[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 23, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14618-14623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5724]


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

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.epa.gov/edocket/. 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 [email protected], 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.epa.gov/edocket/, 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.epa.gov/edocket/. 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: [email protected].

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.epa.gov/edocket/), 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 (65 FR 67249, 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