27496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks. 

Dated: April 30, 2014. 

A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 2. Section 52.570(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry ‘‘1997 Annual PM2.5

Maintenance Plan for the Rome Area’’ at 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan for the Rome Area.

Floyd County, Rome, Georgia Area 6/21/12 5/14/2014 [Insert citation of publication].

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 81.311, the table entitled 

‘‘Georgia- PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)’’ is 

amended under ‘‘Rome, GA’’ by revising 

the entry for ‘‘Floyd County’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 81.311 Georgia. 

* * * * * 

GEORGIA—PM2.5

[Annual NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designation a

Date 1 Type 

*******

Rome, GA: 

Floyd County ...................................................................... This action is effective 5/14/2014 ............................................. Attainment. 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–10960 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0431; FRL–9909–80] 

RIN 2070–ZA16 

Mancozeb, Maneb, Metiram, and 

Thiram; Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking, modifying, 

and establishing specific tolerances for 

the fungicide mancozeb and revising the 

definition for total residue of 

dithiocarbamates permitted in or on the 

same raw agricultural commodity. 

These actions are in follow-up to the 

tolerance recommendations made 

during the reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). In addition, EPA is 

removing expired tolerances for 

mancozeb and maneb. EPA is taking no 

further tolerance actions herein on 

metiram and thiram because proposed 

changes have since been completed for 

metiram and the Agency expects to 

propose tolerance actions for thiram in 

a future notice in the Federal Register. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 14, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before July 14, 2014, and must be 

filed in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0431, 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 27497 

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. 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. 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). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 

21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0431 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before July 14, 2014. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2009–0431, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

In the Federal Register of September 

16, 2009 (74 FR 47507) (FRL–8431–4), 

EPA issued a proposed rule, in followup to reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). EPA proposed to 

revoke, modify, and establish specific 

tolerances for mancozeb, maneb, 

metiram, and thiram. In addition, EPA 

proposed to revise the definition for 

total residue of dithiocarbamates 

permitted in or on the same raw 

agricultural commodity in 40 CFR 

180.3(d)(5). Also, the proposed rule of 

September 16, 2009 provided a 60-day 

comment period which invited public 

comment for consideration and for 

support of tolerance retention under 

FFDCA standards. 

In addition, in the Federal Register of 

September 16, 2009, EPA had proposed 

in 40 CFR 180.110 to revoke specific 

tolerances for maneb on apricot; bean, 

succulent; carrot, roots; celery; 

nectarine; and peach; and decrease 

tolerances on bean, dry, seed; broccoli; 

Brussels sprouts; cauliflower; cucumber; 

eggplant; kohlrabi; melon; bulb onion 

(revised from onion); pumpkin; summer 

squash; winter squash; and tomato; 

increase the tolerances on cabbage and 

beet, sugar, tops; establish tolerances on 

beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, dried 

pulp; fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, 

poultry, and sheep; meat of cattle, goats, 

hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; meat 

byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, 

poultry, and sheep; egg; and milk, and 

revise certain commodity terminologies. 

However, in the intervening period EPA 

revoked all tolerances for maneb with 

expiration dates of December 31, 2012 

in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register of July 12, 2011 (76 FR 40811) 

(FRL–8878–6) after notice and comment 

(proposed rule published May 26, 2010 

(75 FR 29475) (FRL–8826–2)). Because 

these tolerances have expired and 

therefore are no longer needed, EPA is 

removing 40 CFR 180.110 in its entirety. 

EPA is removing that section herein 

without notice and opportunity to 

comment. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

provides that notice and comment is not 

necessary ‘‘when the agency for good 

cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefore in the rules issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ EPA finds good 

cause here because removing the section 

does not affect the already expired 

tolerances. 

Also, in the Federal Register of 

September 16, 2009, EPA had proposed 

in 40 CFR 180.217 to revise the section 

heading from its chemical name to 

metiram, revise the introductory text 

containing the tolerance expression for 

metiram, decrease tolerances for 

metiram on apple to 0.5 ppm and potato 

to 0.2 ppm, and establish a tolerance on 

wet apple pomace at 2 ppm. However, 

in the intervening period EPA finalized 

these tolerance actions in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register of 

April 29, 2011 (76 FR 23882) (FRL– 

8869–1) after notice and comment 

(proposed rule published September 16, 

2009 (74 FR 47507) (FRL–8431–4)). 

Therefore, no further changes are being 

made to 40 CFR 180.217. 

In this final rule, EPA is also 

revoking, modifying, and establishing 

specific tolerances for mancozeb and 

revising the definition for total residue 

of dithiocarbamates permitted in or on 

the same raw agricultural commodity. 

However, EPA will not establish a 

tolerance for mancozeb on rice straw, 

which was proposed based on the 2005 

Mancozeb Registration Eligibility 

Decision (RED), because since that time 

EPA has determined that rice straw is 

no longer a significant feed item in the 

United States. (The document entitled 

‘‘OPPTS Test Guideline 860.1000 

Supplement: Guidance on Constructing 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
27498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Maximum Reasonably Balanced Diets 

(MRBD)’’ is available at http://

www.regulations.gov under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0155). 

In addition, EPA is also revising 40 

CFR 180.176(b) for mancozeb by 

removing the listing of time-limited 

tolerances on ginseng and walnut 

because they have already expired, on 

December 31, 2010 and December 31, 

2013, respectively. Since no other 

tolerances would remain in that 

paragraph, the Agency is reserving that 

paragraph. EPA is making the revisions 

in 40 CFR 180.176(b) without notice and 

opportunity to comment. Section 

553(b)(3)(B) of the APA provides that 

notice and comment is not necessary 

‘‘when the agency for good cause finds 

(and incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefore in the 

rules issued) that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ EPA finds good cause here 

because removing the listing does not 

affect the legal status of the already 

expired tolerances. 

EPA is finalizing these tolerance 

actions in order to implement the 

tolerance recommendations made 

during the reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes (including 

follow-up on canceled or additional 

uses of pesticides). As part of these 

processes, EPA is required to determine 

whether each of the amended tolerances 

meets the safety standard of FFDCA. 

The safety finding determination of 

‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm’’ is 

discussed in detail in each RED for the 

active ingredient. REDs recommend the 

implementation of certain tolerance 

actions, including modifications, to 

reflect current use patterns, to meet 

safety findings and change commodity 

names and groupings in accordance 

with new EPA policy. Printed copies of 

many REDs may be obtained from EPA’s 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (EPA/

NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, 

OH 45242–2419; telephone number: 1– 

800–490–9198; fax number: 1–513–489– 

8695; Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

ncepihom and from the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 

5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 

22161; telephone number: 1–800–553– 

6847 or (703) 605–6000; Internet at 

http://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of 

REDs are available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov and http://

www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/

status.htm. 

In this final rule, EPA is revoking 

certain tolerances and/or tolerance 

exemptions because either they are no 

longer needed or are associated with 

food uses that are no longer registered 

under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

in the United States. Those instances 

where registrations were canceled were 

because the registrant failed to pay the 

required maintenance fee and/or the 

registrant voluntarily requested 

cancellation of one or more registered 

uses of the pesticide active ingredient. 

The tolerances 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 issue a final 

rule revoking 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 legally 

treated domestic commodities. 

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. 

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: 

• Prior to EPA’s issuance of a FFDCA 

section 408(f) order requesting 

additional data or issuance of a FFDCA 

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. 

• EPA independently verifies that the 

tolerance is no longer needed. 

• The tolerance is not supported by 

data that demonstrate that the tolerance 

meets the requirements under FFDCA. 

This final rule does not revoke those 

tolerances for which EPA received 

comments stating a need for the 

tolerance to be retained. Among the 

comments received by EPA, are the 

following: 

1. General comments.—i. Comments 

by the EBDC Task Force. The task force 

expressed support for the proposed 

change in the tolerance expression for 

ethylenebis dithiocarbamate (EBDC) 

fungicides from zineb equivalents to 

carbon disulfide equivalents. However, 

the task force proposed alternative 

language for the text proposed by EPA 

in 40 CFR 180.3(d)(5), which adds 

carbon disulfide as part of the tolerance 

definition. In addition, the task force 

requested that EPA should clarify that 

thiram is not a member of the EBDC 

class of fungicides, and thiram does not 

have a common mechanism of toxicity 

with the EBDCs. The task force stated 

that the individual mancozeb, maneb, 

and metiram REDs document that the 

EBDCs do not have a common mode of 

action with any other dithiocarbamate. 

Therefore the aggregate exposures and 

risks referred to in Unit II.A.2. of the 

proposed rule are separate for the EBDC 

fungicides and for thiram. 

Agency response. EPA thanks the 

EBDC Task Force for its support of the 

proposed tolerance expression change to 

carbon disulfide equivalents for EBDC 

fungicides. The task force is correct 

regarding the text proposed in 40 CFR 

180.3(d)(5) in that the comparison 

should be on a single basis, and not a 

combination of zineb and carbon 

disulfide values. However, instead of 

comparing the tolerances to the zineb 

values, as recommended by the task 

force, EPA is making the comparison to 

the new expression, carbon disulfide in 

40 CFR 180.3(d)(5) to read as set out in 

the regulatory text at the end of this 

document. The conversion from zineb to 

carbon disulfide equivalents allows 

harmonization of U.S. tolerances with 

Codex Maximum Residue Limits 

(MRLs). 

Regarding the task force’s comment 

about EBDC fungicides and thiram, EPA 

presumes that the task force is referring 

to the following statement in the 

proposed rule: ‘‘EPA has determined 

that the aggregate exposures and risks 

are not of concern for the abovementioned pesticide active ingredients 

based upon the data identified in the 

RED or TRED which lists the submitted 

studies that the Agency found 

acceptable.’’ This statement is a generic 

statement included in all tolerance 

actions based on recommendations in 

REDs and TREDs, referring to the safety 

standard in FFDCA. It is meant to imply 

that the aggregate risks for the 

individual chemicals are not of concern, 

which includes the aggregate exposure 

including food, drinking water, and 

residential sources. This statement does 

not refer to the aggregate risk of the 

metabolite that is common to the 

EBDCs, ethylene thiourea, nor does it 

imply that there is a common mode of 

action among all dithiocarbamates. The 

Agency has reviewed the 

dithiocarbamates and has determined 

that there is insufficient evidence to 

support grouping them in a common 

mechanism group (http://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticides/cumulative/dithiocarb.pdf). 

ii. Comments by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

NRDC expressed concern about the 

effects of the EBDC fungicides on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 27499 

women of child-bearing age, stating that 

for all the EBDCs and their degradate 

ethylene thiourea (ETU), the thyroid is 

the target organ. They have noted that 

a decrease in thyroxine in pregnant and 

lactating women, such as has been 

observed in laboratory animals exposed 

to the EBDC fungicides, can result in 

neuro-developmental problems in their 

children. NRDC specifically inquired 

whether the Agency considered the 

risks to the infants of low-iodide 

women, and has recommended that the 

Agency retain the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) factor of at least 

10X, and possibly more. Also, NRDC 

encouraged EPA to fully evaluate the 

endocrine disrupting activity of the 

EBDC fumigants, potentially at very low 

environmentally-relevant exposure 

levels, using appropriately designed 

tests such as from the Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). 

NRDC stated that EPA has the 

opportunity to obtain reliable data about 

the endocrine disrupting effects 

associated with the EBDC fumigants, 

given the most current understanding 

about endocrine disruptors. NRDC 

recommended that EPA require 

registrants to submit a study properly 

designed to detect endocrine disruption. 

Also, NRDC expressed concerns about 

the potential toxicity of inert ingredients 

in the end use products made with 

EBDC fumigants, Agency follow-up on 

the compliance rate with mitigation 

measures, or any follow-up on the 

effectiveness of the mitigation in 

protecting workers and exposed 

wildlife, and the availability of nonchemical and reduced-risk chemical 

alternatives in its benefits assessment 

for the EBDC fumigants. In addition, 

NRDC objected to the continued use of 

the EBDC fungicides, which they 

described as not reduced-risk pesticides, 

in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 

programs for many foliar disease 

management programs. 

Agency response. On August 16, 2010, 

EPA sent a letter to NRDC which 

constituted a partial response by EPA to 

a letter dated November 16, 2009, 

submitted to the docket on behalf of 

NRDC, commenting on the September 

16, 2009 proposed tolerance rule. EPA’s 

response of August 16, 2010 addressed 

NRDC’s concerns regarding the toxicity 

of inert ingredients in EBDC products, 

compliance with and effectiveness of 

mitigation measures, and consideration 

of non-chemical and reduced-risk 

alternatives in the benefits assessments 

for the EBDCs. The matters discussed in 

the August 16, 2010 response pertain to 

registration of EBDCs under FIFRA and 

are not relevant to setting of tolerances 

under FFDCA. That response is 

available in the docket of this final rule. 

In a document dated July 9, 2010, 

EPA revised its responses of earlier 

documents (March 30, 2010 and May 

14, 2010) to address NRDC’s comments 

on the FQPA safety factor and the risks 

to infants of low-iodide women of childbearing age and potential endocrinedisrupting activity of EBDCs. EPA 

believes that the tolerances are safe for 

the reasons identified in the July 9, 2010 

response. In addition, that response 

discussed the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program as it applies to 

EBDCs and how existing endocrine 

disruption data regarding EBDCs is 

already taken into account in the 

FFDCA safety finding for EBDCs. The 

three EPA response documents are 

available in the docket of this final rule. 

2. Specific chemical comments.—i. 

Mancozeb.—a. Comments by the 

Mancozeb Task Force (MTF). The MTF 

expressed support for the proposed 

change in the mancozeb tolerance 

expression from zineb equivalents to 

carbon disulfide equivalents. The MTF 

stated that because the tolerance for 

sweet corn (kernel plus cob removed) 

was proposed by EPA to be decreased to 

0.1 ppm and EPA determined that data 

for sweet corn can be translated to 

popcorn grain, the tolerance for popcorn 

grain should not be decreased to 0.06 

ppm as EPA proposed, but instead 

should also be set at 0.1 ppm. Also, the 

MTF stated that no member of the MTF 

is supporting the carrot use on a 

regional basis and the existing tolerance 

could be revoked. In addition, the MTF 

commented on the mancozeb RED 

recommendations for certain grain, 

bran, flour, and hay tolerances. 

b. Comment by Argentine Department 

of Agriculture. The Argentine 

Department of Agriculture expressed 

deep concern over the Agency’s 

proposed decrease to 1.5 ppm for the 

mancozeb tolerance on grape, and 

requested a copy of the risk assessment. 

Agency response. EPA thanks the 

MTF for its support of the proposed 

tolerance expression change for 

mancozeb. EPA proposed to decrease 

the tolerance on sweet corn (kernel plus 

cob with husks removed) to 0.1 ppm in 

order to harmonize with a Codex MRL 

of 0.1 expressed as milligrams (mg) 

carbon disulfide/killigram (kg) for 

dithiocarbamates. Because EPA 

determined that the data for sweet corn 

can be translated to popcorn grain, EPA 

agrees with the MTF that the popcorn 

grain tolerance should be decreased to 

0.1 ppm. Regarding the mancozeb 

tolerance for carrot roots, there is an 

existing FIFRA section 24(c) 

registration, and therefore EPA is 

redesignating that tolerance from 40 

CFR 180.176(a) to (c) and decreasing it 

to 1 ppm. However, EPA is also revising 

the introductory text there to include a 

reference for the definition of a regional 

tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1(l). EPA is 

including that reference herein without 

notice and opportunity to comment. 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA 

provides that notice and comment is not 

necessary ‘‘when the agency for good 

cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefore in the rules issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ EPA finds good 

cause here because including a 

reference does not affect the legal status 

of the tolerance. 

As stated in the Federal Register of 

September 16, 2009, EPA did not 

propose certain tolerance actions 

(cottonseed; field corn grain; papaya; 

grain and straw of barley, oat, rye, and 

wheat; and milling feed fractions of 

barley, oat, and wheat) at that time 

because it had not verified that all 

mancozeb registrations for them had 

been revised or that required data had 

been received and approved. The 

Agency expects to address other 

mancozeb tolerance actions in a future 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Concerning the Argentine Department 

of Agriculture’s request, EPA did send 

a risk assessment and would be happy 

to address any specific questions. 

ii. Thiram.—Comment by VJP 

Consulting, Inc. VJP Consulting 

commented on behalf of Taminco, Inc., 

a registrant of thiram, whose request for 

voluntary cancellation for thiram use on 

apples in the United States had been 

approved by EPA. VJP stated that the 

most recent dietary risk assessments for 

thiram in 2009 continued to include 

apple use and the acute and chronic 

dietary risks were acceptable. VJP noted 

that although EPA proposed to revoke 

the thiram tolerance on apple in the 

Federal Register of September 16. 2009, 

Taminco wanted the tolerance on apple 

maintained for importation purposes. In 

communication with the Agency in 

2007, Taminco had declared such an 

interest and the Agency had notified 

Taminco that it must provide 

justification that the U.S. data is 

comparable to data that would have 

likely been gathered from trials in 

Canada and encouraged Taminco to 

submit at least some foreign data (at 

least 1 Canadian field trial). The Agency 

suggested that if thiram is being used in 

Canada, then some residue data should 

exist. The Agency noted that apples 

were removed at the time of the RED 

due to acute dietary concerns, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
27500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

therefore, Taminco should also submit 

percent crop treated information in 

Canada and the percentage of thiram 

treated apples being imported for 

additional consideration. Further, the 

registrant was told to contact the 

Agency if there were additional 

questions. 

Agency response. Because in a 

comment to the proposed rule, Taminco 

expressed a need for retention of the 

apple tolerance for import purposes and 

intends to support the tolerance with 

data, EPA will not revoke the tolerance 

for thiram in 40 CFR 180.132 on apple 

at this time. After the data have been 

reviewed, EPA will re-evaluate that 

tolerance under FFDCA. If data 

adequate to support a safety finding are 

lacking, EPA intends to revoke the 

tolerance on apple in 40 CFR 180.132. 

Also, in the intervening period since 

the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register of September 16, 2009, 

EPA has published several final rules 

which established tolerances for thiram 

expressed in residues of thiram 

(September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48386) 

(FRL–8431–9), February 12, 2014 (79 FR 

8295) (FRL–9904–22), and April 4, 2014 

(79 FR 18818) (FRL–9909–02)). 

Recently, EPA determined how all the 

existing tolerance levels for thiram 

should be expressed as carbon disulfide 

equivalents. Therefore, EPA will not 

take any tolerance actions on thiram in 

this final rule. Instead, EPA expects to 

propose them in a future notice in the 

Federal Register. 

With the exception of the changes 

described in Unit II.A. and in the 

Agency responses to comments in this 

final rule, EPA is finalizing the 

amendments proposed concerning the 

pesticide active ingredient mancozeb in 

the Federal Register of September 16, 

2009 and for good cause is removing 

expired maneb tolerances. For a detailed 

discussion of the Agency’s rationale for 

the finalized tolerance actions, refer to 

the proposed rule of September 16, 

2009. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

EPA may issue a regulation 

establishing, modifying, or revoking a 

tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). 

In this final rule, EPA is establishing, 

modifying, and revoking tolerances to 

implement the tolerance 

recommendations made in the REDs for 

the active ingredients during the 

reregistration and tolerance 

reassessment processes, and as followup on canceled uses of pesticides. 

C. When do these actions become 

effective? 

As stated in the DATES section, this 

regulation is effective 180 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register. EPA is delaying the effective 

date of these finalized actions to allow 

a reasonable interval for producers in 

exporting members of the World Trade 

Organization’s Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures Agreement to 

adapt to the requirements of a final rule. 

EPA believes that existing stocks of the 

canceled or amended pesticide products 

labeled for the uses associated with the 

revoked tolerances have been 

completely exhausted and 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 FQPA. Under this unit, 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. 

2. The residue does not exceed the 

level that was authorized at the time of 

the application or use to be present on 

the food under a tolerance or exemption 

from tolerance. Evidence to show that 

food was lawfully treated may include 

records that verify the dates that the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

III. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on celery, fennel, 

oat bran, flax seed, rice, and sorghum. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on banana at 2 

mg/kg, cranberry at 5 mg/kg, peanut at 

0.1 mg/kg, and sweet corn (corn-on-thecob) at 0.1 mg/kg. These MRLs will be 

the same as the tolerances modified 

herein for mancozeb in the United 

States. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on bulb onions at 

0.5 mg/kg, sugar beets at 0.5 mg/kg, and 

tomato at 2 mg/kg. These MRLs will 

remain covered by U.S. tolerances at 

higher levels for mancozeb. These MRLs 

are different than the tolerances 

established for mancozeb in the United 

States because of differences in use 

patterns and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

The Codex has established MRLs for 

total dithiocarbamates determined as 

carbon disulfide in or on various other 

commodities, including grapes at 5 mg/ 

kg and pome fruits at 5 mg/kg. These 

MRLs are different than the tolerances 

modified herein for mancozeb in the 

United States because of differences in 

use patterns and/or good agricultural 

practices. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this final rule, EPA establishes 

tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), 

and also modifies and revokes specific 

tolerances established under FFDCA 

section 408. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 

types of actions (i.e., establishment and 

modification of a tolerance and 

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, entitled 

‘‘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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 27501 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.). 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) (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 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerances, raising of tolerance 

levels, expansion of exemptions, or 

revocations 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. These analyses 

for tolerance establishments and 

modifications, and for tolerance 

revocations were published on May 4, 

1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 

17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL–5753–1), 

respectively, and were 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 

the proposed 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 

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 9, 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. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action 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: May 7, 2014. 

Jack 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 § 180.3, revise paragraph (d)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.3 Tolerances for related pesticide 

chemicals. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Where tolerances are established 

for more than one member of the class 

of dithiocarbamates listed in paragraph 

(e)(3) of this section on the same raw 

agricultural commodity, the total 

residue of such pesticides shall not 

exceed that permitted by the highest 

tolerance established for any one 

member of the class, calculated both as 

zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate and 

carbon disulfide. The tolerance based on 

zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate shall 

first be multiplied by 0.6 to convert it 

to the equivalent carbon disulfide 

tolerance, and then the carbon disulfide 

tolerance levels will be compared to 

determine the highest tolerance level 

per raw agricultural commodity. 

* * * * * 

§ 180.110 [Removed] 

■ 3. Remove § 180.110. 

■ 4. In § 180.176, revise the table in 

paragraph (a) and revise paragraphs (b), 

and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 180.176 Mancozeb; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond ...................................... 0 .1 

Almond, hulls ............................ 4 

Apple ......................................... 0 .6 

Asparagus ................................. 0 .1 

Atemoya .................................... 3 .0 

Banana ..................................... 2 

Barley, bran .............................. 20 

Barley, flour .............................. 20 

Barley, grain ............................. 5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
27502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 93 / Wednesday, May 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Barley, pearled barley .............. 20 

Barley, straw ............................. 25 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ............. 3 .0 

Beet, sugar, roots ..................... 1 .2 

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 60 

Broccoli ..................................... 7 

Cabbage ................................... 9 

Canistel ..................................... 15 .0 

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0 .5 

Cattle, liver ................................ 0 .5 

Cherimoya ................................ 3 .0 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 40 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0 .1 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 15 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0 .1 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 40 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 70 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 0 .1 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 40 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0 .5 

Crabapple ................................. 0 .6 

Cranberry .................................. 5 

Custard apple ........................... 3 .0 

Fennel ....................................... 2 .5 

Flax, seed ................................. 0 .15 

Ginseng .................................... 1 .2 

Goat, kidney ............................. 0 .5 

Goat, liver ................................. 0 .5 

Grape ........................................ 1 .5 

Hog, kidney ............................... 0 .5 

Hog, liver .................................. 0 .5 

Horse, kidney ............................ 0 .5 

Horse, liver ............................... 0 .5 

Lettuce, head ............................ 3 .5 

Lettuce, leaf .............................. 18 

Mango ....................................... 15 .0 

Oat, flour ................................... 20 

Oat, grain .................................. 5 

Oat, groats/rolled oats .............. 20 

Oat, straw ................................. 25 

Onion, bulb ............................... 1 .5 

Papaya ...................................... 10 

Peanut ...................................... 0 .1 

Peanut, hay .............................. 65 

Pear .......................................... 0 .6 

Pepper ...................................... 12 

Potato ....................................... 0 .2 

Poultry, kidney .......................... 0 .5 

Poultry, liver .............................. 0 .5 

Quince ...................................... 0 .6 

Rice, grain ................................ 0 .06 

Rye, bran .................................. 20 

Rye, grain ................................. 5 

Rye, straw ................................. 25 

Sapodilla ................................... 15 .0 

Sapote, mamey ........................ 15 .0 

Sapote, white ............................ 15 .0 

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0 .5 

Sheep, liver ............................... 0 .5 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 0 .15 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0 .25 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0 .15 

Star apple ................................. 15 .0 

Sugar apple .............................. 3 .0 

Tangerine 1 ............................... 10 

Tomato ...................................... 2 .5 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 .... 2 .0 

Walnut ....................................... 0 .70 

Wheat, bran .............................. 20 

Wheat, flour .............................. 20 

Wheat, germ ............................. 20 

Wheat, grain ............................. 5 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Wheat, middlings ...................... 20 

Wheat, shorts ........................... 20 

Wheat, straw ............................. 25 

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

mancozeb on tangerine. 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

(c) Tolerances with regional 

registrations. A tolerance with regional 

registrations, as defined in § 180.1(l), is 

established for residues of the fungicide 

mancozeb, (a coordination product of 

zinc ion and maneb (manganese 

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), including 

its metabolites and degradates, in or on 

the commodity in the following table in 

this paragraph. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in this 

paragraph is to be determined by 

measuring only those mancozeb 

residues convertible to and expressed in 

terms of the degradate carbon disulfide. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Carrot, roots ................................ 1 

* * * * * 

§ 180.319 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 180.319, remove the entry for 

‘‘Coordination product of zinc ion and 

maneb’’ from the table in paragraph (a). 

[FR Doc. 2014–10955 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 06–154; FCC 12–116] 

2006 Biennial Regulatory Review 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published a document in 

the Federal Register at 78 FR 8417, on 

February 6, 2013, revising Commission 

rules. That document inadvertently 

caused the e-CFR to revert to a former 

version of a paragraph, which had been 

revised by a document published the 

previous day, at 78 FR 8230, February 

5, 2013. This document corrects the 

final rules by restoring the paragraph to 

the revised provision as published on 

February 5, 2013. 

DATES: Effective May 14, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Spiers, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418– 

1593 or via email at 

Cindy.Spiers@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the 

second set of corrections. The first set of 

corrections was published in the 

Federal Register at 78 FR 29062, 

February 17, 2013. This document 

augments the corrections which were 

published in the Federal Register at 78 

FR 29062, February 17, 2013. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25 

Satellites and telecommunications. 

Accordingly, 47 CFR part 25 is 

corrected by making the following 

corrective amendments: 

PART 25—SATELLITE 

COMMUNICATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to reads as follows: 

Authority: Interprets or applies sections 4, 

301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and 

721 of the Communications Act, as amended, 

47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 

332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 25.149, revise the section 

heading and paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 25.149 Application requirements for 

ancillary terrestrial components in MobileSatellite Service networks operating in the 

1.5./1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite 

Service. 

(a) * * * 

(1) ATC shall be deployed in the 

forward-band mode of operation 

whereby the ATC mobile terminals 

transmit in the MSS uplink bands and 

the ATC base stations transmit in the 

MSS downlink bands in portions of the 

1626.5–1660.5 MHz/1525–1559 MHz 

bands (L-band) and the 1610–1626.5 

MHz/2483.5–2500 MHz bands. 

Note to paragraph (a)(1): * * * 

* * * * * 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11071 Filed 5–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES