![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and Vinclozolin; Proposed Tolerance Revocations
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14618-14623]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23mr05-46]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2004-0421; FRL-7701-4]
Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and
Vinclozolin; Proposed Tolerance Revocations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revoke specific tolerances for
residues of the herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon,
disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and fungicide vinclozolin. Some of
these specific tolerances correspond to commodities either no longer
considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have
registration restrictions against feeding to livestock. Other
tolerances are associated with food registrations that EPA canceled or
for which the Agency deleted food uses following requests for voluntary
cancellation or use deletion by the registrants. EPA expects to
determine whether any individuals or groups want to support these
tolerances. The regulatory actions proposed in this document contribute
toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by
August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996.
The regulatory actions proposed in this document pertain to the
proposed revocation of 15 tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which
9 would be counted as tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006
review deadline.
[[Page 14619]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number OPP-2004-0421, by one of the following methods:
? Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Website: http://www.regulations.gov/. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to
opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0421.
? Mail. Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001, Attention: docket ID number OPP-2004-0421.
? Hand Delivery. Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0421. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number OPP-2004-
0421. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the regulations.gov
websites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31,
2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL-7181-7).
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; e-mail
address: nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
? Crop production (NAICS 111)
? Animal production (NAICS 112)
? Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
? Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit IA. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.regulations.gov/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking 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
[[Page 14620]]
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.
D. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance 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 proposed for
revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that
effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately.
However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed
supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under
FFDCA section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and
the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90-
days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data.
If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take
appropriate action under FFDCA.
EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are
submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting
comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection
at the time of the final rule. 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 is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for residues of the
herbicide alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon, disulfoton, and
pirimiphos-methyl, and the fungicide vinclozolin because the specific
tolerances correspond to commodities which are either no longer
considered to be significant livestock feed items or which have
restrictions against feeding to livestock, or to uses no longer current
or registered under FIFRA in the United States. It is EPA's general
practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the
proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
1. Alachlor. Active registrations for use of the herbicide alachlor
have restrictions against feeding peanut forage; peanut, hay; soybean,
forage; and soybean, hay to livestock. Also, peanut forage is no longer
considered a significant livestock feed item. The restrictions against
the feeding of alachlor treated soybean forage and hay for all alachlor
products occurred with the June 22, 1994 cancellation of two
registrations which had lacked the restriction. These cancellations had
followed publication of a notice in the Federal Register of March 17,
1994 (59 FR 12599) (FRL-4764-1) which announced EPA's receipt of
requests to voluntarily cancel certain registrations. The restrictions
against the feeding of alachlor treated peanut forage and hay for all
alachlor products have been on labels since 1993.
The tolerances for peanut forage, peanut hay, soybean forage, and
soybean hay were recommended by the Agency for revocation in the 1998
Alachlor RED. A printed copy of the Alachlor RED may be obtained from
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-
9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-
6000; internet athttp://www.ntis.gov/ An electronic copy of the
Alachlor RED is available on the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
Therefore, because there is no longer a need for them, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.249 for residues of
alachlor and its metabolites on peanut, forage; peanut, hay; soybean,
forage; and soybean, hay.
2. Carbaryl. Because flax straw is no longer a regulated feed item
(no longer considered a raw agricultural commodity (RAC) of flax), the
tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke
the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl,
including its hydrolysis product 1-naphthol, calculated as 1-naphthyl
N-methylcarbamate, in or on flax, straw.
Because bean forage and bean hay are no longer considered
significant livestock feed items, the tolerances are no longer needed.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.169(a)(1) for residues of carbaryl, including its hydrolysis
product 1-naphthol, calculated as l-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate, in or
on bean, forage and bean, hay.
Because pineapple bran is no longer a regulated feed item (no
longer considered a RAC of pineapple), the tolerance is no longer
needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.169(a)(4) for residues of carbaryl in or on pineapple bran. Note,
the separate tolerance on pineapple is maintained.
3. Diazinon. There have been no registered uses of diazinon on
coffee beans and dandelions since 1995 and 1991, respectively.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR
180.153(a)(1) for residues of the insecticide diazinon (O,O-diethyl O-
[6-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl)-4-pyrimidinyl]phosphorothioate) in or on
coffee bean and dandelion, leaves.
4. Disulfoton. There have been no registered uses of disulfoton on
hops since 1991. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.183(a) for the combined residues of the insecticide O,O-
diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl]
phosphorodithioate and its
cholinesterase-inhibiting metabolites, calculated as demeton, in or on
hop, dried cones.
5. Pirimiphos-methyl. There have been no registered uses of
pirimiphos-methyl on kiwifruits for at least 10-years. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(1) for the
combined residues of the insecticide pirimiphos-methyl, O-[2-
diethylamino-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) O,O-dimethyl phosphorothioate, the
metabolite O-[2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-yl) O,O-dimethyl
phosphorothioate and, in free and conjugated form, the metabolites 2-
diethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol), 2-ethylamino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-
4-ol, and 2-amino-6-methyl-pyrimidin-4-ol in or on kiwifruit.
In 2001, EPA published an Interim Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (IRED) for pirimiphos-methyl and made a determination that
pirimiphos-methyl residues of concern do not concentrate in wheat
flour. Because the tolerance is no longer needed, EPA is proposing to
revoke the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.409(a)(2) for residues of
pirimiphos-methyl and its metabolites in or on wheat flour as a result
of application to stored wheat grain.
A printed copy of the pirimiphos-methyl IRED may be obtained from
EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/
NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati,
[[Page 14621]]
OH 45242-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet
at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/ and from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; internet at
http://www.ntis.gov/. An electronic copy of the pirimiphos-methyl
IRED is available on the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
6. Vinclozolin. In the Federal Register notice of August 22, 2001
(66 FR 44134) (FRL-6795-7), EPA announced use cancellations for certain
vinclozolin registrations, including uses of the fungicide vinclozolin
on onions and raspberries with a last date for legal use as December
15, 2001. EPA believes that there has been sufficient time for treated
commodities to have cleared the channels of trade. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.380(a) for the combined
residues of the fungicide vinclozolin and its metabolites containing the
3,5-dichloroaniline moiety in or on onion, dry bulb and raspberry.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on RACs and processed foods.
Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., as amended by the FQPA of
1996, Public Law 104-70, authorizes the establishment of tolerances,
exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances,
and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on RACs and processed foods (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without a tolerance or
exemption, food containing pesticide residues is considered to be
unsafe and therefore ``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA.
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C.
331(a) and 342(a)). For a food-use pesticide to be sold and
distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances
under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. et
seq.). Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must
have tolerances in order for commodities treated with those pesticides
to be imported into the United States.
EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for
residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore,
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover
residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of
pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish
and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are
canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as ``import
tolerances,'' are necessary to allow importation into the United States
of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no
imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency
believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered
pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse.
Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that
retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food
may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods.
Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or
maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a
number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to
the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such
pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to
such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that
the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these
tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if
unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk
assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated.
Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed
tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues
on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless
someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed
rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import
tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to
cover imported commodities.
Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware
that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties
should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency
determines that additional information is reasonably required to
support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties
interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary
information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may
issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue.
C. When do These Actions Become Effective?
EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerances become
effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register because their associated uses have been canceled for several
years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient
time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is
presented with other information and that information is verified, the
Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If
you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective
date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the
channels of trade, please submit comments as described under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Any commodities listed in this proposal treated with the pesticides
subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade following the
tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so
long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug
Administration that: (1) The residue is present as the result of an
application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue does not exceed the level that
was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on
the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to
show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the
dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.
D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?
By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
in existence on August 2, 1996. As of February 14, 2005, EPA has
reassessed over 7,140 tolerances. This document proposes to revoke a
total of 15 tolerances of which 9 would be counted as tolerance
reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline of FFDCA section
408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.
III. Are The Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations?
The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory
and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported
[[Page 14622]]
foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same
food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods.
EPA is working to ensure that the United States tolerance
reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade.
EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S.
tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex
Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to
promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's
policy to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent
possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection
required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is
summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual
Reregistration Eligibility Decision documents. EPA has developed
guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support of June 1,
2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available
to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet
at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws, Regulations,
and Dockets,'' then select ``Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then
look up the entry for this document under ``Federal Register--
Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific
tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action (i.e.,
tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not
exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866
due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations as required by Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of
tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small
entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not
impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR
66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and
available information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule,
the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a
significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its
available data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes
that there is a reasonable international supply of food not treated
with canceled pesticides. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this
proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that
exist as to the present proposal that would change the EPA's previous
analysis. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be
submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.''``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
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 (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 8, 2005.
Anne E. Lindsay,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:
[[Page 14623]]
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.153 [Amended]
2. Section Sec. 180.153 is amended by removing the entries for
coffee bean and dandelion, leaves from the table under paragraph (a)(1).
Sec. 180.169 [Amended]
3. Section Sec. 180.169 is amended by removing the entries for
bean, forage; bean, hay; and flax, straw from the table under paragraph
(a)(1) and the entry for pineapple bran from the table under paragraph
(a)(4).
Sec. 180.183 [Amended]
4. Section Sec. 180.183 is amended by removing the entry for hop,
dried cones from the table under paragraph (a).
Sec. 180.249 [Amended]
5. Section Sec. 180.249 is amended by removing the entries for
peanut, forage; peanut, hay; soybean, forage; and soybean, hay from the
table under the paragraph.
Sec. 180.380 [Amended]
6. Section Sec. 180.380 is amended by removing the entries for
onion, dry bulb and raspberry from the table under paragraph (a).
Sec. 180.409 [Amended]
7. Section Sec. 180.409 is amended by removing the entry for
kiwifruit from the table under paragraph (a)(1) and removing paragraph
(a)(2).
[FR Doc. 05-5724 Filed 3-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S