[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24586-24590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3853]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322; FRL-8065-1]


Benzaldehyde, Captafol, Hexaconazole, Paraformaldehyde, Sodium 
dimethyldithiocarbamate, and Tetradifon; Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking specific tolerances and tolerance exemptions 
for residues of the insecticides paraformaldehyde and tetradifon; 
fungicides captafol, hexaconazole, and sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate; 
and bee repellent benzaldehyde. EPA canceled food use registrations or 
deleted food uses from registrations following requests for voluntary 
cancellation or use deletion by the registrants, or non-payment of 
registration maintenance fees. Also, stakeholders have withdrawn their 
support for import tolerances for captafol and hexaconazole. The 
regulatory actions 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 in this document pertain to the revocation of 39 
tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which 38 count as tolerance 
reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 26, 2006. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the 
detailed instructions as provided in Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. (EDOCKET, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November 
25, 2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and 
comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 
online instructions.) Although listed in the

[[Page 24587]]

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 theInternet 
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.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the 
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday, 
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any 
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility 
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP 
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will 
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. 
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing 
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The 
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation 
will remain the same after the move.

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), e.g., agricultural workers; 
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and 
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural 
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; 
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural 
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and 
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. 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/.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76224) (FRL-
7751-3), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke certain tolerances and 
tolerance exemptions for residues of the insecticides paraformaldehyde 
and tetradifon; fungicides captafol, hexaconazole, and sodium 
dimethyldithiocarbamate; and bee repellent benzaldehyde. Also, the 
proposal of December 23, 2005 provided a 60-day comment period which 
invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance 
retention under the FFDCA standards.
    In this final rule, EPA is revoking these tolerances and tolerance 
exemptions because they pertain to uses no longer current or registered 
under FIFRA in the United States and do not pertain to commodities 
currently imported into the United States. The tolerances and tolerance 
exemptions revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover 
residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated 
commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United 
States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and 
tolerance exemptions 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 or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported 
commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    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. Thus, it 
is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for 
residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active 
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal 
demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on 
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances 
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following 
conditions applies:
    1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting 
additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking 
the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment 
identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
    2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer 
needed.
    3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the 
tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA.
    Today's final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA 
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In 
response to the proposal published in the Federal Register of December 
23, 2005 (70 FR 76224), EPA received one comment during the 60-day 
public comment period, as follows:
    Benzaldehyde--comment by WSDA. EPA received a comment from the 
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), which requested that 
the Agency determine whether revocation of the tolerance exemption in 
40 CFR 180.1229 for benzaldehyde, when used as a bee repellent, would 
render honey extracted from hives treated with benzaldehyde to be 
considered adulterated. WSDA stated that benzaldehyde is still being 
distributed for use by beekeepers and requested retention of the 
tolerance exemption if its revocation would cause extracted honey from 
treated hives to be adulterated. In an earlier communication, just 
prior to the comment submission, WSDA stated that benzaldehyde use as a 
bee repellent was not a pesticide use under 40 CFR 152.8.

[[Page 24588]]

    Agency response. A tolerance or an exemption from the requirement 
of a tolerance is a requirement under FFDCA section 408 for pesticide 
residue in or on food. There have been no active pesticide 
registrations in the United States for benzaldehyde since 1991, and 
therefore the tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 is no longer 
needed. EPA agrees with WSDA that use of a product intended to force 
bees from hives for the collection of honey crops is not considered to 
be a pesticidal use under 40 CFR 152.8 because it is not intended for 
use against ``pests'' as defined in 40 CFR 152.5. Such a non-pesticidal 
use does not require a tolerance or tolerance exemption. EPA expects 
that revocation of the tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 would 
mean that such use of benzaldehyde, in a product which contains no 
pesticide active ingredients, intended as a bee repellent in the 
collection of honey crops, would not render them adulterated under 
FFDCA section 408. Therefore, the Agency believes that such 
benzaldehyde treatment of honeycombs even after the revocation of the 
tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 would not prevent sale of honey 
commodities. Consequently, EPA is revoking the tolerance exemption in 
40 CFR 180.1229 for residues of benzaldehyde when used as a bee 
repellent in the harvesting of honey. Persons interested in the 
regulation of benzaldehyde as a food additive under FFDCA section 409 
should consult the Food and Drug Administration.
    No comments were received by the Agency concerning the following.
    1. Captafol. The Republic of Indonesia's Indonesian Ministry of 
Agriculture had commented on a proposed rule to revoke tolerances for 
captafol and several other pesticides, published in the Federal 
Register of June 9, 1993 (58 FR 32320) (FRL-4183-6). The commenter had 
stated that the use of captafol was being re-evaluated in that country, 
might undergo a phase out, and requested that EPA not revoke the onion, 
potato, and tomato tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267. In the Federal 
Register of July 21, 1999 (64 FR 39049) (FRL-6092-7), EPA published a 
final rule in which it revoked specific captafol tolerances and 
responded to the 1993 comment received from the Republic of Indonesia 
by stating that the Agency would not take final action on the three 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267 for residues of captafol on onion, potato, 
and tomato at that time. In April 2005, EPA determined that captafol 
has not been registered in Indonesia since 1998. Also, the Indonesian 
Ministry of Agriculture verified that it no longer had a continuing 
interest in the three captafol tolerances for importation purposes. 
Because the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking the 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267 for residues of the fungicide captafol in 
or on onion, potato, and tomato.
    2. Hexaconazole. There have been no active U.S. registrations for 
hexaconazole on banana since 1992. Recently, Syngenta has informed EPA 
that it has voluntarily chosen to no longer support the hexaconazole 
tolerance on banana for the purpose of importation. Consequently, the 
tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerance 
in 40 CFR 180.488 for residues of the fungicide hexaconazole in or on 
banana.
    3. Paraformaldehyde. The last active registration for 
paraformaldehyde use as an insecticide for the soil treatment of sugar 
beets was canceled in 1989 due to non-payment of the maintenance fee, 
and therefore the tolerance exemptions are no longer needed. EPA is 
revoking the tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR 180.1024 for residues of 
the insecticide paraformaldehyde in or on beet, sugar, roots and beet, 
sugar, tops, when applied to the soil not later than planting.
    4. Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate. The last active registration for 
use of sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate on melons was canceled in 1993 
due to non-payment of the maintenance fee, and therefore the tolerance 
is no longer needed. EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.152 
for residues of the fungicide sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate, 
calculated as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate, in or on melon.
    5. Tetradifon. The last tetradifon registrations were canceled in 
1990 due to non-payment of maintenance fees. Uniroyal Chemical Company 
(which later became part of Crompton Corporation) had commented to a 
proposed revocation of tetradifon tolerances published in the Federal 
Register of August 1, 2001 (66 FR 39705) (FRL-6786-4). Uniroyal noted 
that it had submitted certain studies to EPA in 1998 and 1996, and 
requested that EPA not revoke any of the tetradifon tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.174. In the Federal Register of January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3425) 
(FRL-7187-3), EPA published a final rule and responded to Uniroyal's 
comment by stating that the Agency would not take final action on the 
tetradifon tolerances in 40 CFR 180.174 at that time. During follow-up 
communication, EPA received a letter from Crompton Corporation (now 
Chemtura Corporation) that it no longer supported retention of the 
tolerances for tetradifon. Because the tolerances are no longer needed, 
EPA is revoking all the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.174 for residues of 
the insecticide tetradifon in or on apple; apricot; cherry; citron, 
citrus; crabapples; cucumber; fig; fig, dried fruit; grapefruit; grape; 
hop, dried; hop, vine; lemon; lime; meat; melon; milk; nectarine; 
orange, sweet; peach; pear; peppermint; plum, prune, fresh; pumpkin; 
quince; spearmint, tops; strawberry; tangerine; tea, dried; tomato; and 
winter squash.

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

    EPA's general practice is to revoke 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.

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    These actions become effective on the date of publication of this 
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.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that 
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that 
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall 
be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the 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

[[Page 24589]]

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 April 18, 2006, EPA has 
reassessed over 8,070 tolerances. This document revokes a total of 39 
tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which 38 are counted as 
tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline of 
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final 
Action?

    EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. 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. When possible, EPA seeks 
to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA may establish a 
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the 
reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize 
with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of 
individual REDs. The U.S. EPA has developed guidance concerning 
submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) 
(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 and Regulations,'' 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. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may 
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request 
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which 
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require 
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA 
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, 
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) 
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to 
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was 
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period 
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this 
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit 
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must 
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322 in the subject line on 
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and 
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before June 26, 
2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific 
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for 
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a 
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a 
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). 
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing 
request may be claimed confidential 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. A copy of the 
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be 
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the 
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., 
NW., Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or 
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IV.A.1., 
you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its 
inclusion in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail 
your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322, to: 
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources 
and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the 
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an 
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: [email protected]. 
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters 
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing 
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII 
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may 
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator 
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a 
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable 
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, 
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the 
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the 
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought 
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 
CFR 178.32).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established 
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this type of action (i.e., a 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 rule has been exempted from review under 
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

[[Page 24590]]

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final 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 104-13, 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 final rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight 
conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or 
tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number 
of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint 
probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect 
to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the 
docket of this final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in 
this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances 
that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's 
previous analysis. 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 final rule directly regulates growers, food 
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action 
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has 
determined that this 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 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 rule.

VI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final 
rule is not a ``major rule ''as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 11, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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.


Sec. Sec.  180.152, 180.174, 180.267, 180.488, 180.1024 and 
180.1229  [Removed]

0
2. Sections 180.152, 180.174, 180.267, 180.488, 180.1024 and 180.1229 
are removed.
[FR Doc. 06-3853 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S