[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 132 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42353-42355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17355]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-00666; FRL-6594-9]


Public Meeting on the Mechanisms for Limiting Quantities of 
Pesticides Used

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In its efforts to reduce risk from pesticide exposure, EPA on 
occasion has made agreements with pesticide registrants to cap the 
annual production of a particular pesticide active ingredient. In an 
August 1999 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the 
registrants of azinphos-methyl (AZM), the total volume of AZM available 
for use each year was capped. In the MOA, a temporary approach for 
allocating the cap among the producers of AZM was agreed upon for 2000 
with the understanding a clear mechanism for allocating the cap would 
be in place for subsequent years. Because EPA has restricted the 
quantities of certain pesticides in the past and may do so in the 
future, the Agency agreed to hold a public meeting to get input on 
establishing a mechanism for accomplishing this and any future 
chemical-specific quantity limits. The purpose of this notice is to 
announce a public meeting to discuss mechanisms for chemical-specific 
quantity limits and to solicit comment on EPA's preliminary thinking on 
the allocation of chemical-specific quantity limits.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-00666, must be 
received on or before August 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in 
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as 
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper 
receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control 
number OPP-00666 in the subject line on the first page of your 
response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Dumas, Special Review and 
Reregistration Division, 7508C, Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; fax number: 
(703) 308-8041; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, 
however, be of interest to pesticide registrants, pesticide user 
groups, and environmental groups. Since other entities may also be 
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific 
entities that may be affected by this action. 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 Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
``Federal Register-Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly 
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPP-00666. The official record 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other 
information related to this action, including any information claimed 
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record 
includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as 
well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The 
public version of the official record does not include any information 
claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which 
includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted 
during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the 
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, 
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is

[[Page 42354]]

imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00666 in the 
subject line on the first page of your response.
    1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division 
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources 
and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB 
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
    3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by 
e-mail to: ``[email protected],'' or you can submit a computer disk as 
described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you 
consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/
8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be 
identified by docket control number OPP-00666. Electronic comments may 
also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want to Submit to the Agency?

    Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to 
be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to 
this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as 
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete 
version of the comment that includes any 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 version of the 
official record. Information not marked confidential will be included 
in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If 
you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 
please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection 
activity.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this 
notice.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first 
page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal 
Register citation.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    1. Meeting announcement. The purpose of this notice is to announce 
a public meeting on September 7, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at 
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Conference Center, 
4301 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone number: (703) 907-
5933, to get input on mechanisms for allocating chemical specific 
production caps. This notice also announces the opening of a public 
comment period to solicit comment on EPA's preliminary thoughts 
concerning the allocation of quantity limits. The public comment period 
will end on August 24, 2000.
    2. Overview. Through a 1999 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between 
EPA and the registrants of technical grade azinphos-methyl (AZM), EPA 
sought to reduce the risks associated with AZM use. The extent of the 
required risk reduction measures was based, in part, on data concerning 
the percentage of each crop that was treated with AZM over the 1995-
1998 growing seasons. Recognizing that increases in AZM use could raise 
the aggregate dietary risk to unacceptable levels, EPA and the 
registrants of technical grade AZM agreed that the volume of AZM 
available for use each year would be subject to a finite limit. EPA 
determined that the most expeditious and effective means of limiting 
AZM use would be through a cap on production (import) of technical 
grade AZM.
    In the MOA, a temporary approach for allocating production among 
the producers of technical grade AZM was agreed upon for 2000 with the 
understanding that EPA would reexamine the allocation of AZM production 
under the cap for subsequent years. Because persons other than the 
present AZM registrants may have interests in the allocation of AZM 
production, and because chemical-specific quantity limits may be used 
for other pesticides in the future, the Agency agreed to hold a public 
meeting to get input on mechanisms for implementing chemical-specific 
quantity limits. Below are the characteristics that the Agency believes 
are needed for any chemical-specific quantity limit and some 
preliminary ideas on the issues that the Agency needed feedback.
    3. EPA's Goals. The Agency has identified some characteristics that 
it believes are desirable in a chemical-specific quantity limit where 
there is more than one registrant producing manufacturing use products. 
First, the mechanism should provide reasonable assurance that the 
quantities of AZM used in the U.S. will not exceed EPA's targets. The 
mechanism should allow for economic competition between registrants 
that is comparable to the amount that would exist without the cap. The 
mechanism should neither create monopolies nor prevent new entrants 
into the market. The mechanism should minimize the disruption in the 
market. For example, EPA wants a mechanism that minimizes the incentive 
to flood the market with product on the first day of the year or to 
supply more product than the market actually needs, and minimizes the 
chance of shortages. Finally, any mechanism adopted must be verifiable, 
timely, and simple to administer.
    4. Soliciting comment. There are a number of areas that the Agency 
is seeking input. In addition to the issues specified below, the Agency 
is interested in the public's input on any other areas, that may help 
the Agency develop a mechanism for implementing chemical-specific 
quantity limits that meets the goals above.
    Input on how to apportion chemical-specific quantity limits. EPA 
could set a limit on the total quantity to be produced (imported), and 
leave all allocation issues to the workings of the free market. 
Alternatively, EPA could assign each registrant a quota, or designate 
quotas by crop. Each of these approaches have advantages and 
disadvantages. Allocating by registrant

[[Page 42355]]

would allow the registrants to plan production and distribution more 
precisely than they could if EPA left allocation to the workings of the 
free market. However, a mechanism that allocates production (imports) 
by registrant may reduce price competition, and may raise anti-trust 
statutes concerns. Another potential weakness with allocation by 
registrant, is that there will be less of the pesticide available in 
the market place, there is no assurance that those who have the 
greatest need for the pesticide will have access to it. Historically, 
those who have the greatest need for a specific pesticide are those who 
grow minor use crops, such as fruits, vegetables and nursery crops. To 
deal with the minor use concern, the pesticide could be allocated by 
crop or crop groups. This approach could help direct the pesticide 
where the economic benefits are greatest. It potentially would require 
significant effort by USDA and/or the user community. This approach is 
likely to be administratively more cumbersome and more difficult to 
enforce relative to allocation by registrant. Whether or not the 
apportioning is by registrant or crop, it can be allocated by any 
number of mechanisms including a free market, a predetermined 
allocation set by EPA, or prescription based on pest pressure or other 
criteria.
    Input on frequency and timing of reporting. To verify that the cap 
is not exceeded, some reporting is necessary. The amount and frequency 
of reporting will depend on the allocation mechanism used. For example, 
if EPA does not make any allocation between registrants, a production 
(import) limit would require frequent reporting of production (import) 
volumes in order that EPA might notify all registrants when the limit 
has been reached. A system where each registrant has a predetermined 
quota would require significantly less reporting.
    Input on which 12-month period should be used. A cap implemented on 
a calendar year basis may pose difficulties if the calendar year does 
not correspond to the production, distribution and use cycles of a 
particular pesticide. Distributors and users may have to purchase the 
pesticide out of season and store it until use. Manufacturers and 
distributors may have difficulty anticipating demand. EPA may have 
difficulty ascertaining whether the risk management goal of limiting 
the quantity used has been achieved in a particular growing season. 
Accordingly, EPA seeks input on what 12-month period should be used for 
the AZM cap. EPA also seeks input on whether one time period could be 
suitable for all future caps. For simplicity, a specific time frame 
that can be used in all future cases would be desirable, but differing 
crop or production cycles may warrant setting time frames on a case-by-
case basis.
    Input on potential impacts to the market. As mentioned in the goals 
above, the Agency wants to minimize the impact on the market place. In 
particular, EPA wants to avoid structures that would significantly 
reduce price competition or that would increase barriers to new 
competitors entering the market.
    Input on what should be capped. The current AZM cap is expressed in 
pounds of active ingredient imported because the present sources of 
technical grade AZM are overseas. EPA seeks comment on alternative 
approaches; for example, caps could be established for imports, 
production of technical or of end use products, or sales of end use 
product. EPA also seeks comment on whether, and how, AZM isomers should 
be addressed in the cap. Commenters should address how such 
alternatives would further, or detract from, the goals of having a 
mechanism that is easy to administer, verifiable, and timely.
    Input on other areas that would be helpful for developing an 
allocation mechanism that meets the goals described above. The issues 
above represent some preliminary ideas on what types of things need to 
be considered before developing an allocation system that meets the 
broad goals mentioned in Unit II.A. Commenters are encourage to 
identify other factors that they believe would be important to develop 
a fair and manageable allocation mechanism.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    FIFRA section 3(c)(5)(D) allows the Administrator to register a 
pesticide only upon finding that the pesticide when used in accordance 
with widespread and commonly recognized practice will not generally 
cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. In instances 
where a pesticide causes adverse effects that closely approach being 
unreasonable, and which would become unreasonable if the pesticide were 
more widely used, limitations to prevent the pesticide from becoming 
more widely used may be necessary to maintain registration. Measures 
which would limit the total quantity applied are therefore consistent 
with EPA's statutory authority. Special Review and Reregistration 
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticide production caps

    Dated: June 30, 2000.
Lois Rossi,
Director,
[FR Doc. 00-17355 Filed 7-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F