Methamidophos; Tolerance Actions, 57078-57081 [E9-26603]
Download as PDF
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
57078
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether revocations
of tolerances might significantly impact
a substantial number of small entities
and concluded that, as a general matter,
these actions do not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis
was published on December 17, 1997
(62 FR 66020), and was provided to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Taking into
account this analysis, and available
information concerning the pesticide
listed in this rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Furthermore, for the inert ingredient
named in this final rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
present revocation that would change
the EPA’s previous analysis. In addition,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive order to include
regulations that have ’’substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ This
final rule directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’
as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Nov 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
IV. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: October 23, 2009.
Donald J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.910
[Amended]
2. Section 180.910 is amended by
removing from the table the entry for
‘‘Sperm oil conforming to 21 CFR
172.210.’’
■
[FR Doc. E9–26540 Filed 11–3–09 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0261; FRL–8796–1]
Methamidophos; Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking tolerances for
the insecticide methamidophos on
cucumber, eggplant and melon. The
regulatory actions finalized 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 section
408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
November 4, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before January 4, 2010, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0261. 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., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Schnackenbeck, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 308–8072; e-mail address:
schnackenbeck.joy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing electronically
available documents at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007-0261 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk
on or before January 4, 2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Nov 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your
copies, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2007-0261, 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.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
In the Federal Register of May 23,
2007 (72 FR 28912) (FRL–8130–8), EPA
issued a proposed rule concerning
tolerance actions for certain pesticide
active ingredients, including
methamidophos. In that proposed rule,
the Agency proposed to revoke specific
tolerances for residues of the insecticide
methamidophos, which included
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on
broccoli, cabbage, cucumber, eggplant
and melon because there were no active
U.S. registrations and therefore, the
tolerances were no longer needed. Also,
the proposal of May 23, 2007 provided
a 60–day comment period which invited
public comment for consideration and
for support of tolerance retention under
FFDCA standards. EPA only received
comments regarding the
methamidophos tolerance revocations
from Bayer CropScience and the
Canadian Horticultural Council
requesting EPA to reconsider their
proposal to revoke the tolerances of
methamidophos on cabbage and
broccoli in order to allow imports of
these commodities from Canada. In the
September 26, 2007 Federal Register (72
FR 54574) (FRL–8147–6), EPA issued a
final rule in follow up to the May 23,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57079
2007 proposal. In that final rule, EPA
included an announcement that the
Agency would not take action on
methamdiophos tolerances, at that time
based on the comments received during
the public comment period.
In this final rule, EPA is now
proceeding to revoke tolerances for
residues of methamidophos in or on
cucumber, eggplant and melon. EPA is
finalizing these tolerance actions in
order 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 on Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment
Progress and Interim 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, to 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.regulations.gov
and https:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/
reregistration/status.htm.
This final rule does not revoke those
tolerances for which EPA received
comments stating a need for the
tolerance to be retained. In response to
the proposal published in the Federal
Register of (May 23, 2007) (72 FR
28912), EPA received no comments
during the 60–day public comment
period for the proposed revocation of
methamidophos tolerances on
cucumber, eggplant and melon.
Therefore, EPA is revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on
cucumber, eggplant, and melon.
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
57080
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
EPA may issue a regulation
establishing, modifying, or revoking a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e).
In this final rule, EPA is and revoking
tolerances to implement the tolerance
recommendations made during the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment processes, and as followup on canceled uses of pesticides. As
part of these processes, EPA is required
to determine whether each of the
amended tolerances meets the safety
standards under FFDCA. The safety
finding determination is found in detail
in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for
the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs
recommend the implementation of
certain tolerance actions, including
modifications to reflect current use
patterns, to meet safety findings, and
change commodity names and
groupings in accordance with new EPA
policy.
EPA has issued a post-FQPA RED for
methamidophos. REDs and TREDs
contain the Agency’s evaluation of the
database for these pesticides, including
statements regarding additional data on
the active ingredients that may be
needed to confirm the potential human
health and environmental risk
assessments associated with current
product uses, and REDs state conditions
under which these uses and products
will be eligible for reregistration. The
REDs and TREDs recommended the
establishment, modification, and/or
revocation of specific tolerances. RED
and TRED recommendations such as
establishing or modifying tolerances,
and in some cases revoking tolerances,
are the result of assessment under the
FFDCA standard of ‘‘reasonable
certainty of no harm.’’ However,
tolerance revocations recommended in
REDs and TREDs that are made final in
this document do not need such
assessment when the tolerances are no
longer necessary.
EPA’s general practice is to revoke
tolerances for residues of pesticide
active ingredients on crops for which
FIFRA registrations no longer exist and
on which the pesticide may therefore no
longer be used in the United States. EPA
has historically been concerned that
retention of tolerances that are not
necessary to cover residues in or on
legally treated foods may encourage
misuse of pesticides within the United
States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when
corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA
refers to as ‘‘import tolerances,’’ are
necessary to allow importation into the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Nov 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
United States of food containing such
pesticide residues. However, where
there are no imported commodities that
require these import tolerances, the
Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential
misuse.
When EPA establishes tolerances for
pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, the Agency
gives consideration to possible pesticide
residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or
eggs produced by animals that are fed
agricultural products (for example, grain
or hay) containing pesticides residues
(40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable
expectation of finite pesticide residues
in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs,
then tolerances do not need to be
established for these commodities (40
CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
C. When Do These Actions Become
Effective?
These actions become effective on the
date of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register. The tolerances
revoked in this rule are associated with
uses that have been canceled for several
years. The Agency believes that treated
commodities have had sufficient time
for passage through the channels of
trade.
Any commodities listed in the
regulatory text of this document that are
treated with the pesticides subject to
this final rule, and that are in the
channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to
FFDCA section 408(l)(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.
2. The residue does not exceed the
level that was authorized at the time of
the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption
from tolerance. Evidence to show that
food was lawfully treated may include
records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.
III. Are There Any International Trade
Issues Raised by this Final Action?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Alimentarius Commission, as required
by section 408(b)(4) of FFDCA. The
Codex 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 standardssetting 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 the
proposed rule cited in Unit II.A.
Specific tolerance actions in this rule
and how they compare to Codex MRLs
(if any) is discussed in Unit II.A. of the
proposed rule.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this final rule, EPA revokes specific
tolerances established under FFDCA
section 408. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
type of action (i.e., a 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
rule has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866 due to its
lack of significance, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This final rule does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
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
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–13, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether revocations
of tolerances might significantly impact
a substantial number of small entities
and concluded that, as a general matter,
these actions do not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis
was published on December 17, 1997
(62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), and was
provided to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account
this analysis, and available information
concerning the pesticides listed in this
rule, the Agency hereby certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
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
the proposed rule, as mentioned in Unit
II.A.) Furthermore, for the pesticides
named in this final rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary
circumstances that exist as to the
present revocations that would change
EPA’s previous analysis. In addition, the
Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This final rule
directly regulates growers, food
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Nov 03, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 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
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
V. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: October 23, 2009.
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57081
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371
§ 180.315
[Amended]
2. Section 180.315 is amended by
removing the entries ‘‘cucumber,’’
‘‘eggplant,’’ and ‘‘melon’’ from the table
in paragraph (a).
■
[FR Doc. E9–26603 Filed 11–03–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0478; FRL–8796–3]
Certain Polyurethane Polymer;
Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of carbonic acid,
diethyl ester, polymer with a-hydro-whydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2ethanediyl)] ether with 2-ethyl-2(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (3:1),
ester with a-[[[[5-(carboxyamino)-1,3,3trimethylcyclohexyl]
methyl]amino]carbonyl]-wmethoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), when
used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation under 40 CFR
180.960. BASF Corporation submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of carbonic acid, diethyl
ester, polymer with a-hydro-whydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2ethanediyl)] ether with 2-ethyl-2(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (3:1),
ester with a-[[[[5-(carboxyamino)-1,3,3trimethylcyclohexyl]
methyl]amino]carbonyl]-wmethoxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), on
food or feed commodities.
DATES: This regulation is effective
November 4, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before January 4, 2010, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
E:\FR\FM\04NOR1.SGM
04NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 4, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57078-57081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26603]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261; FRL-8796-1]
Methamidophos; Tolerance Actions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking tolerances for the insecticide methamidophos
on cucumber, eggplant and melon. The regulatory actions finalized 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 section 408(q) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective November 4, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 4, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261. 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., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Schnackenbeck, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8072; e-mail
address: schnackenbeck.joy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 57079]]
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?
In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
https://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January 4, 2010.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0261, 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.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
In the Federal Register of May 23, 2007 (72 FR 28912) (FRL-8130-8),
EPA issued a proposed rule concerning tolerance actions for certain
pesticide active ingredients, including methamidophos. In that proposed
rule, the Agency proposed to revoke specific tolerances for residues of
the insecticide methamidophos, which included tolerances in 40 CFR
180.315(a) on broccoli, cabbage, cucumber, eggplant and melon because
there were no active U.S. registrations and therefore, the tolerances
were no longer needed. Also, the proposal of May 23, 2007 provided a
60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration
and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. EPA only
received comments regarding the methamidophos tolerance revocations
from Bayer CropScience and the Canadian Horticultural Council
requesting EPA to reconsider their proposal to revoke the tolerances of
methamidophos on cabbage and broccoli in order to allow imports of
these commodities from Canada. In the September 26, 2007 Federal
Register (72 FR 54574) (FRL-8147-6), EPA issued a final rule in follow
up to the May 23, 2007 proposal. In that final rule, EPA included an
announcement that the Agency would not take action on methamdiophos
tolerances, at that time based on the comments received during the
public comment period.
In this final rule, EPA is now proceeding to revoke tolerances for
residues of methamidophos in or on cucumber, eggplant and melon. EPA is
finalizing these tolerance actions in order 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 on Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Interim 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, to 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.regulations.gov and https:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In
response to the proposal published in the Federal Register of (May 23,
2007) (72 FR 28912), EPA received no comments during the 60-day public
comment period for the proposed revocation of methamidophos tolerances
on cucumber, eggplant and melon. Therefore, EPA is revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.315(a) on cucumber, eggplant, and melon.
[[Page 57080]]
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is and
revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made
during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as
follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes,
EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances
meets the safety standards under FFDCA. The safety finding
determination is found in detail in each post-FQPA RED and TRED for the
active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of
certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current
use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and
groupings in accordance with new EPA policy.
EPA has issued a post-FQPA RED for methamidophos. REDs and TREDs
contain the Agency's evaluation of the database for these pesticides,
including statements regarding additional data on the active
ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health
and environmental risk assessments associated with current product
uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products
will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the
establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances.
RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying
tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of
assessment under the FFDCA standard of ``reasonable certainty of no
harm.'' However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs
that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when
the tolerances are no longer necessary.
EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no
longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used
in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that
retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or
on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the
United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances
even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances,
which EPA refers to as ``import tolerances,'' are necessary to allow
importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide
residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require
these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent
potential misuse.
When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw
agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible
pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by
animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay)
containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no
reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat,
milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established
for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)).
C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?
These actions become effective on the date of publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register. The tolerances revoked in this rule
are associated with uses that have been canceled for several years. The
Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for
passage through the channels of trade.
Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall
be subject to FFDCA section 408(l)(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.
2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.
III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final
Action?
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 Alimentarius Commission, as required by section 408(b)(4)
of FFDCA. The Codex 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 the proposed rule cited in Unit II.A. Specific tolerance
actions in this rule and how they compare to Codex MRLs (if any) is
discussed in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this type of action (i.e., a 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 rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 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
[[Page 57081]]
consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law
104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously
assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on
December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), and was provided to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking
into account this analysis, and available information concerning the
pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant 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 the proposed rule, as mentioned
in Unit II.A.) Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final
rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as
to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis.
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action
does not 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 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 rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
V. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 23, 2009.
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371
Sec. 180.315 [Amended]
0
2. Section 180.315 is amended by removing the entries ``cucumber,''
``eggplant,'' and ``melon'' from the table in paragraph (a).
[FR Doc. E9-26603 Filed 11-03-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S