58066 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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.

VIII. 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: September 21, 2004.

Lois Rossi,

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs.

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows:

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.

■ 2. Section 180.579 is amended by 

designating the text of paragraph (a) as 

paragraph (a)(1) and alphabetically 

adding new commodities to the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) and by adding new 

paragraph (a)(2) and text to paragraph (d) 

to read as follows:

§ 180.579 Fenamidone; tolerances for 

residues.

(a) * * *

(1) Tolerances are established for 

residues of fenamidone (4H-imidazol-4-

one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-

(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino), 

(S)-) from the application of the 

fumgicide fenamidone in or on the 

following raw agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per 

million 

garlic, bulb ................................ 0.20

garlic, great headed .................. 0.20

Grape (imported) ...................... 1.0

Leek .......................................... 1.5

*****

Onion, dry bulb ......................... 0.20

Onion, green ............................. 1.5

Onion, welsh ............................. 1.5

Shallot, bulb .............................. 0.20

Shallot, fresh leaves ................. 1.5

Tomato ...................................... 1.0

Tomato, paste ........................... 2.2

Tomato, puree .......................... 2.0

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 09 .. 0.15

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, 

subgroup 01C ....................... 0.02

(2) Tolerances are established for the 

combined residues of fenamidone (4Himidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-

(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino), 

(S)-) and its metabolite RPA 717879 

(2,4-imidazolidinedione, 5-methyl-5-

phenyl), expressed as parent compound, 

in or on the following commodities:

Commodity Parts per 

million 

beef, fat ..................................... 0.10

beef, meat ................................. 0.10

beef, meat byproducts .............. 0.10

goat, fat ..................................... 0.10

goat, meat ................................. 0.10

goat, meat byproducts .............. 0.10

milk ........................................... 0.02

sheep, fat .................................. 0.10

sheep, meat .............................. 0.10

sheep, meat byproduct ............. 0.10

* * * * *

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

Tolerances are established for residues 

of the fungicide fenamidone (4-Himidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-

(methlthio)-5-phenyl-3-(phenylamino, 

(S)-) and its metabolite RPA 717879 

(2,4-imidazolidinedione, 5-methyl-5-

phenyl) in or on the following 

agricultural commodities when present 

therein as a result of application of 

fenamidone to the crops in paragraph 

(a)(1).

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.10

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.50

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.15

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.35

[FR Doc. 04–21694 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0300; FRL–7677–6]

Citrate Esters; Exemption from the 

Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

exemptions from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of acetyl tributyl 

citrate (ATBC) also known as citric acid, 

2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester (CAS Reg. 

No. 77–90–7) and triethyl citrate (TEC) 

also known as citric acid, triethyl ester 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) when used as 

inert ingredients in pesticide products. 

Morflex submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by 

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 

(FQPA), requesting the exemptions from 

the requirement of a tolerance. This 

regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of ATBC or TEC.

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 29, 2004. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit XI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2004–

0300. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58067

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:

Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6304; e-mail address: 

boyle.kathryn@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 code 111)

• Animal Production (NAICS code 

112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311) 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 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. 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 Electronic Documents 

and Other Related Information?

In addition to using EDOCKET at 

(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 and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of January 5, 

2001 (66 FR 1129) (FRL–6761–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 408 

of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as 

amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104–

170), announcing the filing of pesticide 

petitions (PP (8E4966 and 8E4967) by 

Morflex Inc., 2110 High Point Road, 

Greensboro, NC 27403. That notice 

included a summary of the petition 

prepared by the petitioner.

The petition requested that 40 CFR 

180.1001 (c), and (e) be amended by 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of acetyl tributyl citrate (ATBC) also 

known as citric acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, 

tributyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) 

and triethyl citrate (TEC) also known as 

citric acid, triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 

77–93–0). There were no comments 

received in response to the notice of 

filing.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA 

to give special consideration to 

exposure of infants and children to the 

pesticide chemical residue in 

establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to infants and 

children from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue. . . .’’

EPA performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. First, 

EPA determines the toxicity of 

pesticides. Second, EPA examines 

exposure to the pesticide through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

Inert ingredients are all ingredients 

that are not active ingredients as defined 

in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are 

not limited to, the following types of 

ingredients (except when they have a 

pesticidal efficacy of their own): 

Solvents such as alcohols and 

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as 

polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 

acids; carriers such as clay and 

diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 

carrageenan and modified cellulose; 

wetting, spreading, and dispersing 

agents; propellants in aerosol 

dispensers; microencapsulating agents; 

and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not 

intended to imply nontoxicity; the 

ingredient may or may not be 

chemically active. Generally, EPA has 

exempted inert ingredients from the 

requirement of a tolerance based on the 

low toxicity of the individual inert 

ingredients.

IV. Toxicological Profile 

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness and reliability and the 

relationship of this information to 

human risk. EPA has also considered 

available information concerning the 

variability of the sensitivities of major 

identifiable subgroups of consumers, 

including infants and children. The 

nature of the toxic effects caused by 

ATBC also known as citric acid, 2-

(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 

77–90–7) and TEC also known as citric 

acid, triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–

93–0) are discussed in this unit. Both 

chemicals are derivatives of citric acid. 

ATBC is prepared by esterification of 

butyl alcohol with citric acid, followed 

by acetylation. TEC is prepared by 

esterification of ethyl alcohol with citric 

acid.

The Agency evaluated the toxicity 

data base submitted by the petitioner, 

Morflex which included a 2–generation 

reproductive study, and several articles 

from open literature. Other reliable 

sources of information used by the 

Agency in performing this assessment 

are information from the internet on (1) 

World Health Organization (WHO) 

evaluations, (2) British Industrial 

Biological Research Association 

(BIBRA) abstracts, and (3) the Opinion 

of the European Commission, Health 

and Consumer Protection DirectorateGeneral (CSTEE), and (4) structureactivity-relationship (SAR) assessments 

performed on surrogate chemicals as 

prepared by the Agency’s Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics. The 

toxicological databases for these 

chemicals are a mixture of guideline 

studies performed in the last 15 years 

and older studies from the 1970s and 

1950s. These older studies are more 

difficult to evaluate given the different 

standards of reporting that existed some 

years ago. 

Both ATBC and TEC have low acute 

oral toxicity (Toxicity Category IV). 

Ocular irritation is moderate. Both are 

Toxicity Category IV for dermal 

irritation. Neither are human sensitizers. 

Both chemicals have been reviewed by 

other entities. None of these 

organizations indicated any specific 

concerns for ATBC or TEC. Based on the 

submitted studies, neither ATBC or TEC 

is mutagenic.

58068 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

In a rat metabolism study, ATBC was 

readily absorbed and rapidly excreted in 

urine and feces within 48 hours. The 

following metabolites were detected in 

the urine: Acetyl citrate, monobutyl 

citrate, acetyl monobutyl citrate, dibutyl 

citrate, and acetyl dibutyl citrate. ATBC 

was hydrolyzed in both human and rat 

liver homogenates resulting in n-butanol 

and tributyl citrate (TBC). However, in 

human serum the half-life was 7 hours 

versus 30 minutes in the rat. These in 

vivo and in vitro studies indicate that 

ATBC is hydrolysed.

No metabolism studies were reviewed 

for TEC. However, it is expected that all 

citrate esters would undergo hydrolysis 

to citric acid and the corresponding 

alcohol. For TEC, this would be ethanol. 

The human body is able to effectively 

metabolize both ethanol and citric acid. 

Thus, the human body has known 

pathways to metabolize TEC hydrolysis 

metabolites. 

The ATBC 2–generation reproductive 

toxicity study was recently re-evaluated 

by the Agency. No adverse reproductive 

performance was observed at any dose. 

The reproductive toxicity no observed 

adverse level (NOAEL) was 1,000 

milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), 

the highest dose tested. A lowest 

observed adverse level (LOAEL) was not 

observed. The parental no observed 

level (NOEL) and the offspring NOEL is 

1,000 mg/kg/day. The parental lowest 

observed level (LOEL) and the offspring 

LOEL was not observed. 

The available information consists of 

the FDA-affirmed GRAS status of TEC 

(21 CFR 184.1911), ATBC’s approval as 

a synthetic flavoring substance under 21 

CFR 172.515, the approval of both 

ATBC and TEC under 21 CFR 181.27 as 

prior sanctioned plasticizers, the 

abstracts of the BIBRA toxicity profiles, 

several evaluations by the World Health 

Organization, the SAR assessments of 

the structurally-related chemicals, the 

CSTEE Opinion, and the toxicity studies 

submitted by the petitioner. Taken 

together the weight of evidence of the 

available information indicate 

chemicals of lower toxicity.

Greater detail on the Agency’s review 

and evaluation of the submitted studies 

and articles from open literature are in 

the ATBC and TEC Science Assessment 

in EDOCKET at (http://www.epa.gov/

edocket/) (See OPP–2004–0300).

V. Aggregate Exposures

In examining aggregate exposure, 

section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA 

to consider available information 

concerning exposures from the pesticide 

residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including 

drinking water from ground water or 

surface water and exposure through 

pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or 

buildings (residential and other indoor 

uses).

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be clearly 

demonstrated that the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide 

chemical residues under reasonably 

foreseeable circumstances will pose no 

appreciable risks to human health. In 

order to determine the risks from 

aggregate exposure to pesticide inert 

ingredients, the Agency considers the 

toxicity of the inert in conjunction with 

possible exposure to residues of the 

inert ingredient through food, drinking 

water, and through other exposures that 

occur as a result of pesticide use in 

residential settings. If EPA is able to 

determine that a finite tolerance is not 

necessary to ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

inert ingredient, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance may be 

established.

Various publicly-available screeninglevel models were used to estimate 

some of the existing levels of exposure 

that could occur in and around the 

home. To assure protectiveness, these 

models create estimates that are 

deliberately intended to over-estimate 

exposure. All modeling (with the 

exception of the CSTEE plastic toy 

scenario) was performed by EPA. The 

highest potential exposure level was 

0.422 mg/kg/day for children (1–2 years 

old) for dietary exposure through 

consumption of food (as a result of 

application of a pesticide product 

containing either ATBC or TEC to 

crops). All of the screening-level 

exposures are much less than any of the 

NOAELs/NOELs from the repeated dose 

oral toxicity studies. Greater detail on 

the Agency’s exposure assessment are in 

the ATBC and TEC Science Assessment 

in EDOCKET at (http://www.epa.gov/

edocket/) (See OPP–2004–0300).

VI. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’

Unlike other pesticides for which EPA 

has followed a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity, EPA has not made a common 

mechanism of toxicity finding as to 

acetyl tributyl citrate, triethyl citrate or 

any citrate esters. These esters do not 

appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. These are 

lower toxicity chemicals; therefore, the 

resultant risks separately and/or 

combined should also be low. For the 

purposes of this action, therefore, EPA 

has not assumed that acetyl tributyl 

citrate or triethyl citrate have a common 

mechanism of toxicity with other 

substances. For information regarding 

EPA’s efforts to determine which 

chemicals have a common mechanism 

of toxicity and to evaluate the 

cumulative effects of such chemicals, 

see the policy statements released by 

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs 

concerning common mechanism 

determinations and procedures for 

cumulating effects from substances 

found to have a common mechanism on 

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/

pesticides/cumulative/.

VII. Children’s Safety Factor

The toxicity database for ATBC 

includes a rat oral reproductive toxicity 

study in which NOELs of 1,000 mg/kg/

day were identified. There are also the 

SARs on structurally-related citrate 

esters which did not indicate any 

concerns for developmental or 

reproductive toxicity. 

ATBC, given the additional 

acetylation step, is the more complex, 

larger molecule. The acetylation step 

also increases the number of possible 

metabolites as evidenced by the results 

of the ATBC rat metabolism study. 

ATBC data can be used as surrogate data 

for TEC. TEC cannot be used as 

surrogate data for ATBC. ATBC is the 

more toxic of the two chemicals and has 

the larger available data base.

There is sufficient information for the 

Agency to judge the potential for 

developmental and reproductive effects 

of ATBC and TEC. No additional data 

are needed to assess the toxicity of 

ATBC and TEC. There is no reason to 

expect that the reasonably, foreseeable 

uses of ATBC and TEC will constitute 

any significant hazard. EPA has not 

used a safety factor analysis to assess 

the risk. For the same reasons the 

additional tenfold safety factor is 

unnecessary.

VIII. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children 

The Agency believes that ATBC and 

TEC are of low toxicity. Of highest 

consideration in this judgement is the 

body’s ability to effectively metabolize 

both ATBC and TEC to citric acid and 

the corresponding alcohols. The 

metabolism studies provided by the 

petitioner were helpful in reaching this 

determination. Both of these chemicals 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58069

are well-studied. FDA, WHO, and 

CSTEE have all conducted assessments 

on the uses of these chemicals. No 

toxicological concerns were specified in 

any of the reviews and evaluations. 

The Agency has used various 

screening-level models to estimate some 

of the existing levels of exposure to 

ATBC and TEC. To assure 

protectiveness, these estimates are 

deliberately intended to over-estimate 

exposure. Given the consistent pattern 

of NOAELs/NOELs of 1,000 mg/kg/day, 

an understanding of the metabolism of 

ATBC and TEC, and a significant gap 

between very over-estimated exposure 

numbers and the NOAELs/NOELs, there 

is no need to pursue further numerical 

refinements to the estimated exposures.

EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm from 

aggregate exposure to residues of citric 

acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester (CAS 

Reg. No. 77–90–7) and citric acid, 

triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0). 

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting 

citric acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) and citric acid, 

triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) 

will be safe.

IX. Other Considerations 

A. Endocrine Disruptors

FQPA requires EPA to develop a 

screening program to determine whether 

certain substances, including all 

pesticide chemicals (both inert and 

active ingredients), ‘‘may have an effect 

in humans that is similar to an effect 

produced by a naturally occurring 

estrogen, or such other endocrine 

effect.’’ EPA has been working with 

interested stakeholders to develop a 

screening and testing program as well as 

a priority setting scheme. As the Agency 

proceeds with implementation of this 

program, further testing of products 

containing ATBC and TEC for endocrine 

effects may be required.

B. Analytical Method

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation.

C. Existing Exemptions

There is an existing tolerance 

exemption for acetyl tributyl citrate 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) in 40 CFR 

180.930 when used as a component of 

plastic animal tags.

D. International Tolerances

The Agency is not aware of any 

country requiring a tolerance for ATBC 

or TEC nor have any CODEX maximum 

residue levels been established for any 

food crops at this time.

E. List 4A (Minimal Risk) Classification

The Agency established 40 CFR 

180.950 (see the rationale in the 

proposed rule published January 15, 

2002 (67 FR 1925) (FRL–6807–8)) to 

collect the tolerance exemptions for 

those substances classified as List 4A, 

i.e., minimal risk substances. As part of 

evaluating an inert ingredient and 

establishing the tolerance exemption, 

the Agency determines the chemical’s 

list classification. Given the available 

information which indicates the body’s 

ability to effectively metabolize both 

ATBC and TEC to citric acid and the 

corresponding alcohols and the 

consistent pattern of NOAELs/NOELs of 

1,000 mg/kg/day, citric acid, 2-

(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 

77–90–7) and citric acid, triethyl ester 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) are to be 

classified as List 4A inert ingredients.

X. Conclusions 

Based on the information in this 

preamble, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm from 

aggregate exposure to residues of acetyl 

tributyl citrate (ATBC) also known as 

citric acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) and triethyl 

citrate (TEC) also known as citric acid, 

triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) 

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting 

citric acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester 

(CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) and citric acid, 

triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) 

from the requirement of a tolerance will 

be safe.

Therefore, the exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance for citric 

acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, tributyl ester (CAS 

Reg. No. 77–90–7) and citric acid, 

triethyl ester (CAS Reg. No. 77–93–0) 

are established in 40 CFR 180.950. Since 

the tolerance exemptions are established 

under 40 CFR 180.950, the existing 

tolerance exemption for acetyl tributyl 

citrate (CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7) in 40 

CFR 180.930 is a duplication, and will 

be removed.

XI. Objections and Hearing Requests

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the 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 the 

FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue 

to use those procedures, with 

appropriate adjustments, until the 

necessary modifications can be made. 

The new section 408(g) of the 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 the FFDCA, as was 

provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 

and 409 of the 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 

OPP–2004–0300 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 November 29, 2004.

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 XI.A., 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 

58070 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

copies, identified by docket ID number 

OPP–2004–0300, 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 email to: opp-docket@epa.gov. 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).

XII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews

This final rule establishes two 

exemptions from the tolerance 

requirement under section 408(d) of the 

FFDCA in response to a petition 

submitted to the Agency. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

exempted these types of actions 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, 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 under 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 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). Since 

tolerances and exemptions that are 

established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 

such as the exemption in this final rule, 

do not require the issuance of a 

proposed rule, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 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 the 

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.

XIII. 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: September 14, 2004.

Lois Rossi,

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs.

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows:

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.

■ 2. In § 180.930, the table is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘acetyl tributyl 

citrate’’ (CAS Reg. No. 77–90–7).

■ 3. In § 180.950, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding alphabetically 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 29, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58071

the following inert ingredients to read as 

follows

§ 180.950 Tolerance exemptions for 

minimal risk active and inert ingredients.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Chemical Name CAS No. 

*****

Citric acid, 2-(acetyloxy)-, 

tributyl ester ................ 77–90–7

*****

Citric acid, triethyl ester .. 77–93–0

*****

[FR Doc. 04–21587 Filed 9–28–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0256; FRL–7678–9]

Carfentrazone-ethyl; Pesticide 

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for combined residues of 

carfentrazone-ethyl and its metabolite in 

or on certain raw agricultural 

commodities. FMC Corporation and 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR-4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 29, 2004. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before November 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2004–

0256. 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:

Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6224; e-mail address: 

miller.joanne@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), 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 and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of March 31, 

2004 (69 FR 16921) (FRL–7348–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petitions (PP 2F6468 and 

3E6746) by FMC Corporation, 1735 

Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 

and IR-4, Technology Center, of New 

Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, 

North Brunswick, NJ 08902–3390. That 

notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by FMC Corporation, 

the registrant. Comments on the petition 

were filed by B. Sachau, 15 Elm St., 

Florham Park, NJ 07932. A response to 

these comments is provided in Unit V.

In the Federal Register of July 28, 

2004 (69 FR 45042) (FRL–7365–2), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petitions (PP 2F6468, 3E6746, 

4E6814, and 3F6584) by FMC 

Corporation, 1735 Market Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 and IR-4, 

Technology Center, of New Jersey, 681 

U.S. Highway #1 South, North 

Brunswick, NJ 08902–3390. That notice 

included a summary of the petition 

prepared by FMC Corporation, the 

registrant. Comments on the petition 

were filed by B. Sachau, 15 Elm St., 

Florham Park, NJ 07932, and Bonita 

Poulin, R. R. #3, Brockville, Ont. A 

response to these comments is provided 

in Section V. 

The petitions requested that 40 CFR 

180.515(a) be amended by establishing 

proposed tolerances for combined 

residues of the herbicide carfentrazoneethyl (ethyl-alpha,2-dichloro-5-[4-

(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-4-

fluorobenzenepropanoate and the 

metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl 

chloropropionic acid (alpha,2-dichloro5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-

methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-

fluorobenzenepropanoic acid), in or on: 

Acerola at 0.1 parts per million (ppm); 

almond hulls at 0.20 ppm and grass, 

forage, fodder and hay, group 17 at 12 

ppm; hops at 0.05 ppm; avocado at 0.1 

ppm; atemoya at 0.1 ppm; banana at 0.1 

ppm; berry group 13 at 0.1 ppm; birida 

at 0.1 ppm; borage, seed at 0.1 ppm; 

cacao at 0.1 ppm; cactus at 0.1 ppm; 

canistel at 0.1 ppm; cherimoya at 0.1 

ppm; citrus, crop group 10 at 0.1 ppm; 

citrus cultivars and/or hybrids of 

grapefruit and pummelo, including uniq 

fruit at 0.1 ppm; coconut at 0.1 ppm; 

coffee at 0.1 ppm; crambe, seed at 0.1 

ppm; custard apple at 0.1 ppm; date at