Revocation of Tolerance Exemptions for Diethyl Phthalate and Methyl Ethyl Ketone; No Data Being Developed as Required by Test Orders (Data Call-Ins) Under EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, 15015-15019 [2012-6210]
Download as PDF
pstrozier on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), (703)
308–8075, email address:
luminello.tom@epa.gov.
4. PP 1F7917. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
1026). Bert Volger, Ceres International
LLC., 1087 Heartsease Drive, West
Chester, PA 19382 (on behalf of
Consumo Em Verde S.A., Biotecnologia
´
De Plantas, Parque Tecnologico de
´
Cantanhede, Nucleo 04, Lote 2, 3060–
197 Cantanhede, Portugal), requests to
establish an exemption from the
requirement of tolerances for residues of
the biofungicide BLAD, a naturally
occurring polypeptide from the
catabolism of a seed storage protein of
sweet lupines (Lupinus albus), in or on
various crops and ornamentals. The
petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because the requirements of
an analytical method are not applicable
to a request to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
Contact: Menyon Adams, Biopesticides
and Pollution Prevention Division
(7511P), (703) 347–8496, email address:
adams.menyon@epa.gov.
5. PP 9F7670. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–
0065). Technology Sciences Group, Inc.,
1150 18th Street, NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036, (on behalf of
AMVAC Chemical Corporation, 4695
MacArthur Court, Suite 1250, Newport
Beach, CA 90660), requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the biochemical
potato sprout inhibitor, 3-decen-2-one,
as a post-harvest treatment, in or on
stored potatoes. An analytical method
for residues is not applicable. It is
expected that, when used as proposed,
3-decen-2-one would not result in
residues that are of toxicological
concern. The Agency is re-issuing this
notice of filing (NOF) of a pesticide
petition for 3-decen-2-one (PP 9F7670)
because the petitioner revised the
pending petition. Instead of proposing
an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the potato
sprout inhibitor, 3-decen-2-one, in or on
all food commodities, the petitioner is
now requesting the tolerance exemption
for use of 3-decen-2-one as a postharvest treatment on stored potatoes
only. The original NOF published in the
Federal Register for comment on March
10, 2010 (75 FR 11171)(FRL–8810–8),
with a 30 day comment period. One
comment was received in response to
this NOF. The Agency will respond to
this comment in the final rule but notes
that the comment was not germane to
the active ingredient described herein,
and focused on concerns that were not
specific to dietary exposure. Contact:
Colin G. Walsh, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
(703) 308–0298, email address:
walsh.colin@epa.gov.
Amended Tolerance Exemptions
1. PP 1E7931. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
0949). BASF Corporation, 100 Campus
Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, requests
to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues
of N,N-Bis-a-ethyl-w-hydroxypoly(oxy1,2-ethanediyl) C8-C18 saturated and
unsaturated alkylamines; the poly(oxy1,2-ethanediyl) content is 2–60 moles;
herein referred to as Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates under 40 CFR 180.920
and 180.930 to include CAS No.
1266162–49–5 when used as a pesticide
inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations. An analytical method is
not required for enforcement purposes
since the Agency has established an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical
limitation. Contact: Elizabeth Fertich,
Registration Division (7505P), (703)
347–8560, email address:
fertich.elizabeth@epa.gov.
2. PP 1F7914. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
1033). Albemarle Corporation, 451
Florida Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70801,
requests to amend 40 CFR 180.940(a) by
establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for the
residues of the antimicrobial 1,2dibromo-5,5-dimethylhyadantoin (CAS
Reg. No. 77–48–5) in antimicrobial
formulations, in or on food contact
surface sanitizing solutions. May be
applied to: Food contact surfaces in
public eating places, dairy processing
equipment, and food-processing
equipment and utensils. When ready for
use, end-use concentration of all
bromine-producing chemicals in
solution is not to exceed 500 ppm of
total bromine. Analytical method is not
necessary since 1,3-dibromo-5,5dimethylhydantoin residues are
exempted from the requirements of a
tolerance. Contact: Tom Luminello,
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), (703)
308–8075, email address:
luminello.tom@epa.gov.
3. PP 1F7920. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
1029). D–I–1–4, Inc., a Division of 1,4
Group, Inc., P.O. Box 680, Meridian, ID
83680, requests to amend an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance in
40 CFR 180.1142 for residues of the
plant growth regulator 1,4Dimethylnaphthalene (1,4-DMN) when
applied post-harvest to potatoes and
other sprouting root, tuber and bulb
crops in accordance with good
agricultural practices. An analytical
method for residues is not applicable. It
is expected that, when used as
proposed, 1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene
would not result in residues that are of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15015
toxicological concern. Contact: Colin G.
Walsh, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), (703) 308–
0298, email address:
walsh.colin@epa.gov.
4. PP 1F7940. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
1028). Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,
c/o Conn & Smith, Inc., Agent, 6713
Catskill Road, Lorton, VA 22079,
requests to amend an existing
exemption from the requirement of
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.1285 for
residues of the biochemical pesticide
polyoxin D zinc salt when used as a
fungicide for pre-harvest and postharvest uses in accordance with good
agricultural practices, in or on all
agricultural commodities. A tolerance
exemption is proposed. Therefore, no
tolerance enforcement method is
proposed. Contact: Colin G. Walsh,
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (7511P), (703) 308–0298, email
address: walsh.colin@epa.gov.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012–6056 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0964; FRL–9332–3]
Revocation of Tolerance Exemptions
for Diethyl Phthalate and Methyl Ethyl
Ketone; No Data Being Developed as
Required by Test Orders (Data Call-Ins)
Under EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document proposes,
under section 408(e)(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
to revoke the existing exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance (tolerance
exemptions) for residues of diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone when
used as inert ingredients in pesticide
products because there are insufficient
data to make the determination of safety
required by FFDCA. No manufacturer or
importer of these chemicals has
committed to conduct testing and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
pstrozier on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15016
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
submit data required by test orders that
EPA issued under the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
EPA is, however, offering an
opportunity for interested parties to
comment or commit to submitting the
required data.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0964, 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–2011–
0964. 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 Web site 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the comment that is placed in
the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in 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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Britten, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8179; fax number: (703) 605–
0781; email address:
britten.anthony@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; or if you
manufacture or import chemical
substances that are used in pesticides.
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).
• Chemical manufacturers, importers
and processors (NAICS code 325).
• Pesticide, fertilizer, and other
agricultural chemical manufacturing
(NAICS code 3253).
• Scientific research and
development services (NAICS code
5417) e.g., persons who conduct testing
of chemical substances for endocrine
effects.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
C. What can I do if I wish EPA to
maintain a tolerance or tolerance
exemption that the agency proposes to
revoke?
This proposed rule provides a
comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining
a tolerance exemption proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment
within the 60-day period to that effect,
EPA will not proceed to revoke the
tolerance exemption immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure
the submission of any needed
supporting data and will either issue an
order under sections 3(c)(2)(B) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and section
408(p)(5) of FFDCA if the commenter is
a registrant or manufacturer, or will
issue an order in the Federal Register
under FFDCA section 408(f) if the
interested party is neither a registrant
nor manufacturer.
EPA issues a final rule after
considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed
rule. Comments should be limited only
to the inert ingredients and tolerance
exemptions subject to this proposed
rule. After considering comments, EPA
will issue a final regulation determining
whether revocation of the tolerance
exemptions is appropriate and making a
final finding on whether these tolerance
exemptions are ‘‘safe’’ within the
meaning of section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii).
In addition to submitting comments
in response to this proposal, you may
also submit an objection at the time of
the final rule pursuant to section 408(g)
(21 U.S.C. 346a(g)). If you anticipate that
you may wish to file objections to the
final rule, you must raise those issues in
your comments on this proposal. EPA
will treat as waived any issues raised in
objections that could reasonably have
been, but were not, presented in
comments on this proposal. Similarly, if
you fail to file an objection to the final
rule within the time period specified,
you will have waived the right to raise
any issues resolved in the final rule.
After the specified time, issues resolved
in the final rule cannot be raised again
in any subsequent proceedings.
II. Background
pstrozier on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA, under section 408(e)(1) of
FFDCA, is proposing to revoke tolerance
exemptions for residues of diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone in or
on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods when these chemicals
are used as inert ingredients in pesticide
products. These revocations would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
effective 6 months after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register.
EPA issued test orders to
manufacturers and importers of diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone on
January 21, 2010 and January 28, 2010,
respectively. The test orders required
recipients to generate data that would
allow the Agency to screen these
chemicals for their potential to interact
with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid
hormonal systems consistent with EPA’s
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP), developed in accordance with
section 408(p) of FFDCA.
Section 408(p)(3) of FFDCA requires
screening of ‘‘all pesticide chemicals,’’
including by definition inert ingredients
in pesticide products, to determine their
potential to disrupt the endocrine
system. 21 U.S.C. 345a(p)(3). The statute
also ties the availability of these or other
data ‘‘on whether the pesticide chemical
may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a
naturally occurring estrogen or other
endocrine effects’’ to the safety finding
that EPA must make in order to allow
a tolerance or exemption to remain. 21
U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D).
No company which received a test
order has committed to submit the
required data to support the continued
use of these chemicals as pesticide inert
ingredients. Rather, all elected to ‘‘opt
out’’ of the pesticide market rather than
conduct testing, and under the ‘‘optout’’ provision, were required to cease,
within 6 months of EPA issuing the test
order, all sales and distribution of their
chemical for use in pesticide
formulations.
EPA’s outreach to trade associations
suggests that registrants of pesticide
products will also decline to conduct
required testing in order to continue
using these chemicals as inert
ingredients. EPA therefore is not issuing
further test orders at this time. Rather,
this proposed rule offers a final
opportunity for any interested parties to
commit to develop these data, which
FFDCA makes necessary to support a
tolerance or exemption. A companion
notice in this issue of the Federal
Register provides background on all the
inert ingredient test orders issued and
the responses EPA has received to date.
In sum, because no one has
committed to generate these data, and
because EPA has no other data on which
it could rely to evaluate the endocrine
disruption potential of these inert
ingredients, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance exemption under 40 CFR
180.930 for diethyl phthalate and the
tolerance exemption under 40 CFR
180.920 for methyl ethyl ketone. In the
absence of any data bearing on the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15017
endocrine disruption potential of these
chemicals, EPA cannot find that these
chemicals continue to meet the required
safety standard under FFDCA section
408(b)(2). Through this proposed rule,
the Agency is inviting individuals who
need these exemptions to identify
themselves and the tolerance
exemptions that are needed. If during
the comment period for this proposal no
one either submits or commits to
generate data required by the test orders,
EPA will revoke these tolerance
exemptions. The following list identifies
the data EPA required in the test orders
to screen for potential effects on the
thyroid, estrogen and androgen systems,
and the estimated time to generate the
data. If screening data were to identify
endocrine activity, additional testing
might be required to establish doselevels for adverse effects.
Required Data and Estimated Number of
Months to Develop
Amphibian Metamorphosis (Frog): 15.
Androgen Receptor Binding (Rat
Prostate): 6.
Aromatase (Human Recombinant): 6.
Estrogen Receptor Binding: 6.
Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional
Activation (Human Cell Line (HeLa9903)): 6.
Fish Short-term Reproduction: 12.
Hershberger (Rat): 9.
Female Pubertal (Rat): 15.
Male Pubertal (Rat): 15.
Steroidogenesis (Human Cell Line—
H295R): 6.
Uterotrophic (Rat): 9.
EPA has loaded a sample test order in
the docket for reference. If after reading
this proposed rule and the test order
requirements, you intend to submit
data, indicate this clearly in your
comments.
B. What is the agency’s authority for
taking this action?
This proposed rule is issued pursuant
to section 408(e)(1)(B) of FFDCA (21
U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B)). A ‘‘tolerance’’
represents the maximum level for
residues of pesticide chemicals legally
allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods.
Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), 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
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
15018
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
pstrozier on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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)).
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA
requires EPA to modify or revoke a
tolerance if EPA determines that the
tolerance is not ‘‘safe.’’ 21 U.S.C.
346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean
that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue, including all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable
information.’’ Among those factors that
EPA is directed to consider in
establishing, modifying, leaving in
effect, or revoking a tolerance or
exemption for a pesticide chemical
residue is ‘‘such information as the
Administrator may require on whether
the pesticide chemical may have an
effect in humans that is similar to an
effect produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen or other endocrine effects;
* * *.’’ 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D)(viii).
FFDCA section 408(p)(1) requires EPA
‘‘to develop a screening program, using
appropriate validated test systems and
other scientifically relevant information
to determine whether certain substances
may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a
naturally occurring estrogen, or such
other effects as [EPA] may designate.’’
21 U.S.C. 346a(p). FFDCA section
408(p)(3) expressly requires that EPA
‘‘shall provide for the testing of all
pesticide chemicals.’’ FFDCA section
201 defines ‘‘pesticide chemical’’ as
‘‘any substance that is a pesticide within
the meaning of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), including all active and
pesticide inert ingredients of such
pesticide.’’ 21 U.S.C. 231(q)(1). FFDCA
section 408(e)(1)(B) provides that the
Administrator may issue a regulation
‘‘establishing, modifying, suspending
under section (l)(3), or revoking an
exemption of a pesticide chemical
residue from the requirement of a
tolerance.’’ 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B).
C. When would this action become
effective?
EPA is proposing to revoke the
tolerance exemptions for diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone
effective 6 months after the date the
final rule publishes in the Federal
Register. EPA believes its proposed
timeline gives registrants sufficient time
to take appropriate action. Under the
EDSP test orders, manufacturers and
importers that ‘‘opted out’’ of testing
had to cease all sales and distribution of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:01 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
the chemical to the pesticide market for
use in formulating pesticide products
within 6 months of EPA issuing the test
order. EPA issued the last test orders for
these chemicals on January 28, 2010, so
all sales and distribution of diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone for
use in formulating pesticide products
were to have ceased as of July 28, 2010.
EPA has also been performing outreach
to trade groups to inform them about the
potential loss of these chemicals as inert
ingredients. This Federal Register
document provides further notice.
Any commodities treated with
pesticide products containing the inert
ingredients diethyl phthalate and
methyl ethyl ketone and in the channels
of trade following the tolerance
revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA
section 408(1)(5), as established by
FQPA. Under this section, any residues
of these pesticide chemicals in or on
such food shall not render the food
adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of FDA that:
i. 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.
ii. 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 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. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
EPA is proposing to revoke the
exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for diethyl phthalate and
methyl ethyl ketone. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this proposed rule has been
exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
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 under Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 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). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of the FFDCA,
such as the tolerance in this proposed
rule, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. The
Agency hereby certifies that this
proposed action will not have a
significant negative economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
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
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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, Endocrine
disruptors, Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 17, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR
part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
§ 180.920
[Amended]
2. In § 180.920, the table is amended
by removing the entire entry for
‘‘Methyl ethyl ketone.’’
§ 180.930
[Amended]
pstrozier on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. In § 180.930, the table is amended
by removing the entire entry for
‘‘Diethylphthalate.’’
[FR Doc. 2012–6210 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:10 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 13, 17, and 23
15019
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203.
[Docket No. FWS–R9–IA–2010–0083; 96300–
1671–0000–R4]
Dated: March 8, 2012.
Sara Prigan,
Federal Register Liaison.
RIN 1018–AW82
[FR Doc. 2012–6104 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Revision of Regulations Implementing
the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES); Updates Following
the Fifteenth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to CITES;
Correction
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
AGENCY:
On March 8, 2012, we, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or
Service), published a proposed rule to
revise the regulations that implement
the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) by incorporating
certain provisions adopted at the
fourteenth and fifteenth meetings of the
Conference of the Parties (CoP14 and
CoP15) to CITES and clarifying and
updating certain other provisions.
Inadvertently, we made some errors in
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections
concerning the information collection
aspects of the proposal. With this
technical correction, we correct those
errors.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of
Management Authority; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 212; Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone, 703–358–2093.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
8, 2012 (77 FR 14200), we published a
proposed rule to revise the regulations
that implement CITES. Inadvertently,
we made some errors in the DATES and
ADDRESSES sections concerning the
information collection aspects of the
proposal. With this technical correction,
we correct those errors.
Under DATES, we printed an incorrect
date for the deadline for comments on
the information collection aspects of the
proposed rule. The correct date is April
9, 2012. Comments on the information
collection aspects of this proposed rule
will be considered if received by April
9, 2012.
Under ADDRESSES, we printed an
incorrect address to which to provide us
a copy of your comments on the
information collection aspects of the
proposed rule. Please provide those
comments to the Service Information
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–BB42
Groundfish Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska and Pacific
Halibut Fisheries; Observer Program
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of availability of
fishery management plan amendment;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council submitted
Amendment 86 to the Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area (BSAI) and
Amendment 76 to the FMP for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA),
(collectively referred to as the FMPs) to
NMFS for review. If approved,
Amendments 86 and 76 would add a
funding and deployment system for
observer coverage to the existing North
Pacific Groundfish Observer Program
(Observer Program) and amend existing
observer coverage requirements for
vessels and processing plants at 50 CFR
679.50. The new funding and
deployment system would allow NMFS
to determine when and where to deploy
observers according to management and
conservation needs, with funds
provided through a system of fees based
on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and
halibut in fisheries covered by the new
system. This action is necessary to
resolve data quality and cost equity
concerns with the Observer Program’s
existing funding and deployment
structure. This action is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(MSA), the FMPs, and other applicable
law.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14MRP1.SGM
14MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15015-15019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0964; FRL-9332-3]
Revocation of Tolerance Exemptions for Diethyl Phthalate and
Methyl Ethyl Ketone; No Data Being Developed as Required by Test Orders
(Data Call-Ins) Under EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes, under section 408(e)(1) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), to revoke the existing exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance (tolerance exemptions) for residues
of diethyl phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone when used as inert
ingredients in pesticide products because there are insufficient data
to make the determination of safety required by FFDCA. No manufacturer
or importer of these chemicals has committed to conduct testing and
[[Page 15016]]
submit data required by test orders that EPA issued under the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). EPA is, however, offering an
opportunity for interested parties to comment or commit to submitting
the required data.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 14, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0964, 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-
2011-0964. 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 Web site 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in 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., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Britten, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-8179; fax number: (703) 605-0781; email address:
britten.anthony@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; or
if you manufacture or import chemical substances that are used in
pesticides. 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).
Chemical manufacturers, importers and processors (NAICS
code 325).
Pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical
manufacturing (NAICS code 3253).
Scientific research and development services (NAICS code
5417) e.g., persons who conduct testing of chemical substances for
endocrine effects.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
[[Page 15017]]
C. What can I do if I wish EPA to maintain a tolerance or tolerance
exemption that the agency proposes to revoke?
This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any
person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance exemption proposed
for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to
that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance exemption
immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of
any needed supporting data and will either issue an order under
sections 3(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and section 408(p)(5) of FFDCA if the commenter
is a registrant or manufacturer, or will issue an order in the Federal
Register under FFDCA section 408(f) if the interested party is neither
a registrant nor manufacturer.
EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. Comments should be limited
only to the inert ingredients and tolerance exemptions subject to this
proposed rule. After considering comments, EPA will issue a final
regulation determining whether revocation of the tolerance exemptions
is appropriate and making a final finding on whether these tolerance
exemptions are ``safe'' within the meaning of section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii).
In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal,
you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule pursuant
to section 408(g) (21 U.S.C. 346a(g)). If you anticipate that you may
wish to file objections to the final rule, you must raise those issues
in your comments on this proposal. EPA will treat as waived any issues
raised in objections that could reasonably have been, but were not,
presented in comments on this proposal. Similarly, if you fail to file
an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you
will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final
rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule
cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.
II. Background
A. What action is the agency taking?
EPA, under section 408(e)(1) of FFDCA, is proposing to revoke
tolerance exemptions for residues of diethyl phthalate and methyl ethyl
ketone in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods when
these chemicals are used as inert ingredients in pesticide products.
These revocations would be effective 6 months after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register.
EPA issued test orders to manufacturers and importers of diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone on January 21, 2010 and January 28,
2010, respectively. The test orders required recipients to generate
data that would allow the Agency to screen these chemicals for their
potential to interact with the estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormonal
systems consistent with EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP), developed in accordance with section 408(p) of FFDCA.
Section 408(p)(3) of FFDCA requires screening of ``all pesticide
chemicals,'' including by definition inert ingredients in pesticide
products, to determine their potential to disrupt the endocrine system.
21 U.S.C. 345a(p)(3). The statute also ties the availability of these
or other data ``on whether the pesticide chemical may have an effect in
humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen or other endocrine effects'' to the safety finding that EPA
must make in order to allow a tolerance or exemption to remain. 21
U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D).
No company which received a test order has committed to submit the
required data to support the continued use of these chemicals as
pesticide inert ingredients. Rather, all elected to ``opt out'' of the
pesticide market rather than conduct testing, and under the ``opt-out''
provision, were required to cease, within 6 months of EPA issuing the
test order, all sales and distribution of their chemical for use in
pesticide formulations.
EPA's outreach to trade associations suggests that registrants of
pesticide products will also decline to conduct required testing in
order to continue using these chemicals as inert ingredients. EPA
therefore is not issuing further test orders at this time. Rather, this
proposed rule offers a final opportunity for any interested parties to
commit to develop these data, which FFDCA makes necessary to support a
tolerance or exemption. A companion notice in this issue of the Federal
Register provides background on all the inert ingredient test orders
issued and the responses EPA has received to date.
In sum, because no one has committed to generate these data, and
because EPA has no other data on which it could rely to evaluate the
endocrine disruption potential of these inert ingredients, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.930 for
diethyl phthalate and the tolerance exemption under 40 CFR 180.920 for
methyl ethyl ketone. In the absence of any data bearing on the
endocrine disruption potential of these chemicals, EPA cannot find that
these chemicals continue to meet the required safety standard under
FFDCA section 408(b)(2). Through this proposed rule, the Agency is
inviting individuals who need these exemptions to identify themselves
and the tolerance exemptions that are needed. If during the comment
period for this proposal no one either submits or commits to generate
data required by the test orders, EPA will revoke these tolerance
exemptions. The following list identifies the data EPA required in the
test orders to screen for potential effects on the thyroid, estrogen
and androgen systems, and the estimated time to generate the data. If
screening data were to identify endocrine activity, additional testing
might be required to establish dose-levels for adverse effects.
Required Data and Estimated Number of Months to Develop
Amphibian Metamorphosis (Frog): 15.
Androgen Receptor Binding (Rat Prostate): 6.
Aromatase (Human Recombinant): 6.
Estrogen Receptor Binding: 6.
Estrogen Receptor Transcriptional Activation (Human Cell Line
(HeLa-9903)): 6.
Fish Short-term Reproduction: 12.
Hershberger (Rat): 9.
Female Pubertal (Rat): 15.
Male Pubertal (Rat): 15.
Steroidogenesis (Human Cell Line--H295R): 6.
Uterotrophic (Rat): 9.
EPA has loaded a sample test order in the docket for reference. If
after reading this proposed rule and the test order requirements, you
intend to submit data, indicate this clearly in your comments.
B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
This proposed rule is issued pursuant to section 408(e)(1)(B) of
FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B)). A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum
level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA), 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
[[Page 15018]]
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)).
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA requires EPA to modify or
revoke a tolerance if EPA determines that the tolerance is not
``safe.'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' Among those
factors that EPA is directed to consider in establishing, modifying,
leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption for a pesticide
chemical residue is ``such information as the Administrator may require
on whether the pesticide chemical may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or
other endocrine effects; * * *.'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D)(viii).
FFDCA section 408(p)(1) requires EPA ``to develop a screening
program, using appropriate validated test systems and other
scientifically relevant information to determine whether certain
substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect
produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other effects as
[EPA] may designate.'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(p). FFDCA section 408(p)(3)
expressly requires that EPA ``shall provide for the testing of all
pesticide chemicals.'' FFDCA section 201 defines ``pesticide chemical''
as ``any substance that is a pesticide within the meaning of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), including
all active and pesticide inert ingredients of such pesticide.'' 21
U.S.C. 231(q)(1). FFDCA section 408(e)(1)(B) provides that the
Administrator may issue a regulation ``establishing, modifying,
suspending under section (l)(3), or revoking an exemption of a
pesticide chemical residue from the requirement of a tolerance.'' 21
U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B).
C. When would this action become effective?
EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance exemptions for diethyl
phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone effective 6 months after the date the
final rule publishes in the Federal Register. EPA believes its proposed
timeline gives registrants sufficient time to take appropriate action.
Under the EDSP test orders, manufacturers and importers that ``opted
out'' of testing had to cease all sales and distribution of the
chemical to the pesticide market for use in formulating pesticide
products within 6 months of EPA issuing the test order. EPA issued the
last test orders for these chemicals on January 28, 2010, so all sales
and distribution of diethyl phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone for use
in formulating pesticide products were to have ceased as of July 28,
2010. EPA has also been performing outreach to trade groups to inform
them about the potential loss of these chemicals as inert ingredients.
This Federal Register document provides further notice.
Any commodities treated with pesticide products containing the
inert ingredients diethyl phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone and in the
channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject
to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section,
any residues of these pesticide chemicals in or on such food shall not
render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction
of FDA that:
i. 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.
ii. 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 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
EPA is proposing to revoke the exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for diethyl phthalate and methyl ethyl ketone. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack
of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, 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 under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any
Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of the
FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this proposed rule, do not require the
issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. The Agency
hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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
[[Page 15019]]
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, Endocrine disruptors, Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 17, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.920 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 180.920, the table is amended by removing the entire
entry for ``Methyl ethyl ketone.''
Sec. 180.930 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 180.930, the table is amended by removing the entire
entry for ``Diethylphthalate.''
[FR Doc. 2012-6210 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P