5 ppm. The Agency
determined that the increased tolerances are safe; i.e., there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue.
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 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 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 that the actions herein become effective on the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this unit, any residues of these pesticides
in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it
is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA,
and
2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Evidence to
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the
dates when the pesticide was applied to such food.
III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent With International
Obligations?
The tolerance actions in this proposal are not discriminatory and
are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported
foods meet the food safety standards established by FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported
foods.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex
[[Page 30491]]
Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/ World
Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level in a notice published for public comment. EPA's effort to
harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment
section of individual REDs and TREDs, and in the Residue Chemistry
document which supports the RED and TRED, as mentioned in Unit II.A.
Specific tolerance actions in this proposed rule and how they compare
to Codex MRLs (if any) are discussed in Unit II.A.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify and revoke specific
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions (e.g.,
establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation
for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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, entitled 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 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) (FRL-5753-1),
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 rule 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 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 9, 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: June 19, 2009
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
[[Page 30492]]
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 180.142 is amended by adding alphabectically the
following commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Cranberry.................................................. 0.5
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section 180.368 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(1) and (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls.............................................. 0.30
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18............................ 1.0
Cattle, fat................................................ 0.02
Cattle, kidney............................................. 0.20
Cattle, liver.............................................. 0.05
Cattle, meat............................................... 0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver........... 0.04
Corn, field, forage........................................ 6.0
Corn, field, grain......................................... 0.10
Corn, field, stover........................................ 6.0
Corn, sweet, forage........................................ 6.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed............ 0.10
Corn, sweet, stover........................................ 6.0
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................... 4.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.................................... 0.10
Dill....................................................... 0.50
Egg........................................................ 0.02
Goat, fat.................................................. 0.02
Goat, kidney............................................... 0.20
Goat, liver................................................ 0.05
Goat, meat................................................. 0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............. 0.04
Grass, forage.............................................. 10
Grass, hay................................................. 0.20
Horse, fat................................................. 0.02
Horse, kidney.............................................. 0.20
Horse, liver............................................... 0.05
Horse, meat................................................ 0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............ 0.04
Milk....................................................... 0.02
Nut, tree, group 14........................................ 0.10
Okra....................................................... 0.50
Peanut..................................................... 0.20
Peanut, hay................................................ 20
Peanut, meal............................................... 0.40
Potato..................................................... 0.20
Poultry, fat............................................... 0.02
Poultry, meat.............................................. 0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts................................... 0.05
Safflower, seed............................................ 0.10
Sheep, fat................................................. 0.02
Sheep, kidney.............................................. 0.20
Sheep, liver............................................... 0.05
Sheep, meat................................................ 0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............ 0.04
Sorghum, grain, forage..................................... 1.0
Sorghum, grain, grain...................................... 0.30
Sorghum, grain, stover..................................... 4.0
Soybean, forage............................................ 5.0
Soybean, hay............................................... 8.0
Soybean, seed.............................................. 0.20
Tomato..................................................... 0.10
Vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A, except soybean.. 15.0
Vegetable, legume, succulent or dried, group 6............. 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asparagus.................................................. 0.10
Beet, sugar, molasses...................................... 2.0
Beet, sugar, roots......................................... 0.5
Beet, sugar, tops.......................................... 15.0
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A....................... 0.60
Cattle, fat................................................ 0.02
Cattle, kidney............................................. 0.20
Cattle, liver.............................................. 0.05
Cattle, meat............................................... 0.02
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver........... 0.04
Corn, field, grain......................................... 0.10
Corn, field, forage........................................ 6.0
Corn, field, stover........................................ 6.0
Corn, pop, grain........................................... 0.10
Corn, pop, stover.......................................... 6.0
Corn, sweet, forage........................................ 6.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed............ 0.10
Corn, sweet, stover........................................ 6.0
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................... 4.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.................................... 0.10
Egg........................................................ 0.02
Garlic, bulb............................................... 0.10
Grain, aspirated fractions................................. 0.70
Goat, fat.................................................. 0.02
Goat, kidney............................................... 0.20
Goat, liver................................................ 0.05
Goat, meat................................................. 0.02
Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............. 0.04
Grass, forage.............................................. 10.0
Grass, hay................................................. 0.20
Horse, fat................................................. 0.02
Horse, kidney.............................................. 0.20
Horse, liver............................................... 0.05
Horse, meat................................................ 0.02
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............ 0.04
Milk....................................................... 0.02
Onion, bulb................................................ 0.10
Onion, green............................................... 2.0
Peanut..................................................... 0.20
Peanut, hay................................................ 20.0
Peanut, meal............................................... 0.40
Poultry, fat............................................... 0.02
Poultry, meat.............................................. 0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts................................... 0.05
Pumpkin.................................................... 0.10
Safflower, seed............................................ 0.10
Shallot, bulb.............................................. 0.10
Sheep, fat................................................. 0.02
Sheep, kidney.............................................. 0.20
Sheep, liver............................................... 0.05
Sheep, meat................................................ 0.02
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver............ 0.04
Sorghum, grain, forage..................................... 1.0
Sorghum, grain, grain...................................... 0.3
Sorghum, grain, stover..................................... 4.0
Soybean, forage............................................ 5.0
Soybean, hay............................................... 8.0
Soybean, seed.............................................. 0.20
Spinach.................................................... 0.50
Squash, winter............................................. 0.10
Sunflower, seed............................................ 0.50
Sunflower, meal............................................ 1.0
Tomato, paste.............................................. 0.30
Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A.. 15.0
Vegetable, fruiting, except tabasco pepper, group 8........ 0.10
Vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 4B...................... 0.10
Vegetable, legume, succulent or dried, group 6............. 0.30
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B............ 0.30
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.................. 0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18............................ 1.0
Barley, grain.............................................. 0.10
Barley, hay................................................ 0.80
Barley, straw.............................................. 0.80
Buckwheat, grain........................................... 0.10
Millet, forage............................................. 0.50
Millet, grain.............................................. 0.10
Millet, hay................................................ 0.80
Millet, straw.............................................. 0.80
Oat, forage................................................ 0.50
Oat, grain................................................. 0.10
Oat, hay................................................... 0.80
Oat, straw................................................. 0.80
Rice, grain................................................ 0.10
Rye, forage................................................ 0.50
Rye, grain................................................. 0.10
Rye, straw................................................. 0.80
Wheat, forage.............................................. 0.50
Wheat, grain............................................... 0.10
Wheat, hay................................................. 0.80
Wheat, straw............................................... 0.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
[[Page 30493]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18............................ 1.0
Barley, grain.............................................. 0.10
Barley, hay................................................ 0.50
Barley, straw.............................................. 0.50
Buckwheat, grain........................................... 0.10
Millet, forage............................................. 0.50
Millet, grain.............................................. 0.10
Millet, hay................................................ 0.50
Millet, straw.............................................. 0.50
Oat, forage................................................ 0.50
Oat, grain................................................. 0.10
Oat, hay................................................... 0.50
Oat, straw................................................. 0.50
Rice, grain................................................ 0.10
Rye, forage................................................ 0.50
Rye, grain................................................. 0.10
Rye, straw................................................. 0.50
Wheat, forage.............................................. 0.50
Wheat, grain............................................... 0.10
Wheat, hay................................................. 0.50
Wheat, straw............................................... 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. Section 180.511 is amended by removing the entry for ``Guave''
and adding the following commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guava...................................................... 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. Section 180.572 is amended by removing the entry for ``Guave''
and adding the following commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guava...................................................... 0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-15139 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S