Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Notices 31313

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver

your comments to: Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Information Resources and Services

Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide

Programs (OPP), Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305–

5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit

your comments electronically by e-mail

to: ‘‘opp-docket@epa.gov,’’ or you can

submit a computer disk as described

above. Do not submit any information

electronically that you consider to be

CBI. Avoid the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Electronic

submissions will be accepted in

WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file

format. All comments in electronic form

must be identified by docket control

number OPP–181076. Electronic

comments may also be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want

to Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any information

electronically that you consider to be

CBI. You may claim information that

you submit to EPA in response to this

document as CBI by marking any part or

all of that information as CBI.

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of

the comment that includes any

information claimed as CBI, a copy of

the comment that does not contain the

information claimed as CBI must be

submitted for inclusion in the public

version of the official record.

Information not marked confidential

will be included in the public version

of the official record without prior

notice. If you have any questions about

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,

please consult the person listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare

My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following

suggestions helpful for preparing your

comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as

possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you

used.

3. Provide copies of any technical

information and/or data you used that

support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or

costs, explain how you arrived at the

estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to

illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve

the proposed rule or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your

comments by the deadline in this

document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,

be sure to identify the docket control

number assigned to this action in the

subject line on the first page of your

response. You may also provide the

name, date, and Federal Register

citation.

II. What Action Is the Agency Taking?

Under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the

discretion of the Administrator, a

Federal or State agency may be

exempted from any provision of FIFRA

if the Administrator determines that

emergency conditions exist which

require the exemption. California

Department of Pesticide Regulation has

requested the Administrator to issue a

specific exemption for the use of

buprofezin on cotton to control

silverleaf whitefly. Information in

accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was

submitted as part of this request.

As part of this request, the Applicant

asserts that a new strain, or possibly a

new species, of whitefly, referred to as

the strain B of sweet potato whitefly, or

the silverleaf whitefly, has been a major

pest of cotton since the early 1990s.

Since that time, this pest has caused

extensive damage to cotton and

vegetable crops. The Applicant claims

that adequate control will not be

achieved with currently registered

products and alternative cultural

practices. The Applicant points out that

large populations of silverleaf whiteflies

have demonstrated resistance to

available insecticidal control. The

Applicant indicates that without

adequate control of this pest in cotton,

significant economic losses will occur.

The Applicant proposes to make no

more than one application of

buprofezin, formulated as Applaud

70WP (70% active ingredient (a.i.)), at a

rate of 0.35 lb. a.i. per acre, on up to

100,000 acres of cotton, in California.

The use season proposed is June 1 to

October 15, 2000. If all 100,000 acres

were treated, a total of 50,000 lbs. of

product, or 35,000 lbs. of active

ingredient, would be used.

This notice does not constitute a

decision by EPA on the application

itself. The regulations governing section

18 of FIFRA require publication of a

notice of receipt of an application for a

specific exemption proposing use of a

new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient)

which has not been registered by the

EPA. The notice provides an

opportunity for public comment on the

application.

The Agency, will review and consider

all comments received during the

comment period in determining

whether to issue the emergency

exemption requested by the California

Department of Pesticide Regulation.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–12307 Filed 5–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00599B; FRL–6553–9]

Pesticides; Guidance for Pesticide

Registrants on Mandatory and

Advisory Labeling Statements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Agency has issued

Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2000–

5 entitled ‘‘Guidance for Mandatory and

Advisory Labeling Statements.’’ This PR

notice provides guidance to the

registrant for improving the clarity of

labeling statements in order to avoid

confusing directions and precautions

and to prevent the misuse of pesticides.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Kempter, (7505C), Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg.,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 305–5448; fax number:

(703) 305–6920; e-mail address:

kempter.carlton@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public

in general. Although this action may be

of particular interest to those persons

who are required to register pesticides.

Since other entities may also be

31314 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Notices

interested, the Agency has not

attempted to describe all the specific

entities that may be affected by this

action. If you have any questions

regarding the information in this notice,

consult the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document and

the PR Notice from the Office of

Pesticide Programs’ Home Page at http:/

/www.epa.gov/pesticides. You can also

go directly to the listings from the EPA

Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov. To access this document,

on the Home Page select ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ and then look up the entry

for this document under the ‘‘Federal

Register—Environmental Documents.’’

You can also go directly to theFederal

Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr.

2. Fax-on-demand. You may request a

faxed copy of the Pesticide Registration

(PR) Notice entitled ‘‘Guidance for

Mandatory and Advisory Labeling

Statements,’’ by using a faxphone to call

(202) 401–0527 and selecting item 6128.

Also, you may select item 6129 for the

paper entitled ‘‘Responses to Public

Comments on Draft PR Notice on

Mandatory/Advisory Labeling.’’ You

may also follow the automated menu.

3. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–00599B. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, any public

comments received during an applicable

comment period, and other information

related to this action, including any

information claimed as confidential

business information (CBI). This official

record includes the documents that are

physically located in the docket, as well

as the documents that are referenced in

those documents. The public version of

the official record does not include any

information claimed as CBI. The public

version of the official record, which

includes printed, paper versions of any

electronic comments submitted during

an applicable comment period, is

available for inspection in the Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The PIRIB telephone number

is (703) 305–5805.

II. What Guidance Does this PR Notice

Provide?

This notice provides guidance to the

registrant for improving the clarity of

labeling statements in order to avoid

confusing directions and precautions,

and to prevent the misuse of pesticides.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 2(ee)

defines the term ‘‘to use any registered

pesticide in a manner inconsistent with

its labeling’’ (i.e., misuse) as use of

‘‘. . . any registered pesticide in a

manner not permitted by the labeling

. . . .’’ For purposes of this notice, the

term ‘‘use’’ includes storage,

transportation, handling, preapplication activities, mixing and

loading, worker notification and worker

protection, application, postapplication activities and disposal.

Registrants are not required to submit

applications in response to this notice,

however, EPA will review applications

in light of the guidance presented here

and seek to clarify labeling statements

that are unclear or ambiguous. Finally,

registrants may no longer add or change

advisory labeling statements to existing

products by notification as previously

permitted by PR Notices 95–2 and 98–

10. This PR Notice supersedes those PR

Notices concerning the use of

notification for adding or modifying

advisory statements.

III. Guidance on Mandatory and

Advisory Labeling Statements

Statements on the pesticide labeling

may be interpreted by users differently

from what the registrant or EPA

intended when the labeling was

accepted. If EPA believes that misuse

has occurred, an administrative law

judge or a court may have to decide

whether a product’s labeling statements

are clear enough for the user to

understand how to lawfully use the

product. Pesticide labeling needs to

clearly identify what is required of the

user to handle and apply a pesticide

safely. The Agency is engaged in

numerous efforts to improve pesticide

product labels in general (e.g., the

Consumer Labeling Initiative), as well as

in specific areas of the labeling (e.g., bee

precautionary labeling and pesticide

drift labeling).

Mandatory statements, which

commonly use imperative verbs such as

‘‘must’’ or ‘‘shall,’’ either require action

or prohibit the user from taking certain

action. Advisory statements generally

provide information, either in support

of the mandatory statements or about

the product in general. To ensure that

the intent of each labeling statement is

clear, mandatory statements need to be

clearly distinguishable from advisory

statements.

Currently, labeling provisions are

enforced by taking into consideration all

of the information presented on the

label and by reading advisory

statements in the context of the entire

label. Problems can arise when advisory

statements are either vague or

ambiguous in meaning, or are

inconsistent with mandatory labeling

statements. In the past, advisory

statements have commonly used

suggestive verbs such as ‘‘should,’’

‘‘may,’’ or ‘‘recommend’’ to encourage

the user to achieve the directed

behavior, but often these statements can

be unclear as to whether they are

mandatory or advisory. In a recent

misuse enforcement action, for example,

the person charged with the violation

argued that advisory statements misled

him into taking action which was

inconsistent with the mandatory

statements.

Advisory language using terms such

as ‘‘should,’’ ‘‘may,’’ and ‘‘recommend’’

can create ambiguities as to the intent of

the direction or precaution. Too often,

common everyday speech using the

word ‘‘should’’ creeps into mandatory

label statements where the imperative

tense is needed to communicate that

certain action is required. Another

problem is contradictory headings and

statements. A set of mandatory

directions preceded by an advisory

heading such as ‘‘Use

Recommendations’’ potentially conflicts

as to the nature of the intended action.

Lastly, the use of words such as

‘‘should’’ in advisory language can

mistakenly imply that an unaccepted

use is permissible. For example, the

direction ‘‘you should remove all food

articles prior to use’’ on a product that

is not registered for any food uses could

be mistakenly read to suggest that it is

not mandatory to remove all food from

the area to be treated.

The Agency seeks to improve

mandatory and advisory labeling

statements by providing guidance on

how they can best be written.

Mandatory statements are generally

written in imperative or directive terms

(such as ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘must,’’ ‘‘do this,’’ ‘‘do

not’’) so that a typical user will

understand that these statements direct

the user to take or avoid certain actions,

and that failure to follow these

instructions is a misuse of the product.

Advisory statements are generally best

written in descriptive or nondirective

terms to support the mandatory

statements or provide information.

Suggestive terms such as ‘‘should,’’

‘‘may,’’ or ‘‘recommend’’ may be

confusing or ambiguous, or potentially

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 17, 2000 / Notices 31315

conflict with mandatory labeling

statements; thus, they are to be avoided.

EPA realizes that the use of descriptive

terms for advisory statements is not

appropriate for every situation and that

there are times where it may be

necessary to use ‘‘should,’’ ‘‘may,’’

‘‘recommend,’’ or similar words.

However, in most cases it is best to craft

advisory labeling statements in

straightforward, descriptive language.

The PR Notice was developed from a

draft document by the same title that

was released for public comment on

June 2, 1999 (64 FR 29641) (FRL–6079–

4). The Agency received comments from

various organizations. Each of the

commenters offered recommendations

for improving the document. All

comments were extensively evaluated

and considered by the Agency. This

revised version embodies some of the

recommendations of the commenters. A

summary of the public comments, as

well as the Agency’s response to the

comments, is being made available as

described in Units I.B.1. and I.B.2.

IV. Why is a PR Notice Guidance and

Not a Rule?

The PR Notice discussed in this

notice is intended to provide guidance

to EPA personnel and decision-makers,

and to the public. As a guidance

document and not a rule, this policy is

not binding on either EPA or any

outside parties. Although this guidance

document provides a starting point for

EPA decisions, EPA will depart from

this policy where the facts or

circumstances warrant. In such cases,

EPA will explain why a different course

was taken. Similarly, outside parties

remain free to assert that this policy is

not appropriate for a specific pesticide

or that the specific circumstances

demonstrate that this policy should be

abandoned.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests.

Dated: May 10, 2000.

Marcia E. Mulkey,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–12379 Filed 5–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6606–7]

North Penn Area 1 Superfund Site;

Notice of Proposed Administrative

Cost Recovery Settlement Pursuant to

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice, request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, as

amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), notice is hereby

given of a proposed administrative cost

recovery settlement under Section

122(h)(1) of CERCLA concerning the

North Penn Area 1 Superfund Site,

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,

which was signed by the EPA Acting

Regional Administrator, Region III, and

the Assistant Attorney General for the

Department of Justice, Environment and

Natural Resources Division. The

proposed settlement is intended to

resolve an EPA claim under Section

107(a) of CERCLA against the Estate of

Harry Maurer. The settlement requires

the settling party to pay $20,000 to the

Hazardous Substance Superfund.

For thirty (30) days following the date

of publication of this notice, the Agency

will receive written comments relating

to the settlement. The Agency and the

United States Department of Justice will

consider all comments received and

may modify or withdraw their consent

to the settlement if comments received

disclose facts or considerations which

indicate that the settlement is

inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

The Agency’s response to any comments

received will be available for public

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

The agreement has been approved by

the Attorney General, United States

Department of Justice, or her designee.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement

and additional background information

relating to the settlement are available

for public inspection at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the

proposed settlement may be obtained

from Suzanne Canning, Regional Docket

Clerk (3RC00), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,

(215) 814–2476. Comments should

reference the North Penn Area 1

Superfund Site and EPA Docket No. III–

99–008–DC and should be forwarded to

Ms. Canning at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas A. Cinti, Senior Assistant

Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814–

2634.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–12391 Filed 5–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6701–7]

Proposed Administrative Cashout

Deminimis Settlement Under Section

122(g) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response

Compensation and Liability Act; in the

Matter of Tri-County/Elgin Landfill Site,

Kane County, Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, as

amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C.

9622(i), notice is hereby given of a

proposed administrative settlement for

recovery of past and projected future

response costs concerning the TriCounty/Elgin Landfill site in Kane

County, Illinois, with the Precision

Diamond Tool Company. The settlement

requires Precision Diamond Tool

Company to pay $20,000.00 to the

Hazardous Substance Superfund.

On October 13, 1998, EPA sent out

deminimis settlement offers to 386

deminimis generators and transporters

(the ‘‘deminimis offerees’’). The

Administrative Order on Consent

accompanying that deminimis offer was

designated as EPA Docket No. V–W–99–

C–507. Attached to the Administrative

Order on Consent in EPA Docket No. V–

W–99–C–507 is a volumetric ranking, in

the form of a spread sheet, listing the

deminimis offerees, the volume of waste

containing hazardous substances

contributed to the Site by each

deminimis offeree, and the deminimis