Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific Tolerances and Removal of Expired Tolerances, 21187-21189 [2015-08784]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21187
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS—Continued
Michigan citation
State
effective
date
Title
*
*
*
EPA Approval date
*
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
*
Local Regulations
*
*
Wayne County Air
Pollution Control
Regulations.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0162; FRL–9925–70]
Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific
Tolerances and Removal of Expired
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Order reestablishing
and amending tolerances.
AGENCY:
EPA is amending its
regulations to reinstate four import
tolerances for carbofuran, in order to
comply with a DC Circuit decision and
order vacating the Agency’s revocation
of those tolerances. EPA is also
removing several carbofuran timelimited tolerances that have already
expired. Because this action is being
taken to conform the regulations to the
court’s order and to accurately reflect
the current legal status of these
tolerances, EPA is issuing this as a final
order that is effective upon publication.
DATES: Effective April 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0162, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
3/20/69
*
[FR Doc. 2015–08888 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations.
*
*
*
Jkt 235001
4/17/15, [insert Federal Register
citation].
*
*
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 308–8037; email address:
nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 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. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
II. What is the Agency’s authority for
taking this action?
EPA is taking this action pursuant to
the authority in section 408(g)(2)(C) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C).
III. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is revising the tolerance
regulations in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 180 to
reflect the reinstatement of four import
tolerances for carbofuran, in compliance
with a decision and order from the D.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
All except for Section 6.3 (A–H)
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Circuit in National Corn Growers
Association v. EPA, 613 F.3d 266 (D.C.
Cir. 2010). EPA is also amending 40 CFR
part 180 to delete the listings of other
carbofuran tolerances that have expired,
and thus are no longer valid.
IV. Why is EPA taking this action?
In the Federal Register of July 31,
2008 (73 FR 44864) (FRL–8373–8), EPA
proposed to revoke all carbofuran
tolerances and provided a 60-day public
comment period. The revocations were
based on an Agency determination that
the risk from aggregate exposure from
the use of carbofuran did not meet the
safety standard of FFDCA section
408(b)(2). In the Federal Register of May
15, 2009 (74 FR 23046) (FRL–8413–3),
EPA finalized the revocation of all of the
carbofuran tolerances, effective
December 31, 2009. During the objection
period, the carbofuran registrant, FMC
Corporation, and three grower
associations (National Corn Growers
Association, National Sunflower
Association, and National Potato
Council) submitted objections to EPA’s
tolerance revocations and requested an
administrative hearing. EPA concluded
that the regulatory standard for holding
an evidentiary hearing had not been met
and issued an order in the Federal
Register of November 18, 2009 (74 FR
59608) (FRL–8797–6), which denied the
objections and requests for hearing and
included the Agency’s reasons.
FMC Corporation, in conjunction with
the three grower associations,
challenged EPA’s decision in the Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The
court upheld EPA’s revocation of all
carbofuran domestic tolerances and
denial of the hearing requests, but
vacated EPA’s revocation of the four
import tolerances (bananas, coffee, rice,
and sugarcane). The Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit also denied the
subsequent petition filed by FMC and
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21188
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the three grower associations for
rehearing and rehearing en banc. The
petitioners appealed this decision to the
Supreme Court. On May 31, 2011, the
Supreme Court declined to hear the
request by FMC and the three grower
associations to review EPA’s 2009
decision to revoke all domestic
tolerances for carbofuran, ending these
legal challenges. For more information,
see https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_
noic.htm.
Because the D.C. Circuit vacated
EPA’s revocation of the four import
tolerances for carbofuran, they are in
fact, currently in effect. EPA is revising
the CFR to accurately reflect the current
legal status of the four import tolerances
by removing the expiration dates in
their listings in 40 CFR 180.254(a).
Specifically, EPA is removing the
expiration date of December 31, 2009
associated with the carbofuran
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254(a) on
banana; coffee, bean, green; rice, grain;
and sugarcane, cane.
Also, to eliminate potential confusion,
EPA is removing other carbofuran
tolerances that expired on December 31,
2009. Because these tolerances have
expired, they are no longer legally valid.
Consequently, EPA is deleting the
following tolerances: (1) In 40 CFR 180.
254(a) on alfalfa, forage (of which no
more than 5 ppm are carbamates);
alfalfa, hay (of which no more than 20
ppm are carbamates); barley, grain (of
which no more than 0.1 ppm is
carbamates); barley, straw (of which no
more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); beet,
sugar, roots; beet, sugar, tops (of which
no more than 1 ppm is carbamates);
corn, field, forage (of which no more
than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, field,
grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm
is carbamates); corn, field, stover (of
which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); corn, pop, grain (of which
no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates);
corn, pop, stover (of which no more
than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn,
sweet, forage (of which no more than 5
ppm are carbamates); corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husks removed (of
which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates); corn, sweet, stover (of
which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); cotton, undelinted seed (of
which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates); cranberry (of which no
more than 0.3 ppm is carbamates);
cucumber (of which no more than 0.2
ppm is carbamates); grape (of which no
more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates);
grape, raisin (of which no more than 1.0
ppm is carbamates); grape, raisin, waste
(of which no more than 3.0 ppm are
carbamates); melon (of which no more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); milk (of
which no more than 0.02 ppm is
carbamates); oat, grain (of which no
more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); oat,
straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm
is carbamates); pepper (of which no
more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates);
potato (of which no more than 1 ppm
is carbamates); pumpkin (of which no
more than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); rice,
straw (of which no more than 0.2 ppm
is carbamates); sorghum, forage (of
which no more than 0.5 ppm is
carbamates); sorghum, grain, grain;
sorghum, grain, stover (of which no
more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates);
strawberry (of which no more than 0.2
ppm is carbamates); soybean (of which
no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates);
soybean, forage (of which no more than
20.0 ppm are carbamates); soybean, hay
(of which no more than 20.0 ppm are
carbamates); squash (of which no more
than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); sunflower,
seed (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is
carbamates); wheat, grain (of which no
more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); and
wheat, straw (of which no more than 1.0
ppm is carbamates); and (2) in 40 CFR
180.254(c) on artichoke, globe (of which
no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates).
V. Why is this a final order?
EPA is issuing a final order without
providing either notice and an
opportunity to comment, or an
opportunity to raise objections. For a
number of reasons, EPA has concluded
that the issuance of a final order
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(g)(2)(C)
best reflects the current stage of the
proceedings in this case, and is most
appropriate to the circumstances under
the applicable procedures of FFDCA
section 408.
With respect to the import tolerances,
the court vacated only the portion of
EPA’s final order that related to the
revocation of the four carbofuran import
tolerances, not the entire underlying
action rulemaking and objections
process that preceded the order. EPA
has already conducted the procedures
required under FFDCA sections 408(e)
and (g); the public has previously had
an opportunity to comment on and raise
objections to the EPA decisions
reflected in the amendments to the CFR
described in this document. The only
revisions to the CFR relating to the
import tolerances are those that are
being taken merely to be consistent with
the court’s order, which left EPA with
no discretion as to the actions necessary
to implement the order. Finally, this
action does not therefore affect the legal
status or otherwise effect any
substantive change to these tolerances,
but merely amends the CFR to
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
accurately reflect the present legal status
of these tolerances. Because the D.C.
Circuit’s vacatur rendered EPA’s 2009
revocation action without effect, these
tolerances are currently in effect.
The deletion from the CFR of the
carbofuran tolerances that have already
expired presents essentially the same
procedural and substantive case. EPA’s
action does not affect the legal status of
these tolerances in any way. The
deletion from the CFR of the currently
expired carbofuran tolerances merely
reflects the present legal status of these
tolerances. In addition, EPA has already
conducted the procedures required
under FFDCA sections 408(e) and (g) to
effectuate these revisions; the public has
previously had an opportunity to
comment on and raise objections to the
EPA decision to establish the expiration
dates for these particular tolerances (73
FR 44864, July 31, 2008 (FRL–8373–8);
74 FR 23046, May 15, 2009 (FRL–8413–
3); and 74 FR 59608, November 18, 2009
(FRL–8797–6).
VI. When do these actions become
effective?
As stated in the DATES section of this
document, this order and the
corresponding changes to 40 CFR part
180 are effective April 17, 2015.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
In this action, EPA is amending 40
CFR part 180 to accurately reflect the
current legal status of a number of
carbofuran tolerances by means of an
order and not a rule (21 U.S.C.
346a(f)(1)(C)). Under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), orders are
expressly excluded from the definition
of a rule (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). Accordingly,
the regulatory assessment requirements
imposed on a rulemaking do not apply
to this order, as explained further in the
following discussion.
Because this order is not a ‘‘regulatory
action’’ as that term is defined in
Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
entitled Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011). As a result, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and
Executive Order 13211 entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). In addition, since this order
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C.
551(4)), and does 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.
This action does not contain any
information collections or impose
additional burdens that require approval
by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). Nor does this order 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).
This order directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes; nor does
this action alter the relationships or
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States
or tribal governments, on the
relationship between the national
government and the State or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply
to this order. In addition, this order does
not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
VIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) does
not apply to this action because this
order n is not a rule as that term is
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA will,
however, submit a courtesy copy of this
document to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
16:14 Apr 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Robert.Holcombe@gsa.gov for
clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite
FMR Case 2014–102–3.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
A. Background
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.254, revise the table in
paragraph (a) and revise paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.254 Carbofuran; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
Commodity
Parts per million
Banana 1 .........................
Coffee, bean, green 1 .....
Rice, grain 1 ....................
Sugarcane, cane 1 ..........
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
1 There are no U.S. registrations for use of
carbofuran on these commodities.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–08784 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 102–42
[FMR Change 2015–02; FMR Case 2014–
102–3; Docket No. 2014–0019; Sequence
No. 1]
RIN 3090–AJ49
Federal Management Regulation;
Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of
Foreign Gifts and Decorations
Office of Government-wide
Policy, General Services
Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
Federal Management Regulation (FMR).
This amendment changes the means by
which GSA publishes the redefined
foreign gift minimal value rates and
adds the term and definition of
‘‘spouse’’.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Dated: April 9, 2015.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
21189
Effective: April 17, 2015.
Mr.
Robert Holcombe, Office of
Government-wide Policy, Office of
Asset and Transportation Management
(MA), at 202–501–3828 or by email at
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Every three years, GSA is required to
redefine the ‘‘minimal value’’ of foreign
gifts under 5 U.S.C. 7342. In order for
GSA to consult with the Secretary of
State and publish this revised figure as
closely to the effective date (January 1st)
as possible, the redefined values will be
published in a Federal Management
Regulation (FMR) Bulletin at
www.gsa.gov/personalpropertypolicy.
In addition, the definition of minimal
value is being amended to state that an
employing agency may, by regulation,
define ‘‘minimal value’’ for its agency
employees to be less than the GSA
definition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
7342(a)(5)(B).
Finally, the term and definition of
‘‘spouse’’ is added to FMR part 102–42.
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7,
provided that, when used in a Federal
law, the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to
a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife. Because of DOMA,
the Federal Government has been
heretofore prohibited from recognizing
marriages of same-sex couples for all
Federal purposes, including asset
management policies. On June 26, 2013,
in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12
(2013), 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the
Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) held Section 3 of
DOMA unconstitutional. As a result,
GSA is adding the definition of the term
‘‘spouse’’ to this part for clarity. This
case is included in GSA’s retrospective
review of existing regulations under
Executive Order 13563. Additional
information is located in GSA’s
retrospective review (2014) available at:
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.
B. Changes
This final rule:
(1) Changes the means by which GSA
publishes updates to the definition of
‘‘minimal value’’ and makes the
information available to the public;
(2) Adds the term and a definition for
the term ‘‘spouse’’ to 41 CFR part 102–
42; and
(3) Changes the citations in the
authority section to reflect the
codification of Title 40, United States
Code, into positive law.
E:\FR\FM\17APR1.SGM
17APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21187-21189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08784]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162; FRL-9925-70]
Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific Tolerances and Removal of
Expired Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; Order reestablishing and amending tolerances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending its regulations to reinstate four import
tolerances for carbofuran, in order to comply with a DC Circuit
decision and order vacating the Agency's revocation of those
tolerances. EPA is also removing several carbofuran time-limited
tolerances that have already expired. Because this action is being
taken to conform the regulations to the court's order and to accurately
reflect the current legal status of these tolerances, EPA is issuing
this as a final order that is effective upon publication.
DATES: Effective April 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0162, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; email address:
nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
II. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
EPA is taking this action pursuant to the authority in section
408(g)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C).
III. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is revising the tolerance regulations in title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 180 to reflect the reinstatement of
four import tolerances for carbofuran, in compliance with a decision
and order from the D.C. Circuit in National Corn Growers Association v.
EPA, 613 F.3d 266 (D.C. Cir. 2010). EPA is also amending 40 CFR part
180 to delete the listings of other carbofuran tolerances that have
expired, and thus are no longer valid.
IV. Why is EPA taking this action?
In the Federal Register of July 31, 2008 (73 FR 44864) (FRL-8373-
8), EPA proposed to revoke all carbofuran tolerances and provided a 60-
day public comment period. The revocations were based on an Agency
determination that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of
carbofuran did not meet the safety standard of FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
In the Federal Register of May 15, 2009 (74 FR 23046) (FRL-8413-3), EPA
finalized the revocation of all of the carbofuran tolerances, effective
December 31, 2009. During the objection period, the carbofuran
registrant, FMC Corporation, and three grower associations (National
Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, and National
Potato Council) submitted objections to EPA's tolerance revocations and
requested an administrative hearing. EPA concluded that the regulatory
standard for holding an evidentiary hearing had not been met and issued
an order in the Federal Register of November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59608)
(FRL-8797-6), which denied the objections and requests for hearing and
included the Agency's reasons.
FMC Corporation, in conjunction with the three grower associations,
challenged EPA's decision in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The court upheld EPA's revocation of all carbofuran domestic tolerances
and denial of the hearing requests, but vacated EPA's revocation of the
four import tolerances (bananas, coffee, rice, and sugarcane). The
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit also denied the subsequent
petition filed by FMC and
[[Page 21188]]
the three grower associations for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The
petitioners appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. On May 31,
2011, the Supreme Court declined to hear the request by FMC and the
three grower associations to review EPA's 2009 decision to revoke all
domestic tolerances for carbofuran, ending these legal challenges. For
more information, see https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_noic.htm.
Because the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's revocation of the four
import tolerances for carbofuran, they are in fact, currently in
effect. EPA is revising the CFR to accurately reflect the current legal
status of the four import tolerances by removing the expiration dates
in their listings in 40 CFR 180.254(a). Specifically, EPA is removing
the expiration date of December 31, 2009 associated with the carbofuran
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254(a) on banana; coffee, bean, green; rice,
grain; and sugarcane, cane.
Also, to eliminate potential confusion, EPA is removing other
carbofuran tolerances that expired on December 31, 2009. Because these
tolerances have expired, they are no longer legally valid.
Consequently, EPA is deleting the following tolerances: (1) In 40 CFR
180. 254(a) on alfalfa, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); alfalfa, hay (of which no more than 20 ppm are
carbamates); barley, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
carbamates); barley, straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is
carbamates); beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, tops (of which no more
than 1 ppm is carbamates); corn, field, forage (of which no more than 5
ppm are carbamates); corn, field, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm
is carbamates); corn, field, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); corn, pop, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
carbamates); corn, pop, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); corn, sweet, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are
carbamates); corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed (of which
no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); corn, sweet, stover (of which no
more than 5 ppm are carbamates); cotton, undelinted seed (of which no
more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); cranberry (of which no more than 0.3
ppm is carbamates); cucumber (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates); grape (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates);
grape, raisin (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); grape,
raisin, waste (of which no more than 3.0 ppm are carbamates); melon (of
which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); milk (of which no more than
0.02 ppm is carbamates); oat, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
carbamates); oat, straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates);
pepper (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); potato (of which
no more than 1 ppm is carbamates); pumpkin (of which no more than 0.6
ppm is carbamates); rice, straw (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates); sorghum, forage (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is
carbamates); sorghum, grain, grain; sorghum, grain, stover (of which no
more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); strawberry (of which no more than 0.2
ppm is carbamates); soybean (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates); soybean, forage (of which no more than 20.0 ppm are
carbamates); soybean, hay (of which no more than 20.0 ppm are
carbamates); squash (of which no more than 0.6 ppm is carbamates);
sunflower, seed (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); wheat,
grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); and wheat, straw
(of which no more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); and (2) in 40 CFR
180.254(c) on artichoke, globe (of which no more than 0.2 ppm is
carbamates).
V. Why is this a final order?
EPA is issuing a final order without providing either notice and an
opportunity to comment, or an opportunity to raise objections. For a
number of reasons, EPA has concluded that the issuance of a final order
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(g)(2)(C) best reflects the current stage
of the proceedings in this case, and is most appropriate to the
circumstances under the applicable procedures of FFDCA section 408.
With respect to the import tolerances, the court vacated only the
portion of EPA's final order that related to the revocation of the four
carbofuran import tolerances, not the entire underlying action
rulemaking and objections process that preceded the order. EPA has
already conducted the procedures required under FFDCA sections 408(e)
and (g); the public has previously had an opportunity to comment on and
raise objections to the EPA decisions reflected in the amendments to
the CFR described in this document. The only revisions to the CFR
relating to the import tolerances are those that are being taken merely
to be consistent with the court's order, which left EPA with no
discretion as to the actions necessary to implement the order. Finally,
this action does not therefore affect the legal status or otherwise
effect any substantive change to these tolerances, but merely amends
the CFR to accurately reflect the present legal status of these
tolerances. Because the D.C. Circuit's vacatur rendered EPA's 2009
revocation action without effect, these tolerances are currently in
effect.
The deletion from the CFR of the carbofuran tolerances that have
already expired presents essentially the same procedural and
substantive case. EPA's action does not affect the legal status of
these tolerances in any way. The deletion from the CFR of the currently
expired carbofuran tolerances merely reflects the present legal status
of these tolerances. In addition, EPA has already conducted the
procedures required under FFDCA sections 408(e) and (g) to effectuate
these revisions; the public has previously had an opportunity to
comment on and raise objections to the EPA decision to establish the
expiration dates for these particular tolerances (73 FR 44864, July 31,
2008 (FRL-8373-8); 74 FR 23046, May 15, 2009 (FRL-8413-3); and 74 FR
59608, November 18, 2009 (FRL-8797-6).
VI. When do these actions become effective?
As stated in the DATES section of this document, this order and the
corresponding changes to 40 CFR part 180 are effective April 17, 2015.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 180 to accurately
reflect the current legal status of a number of carbofuran tolerances
by means of an order and not a rule (21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C)). Under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), orders are expressly excluded
from the definition of a rule (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). Accordingly, the
regulatory assessment requirements imposed on a rulemaking do not apply
to this order, as explained further in the following discussion.
Because this order is not a ``regulatory action'' as that term is
defined in Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As a result, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), and Executive Order 13211 entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, since this order
[[Page 21189]]
is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)), and does 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.
This action does not contain any information collections or impose
additional burdens that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Nor does this order
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).
This order directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes; nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the State or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this order. In addition, this
order does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538).
VIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) does not apply to this action
because this order n is not a rule as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C.
804(3). EPA will, however, submit a courtesy copy of this document to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 9, 2015.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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.
0
2. In Sec. 180.254, revise the table in paragraph (a) and revise
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.254 Carbofuran; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana \1\........................................... 0.1
Coffee, bean, green \1\.............................. 0.1
Rice, grain \1\...................................... 0.2
Sugarcane, cane \1\.................................. 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for use of carbofuran on these
commodities.
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-08784 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
