Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 21187 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN REGULATIONS—Continued 

Michigan citation Title 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Comments 

*******

Local Regulations 

*******

Wayne County Air 

Pollution Control 

Regulations.

Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulations.3/20/69 4/17/15, [insert Federal Register 

citation].

All except for Section 6.3 (A–H) 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08888 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0162; FRL–9925–70] 

Carbofuran; Reinstatement of Specific 

Tolerances and Removal of Expired 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; Order reestablishing 

and amending tolerances. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending its 

regulations to reinstate four import 

tolerances for carbofuran, in order to 

comply with a DC Circuit decision and 

order vacating the Agency’s revocation 

of those tolerances. EPA is also 

removing several carbofuran timelimited tolerances that have already 

expired. Because this action is being 

taken to conform the regulations to the 

court’s order and to accurately reflect 

the current legal status of these 

tolerances, EPA is issuing this as a final 

order that is effective upon publication. 

DATES: Effective April 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0162, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 308–8037; email address: 

nevola.joseph@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. 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. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

II. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA is taking this action pursuant to 

the authority in section 408(g)(2)(C) of 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C). 

III. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is revising the tolerance 

regulations in title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 180 to 

reflect the reinstatement of four import 

tolerances for carbofuran, in compliance 

with a decision and order from the D.C. 

Circuit in National Corn Growers 

Association v. EPA, 613 F.3d 266 (D.C. 

Cir. 2010). EPA is also amending 40 CFR 

part 180 to delete the listings of other 

carbofuran tolerances that have expired, 

and thus are no longer valid. 

IV. Why is EPA taking this action? 

In the Federal Register of July 31, 

2008 (73 FR 44864) (FRL–8373–8), EPA 

proposed to revoke all carbofuran 

tolerances and provided a 60-day public 

comment period. The revocations were 

based on an Agency determination that 

the risk from aggregate exposure from 

the use of carbofuran did not meet the 

safety standard of FFDCA section 

408(b)(2). In the Federal Register of May 

15, 2009 (74 FR 23046) (FRL–8413–3), 

EPA finalized the revocation of all of the 

carbofuran tolerances, effective 

December 31, 2009. During the objection 

period, the carbofuran registrant, FMC 

Corporation, and three grower 

associations (National Corn Growers 

Association, National Sunflower 

Association, and National Potato 

Council) submitted objections to EPA’s 

tolerance revocations and requested an 

administrative hearing. EPA concluded 

that the regulatory standard for holding 

an evidentiary hearing had not been met 

and issued an order in the Federal 

Register of November 18, 2009 (74 FR 

59608) (FRL–8797–6), which denied the 

objections and requests for hearing and 

included the Agency’s reasons. 

FMC Corporation, in conjunction with 

the three grower associations, 

challenged EPA’s decision in the Court 

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The 

court upheld EPA’s revocation of all 

carbofuran domestic tolerances and 

denial of the hearing requests, but 

vacated EPA’s revocation of the four 

import tolerances (bananas, coffee, rice, 

and sugarcane). The Court of Appeals 

for the D.C. Circuit also denied the 

subsequent petition filed by FMC and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
21188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the three grower associations for 

rehearing and rehearing en banc. The 

petitioners appealed this decision to the 

Supreme Court. On May 31, 2011, the 

Supreme Court declined to hear the 

request by FMC and the three grower 

associations to review EPA’s 2009 

decision to revoke all domestic 

tolerances for carbofuran, ending these 

legal challenges. For more information, 

see http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/

reregistration/carbofuran/carbofuran_

noic.htm. 

Because the D.C. Circuit vacated 

EPA’s revocation of the four import 

tolerances for carbofuran, they are in 

fact, currently in effect. EPA is revising 

the CFR to accurately reflect the current 

legal status of the four import tolerances 

by removing the expiration dates in 

their listings in 40 CFR 180.254(a). 

Specifically, EPA is removing the 

expiration date of December 31, 2009 

associated with the carbofuran 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.254(a) on 

banana; coffee, bean, green; rice, grain; 

and sugarcane, cane. 

Also, to eliminate potential confusion, 

EPA is removing other carbofuran 

tolerances that expired on December 31, 

2009. Because these tolerances have 

expired, they are no longer legally valid. 

Consequently, EPA is deleting the 

following tolerances: (1) In 40 CFR 180. 

254(a) on alfalfa, forage (of which no 

more than 5 ppm are carbamates); 

alfalfa, hay (of which no more than 20 

ppm are carbamates); barley, grain (of 

which no more than 0.1 ppm is 

carbamates); barley, straw (of which no 

more than 1.0 ppm is carbamates); beet, 

sugar, roots; beet, sugar, tops (of which 

no more than 1 ppm is carbamates); 

corn, field, forage (of which no more 

than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, field, 

grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm 

is carbamates); corn, field, stover (of 

which no more than 5 ppm are 

carbamates); corn, pop, grain (of which 

no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); 

corn, pop, stover (of which no more 

than 5 ppm are carbamates); corn, 

sweet, forage (of which no more than 5 

ppm are carbamates); corn, sweet, 

kernel plus cob with husks removed (of 

which no more than 0.2 ppm is 

carbamates); corn, sweet, stover (of 

which no more than 5 ppm are 

carbamates); cotton, undelinted seed (of 

which no more than 0.2 ppm is 

carbamates); cranberry (of which no 

more than 0.3 ppm is carbamates); 

cucumber (of which no more than 0.2 

ppm is carbamates); grape (of which no 

more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); 

grape, raisin (of which no more than 1.0 

ppm is carbamates); grape, raisin, waste 

(of which no more than 3.0 ppm are 

carbamates); melon (of which no more 

than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); milk (of 

which no more than 0.02 ppm is 

carbamates); oat, grain (of which no 

more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); oat, 

straw (of which no more than 1.0 ppm 

is carbamates); pepper (of which no 

more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); 

potato (of which no more than 1 ppm 

is carbamates); pumpkin (of which no 

more than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); rice, 

straw (of which no more than 0.2 ppm 

is carbamates); sorghum, forage (of 

which no more than 0.5 ppm is 

carbamates); sorghum, grain, grain; 

sorghum, grain, stover (of which no 

more than 0.5 ppm is carbamates); 

strawberry (of which no more than 0.2 

ppm is carbamates); soybean (of which 

no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates); 

soybean, forage (of which no more than 

20.0 ppm are carbamates); soybean, hay 

(of which no more than 20.0 ppm are 

carbamates); squash (of which no more 

than 0.6 ppm is carbamates); sunflower, 

seed (of which no more than 0.5 ppm is 

carbamates); wheat, grain (of which no 

more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates); and 

wheat, straw (of which no more than 1.0 

ppm is carbamates); and (2) in 40 CFR 

180.254(c) on artichoke, globe (of which 

no more than 0.2 ppm is carbamates). 

V. Why is this a final order? 

EPA is issuing a final order without 

providing either notice and an 

opportunity to comment, or an 

opportunity to raise objections. For a 

number of reasons, EPA has concluded 

that the issuance of a final order 

pursuant to FFDCA section 408(g)(2)(C) 

best reflects the current stage of the 

proceedings in this case, and is most 

appropriate to the circumstances under 

the applicable procedures of FFDCA 

section 408. 

With respect to the import tolerances, 

the court vacated only the portion of 

EPA’s final order that related to the 

revocation of the four carbofuran import 

tolerances, not the entire underlying 

action rulemaking and objections 

process that preceded the order. EPA 

has already conducted the procedures 

required under FFDCA sections 408(e) 

and (g); the public has previously had 

an opportunity to comment on and raise 

objections to the EPA decisions 

reflected in the amendments to the CFR 

described in this document. The only 

revisions to the CFR relating to the 

import tolerances are those that are 

being taken merely to be consistent with 

the court’s order, which left EPA with 

no discretion as to the actions necessary 

to implement the order. Finally, this 

action does not therefore affect the legal 

status or otherwise effect any 

substantive change to these tolerances, 

but merely amends the CFR to 

accurately reflect the present legal status 

of these tolerances. Because the D.C. 

Circuit’s vacatur rendered EPA’s 2009 

revocation action without effect, these 

tolerances are currently in effect. 

The deletion from the CFR of the 

carbofuran tolerances that have already 

expired presents essentially the same 

procedural and substantive case. EPA’s 

action does not affect the legal status of 

these tolerances in any way. The 

deletion from the CFR of the currently 

expired carbofuran tolerances merely 

reflects the present legal status of these 

tolerances. In addition, EPA has already 

conducted the procedures required 

under FFDCA sections 408(e) and (g) to 

effectuate these revisions; the public has 

previously had an opportunity to 

comment on and raise objections to the 

EPA decision to establish the expiration 

dates for these particular tolerances (73 

FR 44864, July 31, 2008 (FRL–8373–8); 

74 FR 23046, May 15, 2009 (FRL–8413– 

3); and 74 FR 59608, November 18, 2009 

(FRL–8797–6). 

VI. When do these actions become 

effective? 

As stated in the DATES section of this 

document, this order and the 

corresponding changes to 40 CFR part 

180 are effective April 17, 2015. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this action, EPA is amending 40 

CFR part 180 to accurately reflect the 

current legal status of a number of 

carbofuran tolerances by means of an 

order and not a rule (21 U.S.C. 

346a(f)(1)(C)). Under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), orders are 

expressly excluded from the definition 

of a rule (5 U.S.C. 551(4)). Accordingly, 

the regulatory assessment requirements 

imposed on a rulemaking do not apply 

to this order, as explained further in the 

following discussion. 

Because this order is not a ‘‘regulatory 

action’’ as that term is defined in 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, 

entitled Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 

21, 2011). As a result, this action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and 

Executive Order 13211 entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). In addition, since this order 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 21189 

is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C. 

551(4)), and does 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. 

This action does not contain any 

information collections or impose 

additional burdens that require approval 

by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.). Nor does this order 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). 

This order directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or tribes; nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the State or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply 

to this order. In addition, this order does 

not impose any enforceable duty or 

contain any unfunded mandate as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

The CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) does 

not apply to this action because this 

order n is not a rule as that term is 

defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA will, 

however, submit a courtesy copy of this 

document to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. 

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 9, 2015. 

Jack E. Housenger, 

Director, 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 § 180.254, revise the table in 

paragraph (a) and revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.254 Carbofuran; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Banana 1 ......................... 0.1 

Coffee, bean, green 1 ..... 0.1 

Rice, grain 1 .................... 0.2 

Sugarcane, cane 1 .......... 0.1 

1There are no U.S. registrations for use of 

carbofuran on these commodities. 

* * * * * 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–08784 Filed 4–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 102–42 

[FMR Change 2015–02; FMR Case 2014– 

102–3; Docket No. 2014–0019; Sequence 

No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ49 

Federal Management Regulation; 

Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of 

Foreign Gifts and Decorations 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy, General Services 

Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is amending the 

Federal Management Regulation (FMR). 

This amendment changes the means by 

which GSA publishes the redefined 

foreign gift minimal value rates and 

adds the term and definition of 

‘‘spouse’’. 

DATES: Effective: April 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Holcombe, Office of 

Government-wide Policy, Office of 

Asset and Transportation Management 

(MA), at 202–501–3828 or by email at 

Robert.Holcombe@gsa.gov for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite 

FMR Case 2014–102–3. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Every three years, GSA is required to 

redefine the ‘‘minimal value’’ of foreign 

gifts under 5 U.S.C. 7342. In order for 

GSA to consult with the Secretary of 

State and publish this revised figure as 

closely to the effective date (January 1st) 

as possible, the redefined values will be 

published in a Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) Bulletin at 

www.gsa.gov/personalpropertypolicy. 

In addition, the definition of minimal 

value is being amended to state that an 

employing agency may, by regulation, 

define ‘‘minimal value’’ for its agency 

employees to be less than the GSA 

definition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

7342(a)(5)(B). 

Finally, the term and definition of 

‘‘spouse’’ is added to FMR part 102–42. 

Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act 

(DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7, 

provided that, when used in a Federal 

law, the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to 

a person of the opposite sex who is a 

husband or a wife. Because of DOMA, 

the Federal Government has been 

heretofore prohibited from recognizing 

marriages of same-sex couples for all 

Federal purposes, including asset 

management policies. On June 26, 2013, 

in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 

(2013), 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the 

Supreme Court of the United States 

(Supreme Court) held Section 3 of 

DOMA unconstitutional. As a result, 

GSA is adding the definition of the term 

‘‘spouse’’ to this part for clarity. This 

case is included in GSA’s retrospective 

review of existing regulations under 

Executive Order 13563. Additional 

information is located in GSA’s 

retrospective review (2014) available at: 

www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations. 

B. Changes 

This final rule: 

(1) Changes the means by which GSA 

publishes updates to the definition of 

‘‘minimal value’’ and makes the 

information available to the public; 

(2) Adds the term and a definition for 

the term ‘‘spouse’’ to 41 CFR part 102– 

42; and 

(3) Changes the citations in the 

authority section to reflect the 

codification of Title 40, United States 

Code, into positive law. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES