Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26983

TABLE II.—LUMP SUM VALUATIONS

[In using this table: (1) For benefits for which the participant or beneficiary is entitled to be in pay status on the valuation date, the immediate annuity rate shall apply; (2) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and 0 < y ≤ n1), interest rate i1 shall

apply from the valuation date for a period of y years, and thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply; (3) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and n1 < y ≤ n1 + n2), interest rate i2 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y ¥ n1

years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1 years, and thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply; (4) For benefits for which

the deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and y > n1 + n2), interest rate i3 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y ¥

n1 ¥ n2 years, interest rate i2 shall apply for the following n2 years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1 years, and thereafter the

immediate annuity rate shall apply.]

Rate set

For plans with a valuation

date Immediate

annuity rate

(percent)

Deferred annuities

(percent)

On or after Before i1 i2 i3 n1 n2

* * * * * * *

56 06–1–98 07–1–98 4.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day

of May 1998.

David M. Strauss,

Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–12911 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–98–032]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Pocomoke River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast

Guard District, has issued a temporary

deviation from the regulations

governing the operation of the Route

675 (U.S. 13 Business Route)

drawbridge across the Pocomoke River,

mile 15.6, in Pocomoke City, Maryland.

Beginning May 17, 1998, through June

16, 1998, this deviation requires threehours advance notice for drawbridge

openings from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. on

weekdays, and from 7 p.m. on Fridays

through 6 a.m. on Mondays. This

deviation is necessary to allow the

contractor to paint the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from

May 17, 1998 through June 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Ann B.

Deaton, Bridge Administrator, Fifth

Coast Guard District, at (757) 398–6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Textar

Painting Corporation, a contractor for

the Maryland Department of

Transportation, requested the Coast

Guard to approve a temporary deviation

from the normal operation of the bridge

in order to accommodate painting the

structure. To paint the bridge, a barge

will be used. Three-hours advance

notice will be required to open the

bridge during the requested time

periods.

This deviation will not significantly

disrupt vessel traffic, since little exists

at this location, and mariners may still

transit the bridge provided the threehours advance notice is given. The

regulations at 33 CFR 117.569(b) require

the draw to open on signal, except

between November 1 and March 31 the

draw must open only if at least five

hours advance notice is given.

From May 17, 1998, through June 16,

1998, this deviation requires three-hours

advance notice for openings of the

Route 675 Pocomoke River Drawbridge

(U.S. 13 Business route) from 9 a.m.

through 3 p.m. on weekdays and from

7 p.m. on Fridays through 6 a.m. on

Mondays.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–13015 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL–6013–9]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;

Methyl Bromide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of clarification.

SUMMARY: This document clarifies a

previous statement by EPA about the

applicability of a Clean Air Act labeling

rule to methyl bromide as a ‘‘class I

ozone-depleting substance.’’ The

labeling rule requires products

‘‘containing’’ or ‘‘manufactured with’’ a

class I ozone-depleting substance to be

labeled as such. This document makes

clear that any product, including any

agricultural product, that ‘‘contains’’ or

is ‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide

is subject to the labeling rule’s

requirements. At the same time, EPA is

not aware of any agricultural product

that ‘‘contains’’ or is ‘‘manufactured

with’’ methyl bromide, as those terms

are defined by the labeling rule. In

particular, raw food commodities grown

for the fresh food market and produced

with the use of methyl bromide do not

meet the definitions of products

‘‘containing’’ or ‘‘manufactured with’’

methyl bromide and are thus not subject

to the labeling rule’s requirements.

DATES: The effective date of this Notice

of Clarification is May 15, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and data relating

to the methyl bromide rule are

contained in Air Docket A–92–13, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, OAR

Docket and Information Center, Room

M–1500, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments and

data relating to the labeling rule are

contained in Air Docket A–91–60, at the

same location. Each of the dockets may

be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30

p.m. on weekdays. The telephone

number for the dockets is (202) 260–

7548; the fax number is (202) 260–4400.

As provided in 40 CFR, Part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged for

photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol Weisner at (202) 564–9193 or fax

(202) 565–2096, Stratospheric

Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code

6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Overnight mail (Fed-Ex,

Express Mail, etc.) should be sent to our

501 3rd Street, NW., Washington, DC

20001 street address.
26984 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1 In a January 19, 1995, rulemaking (60 FR 4010),

the labeling rule was revised. Among other

revisions, the definition of ‘‘manufactured with’’

was amended to indicate that a product

‘‘manufactured with’’ a controlled substance does

not contain more than trace quantities of the

controlled substance. The definition was also

amended to expand the situations that are excluded

from the phrase ‘‘manufactured with’’ to include

where a product has physical contact with a

controlled substance only in an intermittent manner

and not as a routine part of the direct

manufacturing process and where the controlled

substance has been completely destroyed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

A. Stratospheric Ozone Protection

Added in 1990, Title VI of the Clean

Air Act (‘‘CAA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) establishes a

comprehensive program to protect

stratospheric ozone, which helps shield

the earth from harmful ultraviolet

radiation. In particular, it requires EPA

to list substances that have a significant

potential to deplete stratospheric ozone

as class I ozone-depleting substances,

and to require their phaseout by a

specified date. It also provides for a

multi-faceted regulatory program to

minimize the use and release of ozonedepleting substances prior to their

phaseout.

B. Labeling Rule

Section 611 of the Act prohibits the

introduction into interstate commerce of

any product containing a class I

substance or manufactured with a

process using a class I substance, unless

it bears a warning statement indicating

that the product contains or is

manufactured with ozone-depleting

substances. To implement this and other

provisions of section 611, EPA issued a

final rule on February 11, 1993, at 58 FR

8136, which established labeling

requirements for, among other things,

products containing, or manufactured

with a process that uses, a class I ozonedepleting substance (the ‘‘labeling

rule.’’)

The labeling rule defines a ‘‘product

containing’’ a class I substance as a

‘‘product including, but not limited to,

containers, vessels, or pieces of

equipment, that physically holds a

controlled substance [i.e., a class I or II

ozone-depleting substance] at the point

of sale to the ultimate consumer which

remains within the product.’’ The rule

also defines ‘‘manufactured with a

controlled substance’’ as follows:

[T]he manufacturer of the product itself

used a controlled substance directly in the

product’s manufacturing, but the product

itself does not contain more than trace

quantities of the controlled substance at the

point of introduction into interstate

commerce. The following situations are

excluded from the meaning of the phrase

‘‘manufactured with’’ a controlled substance:

(1) Where a product has not had physical

contact with the controlled substance;

(2) Where the manufacturing equipment or

the product has had physical contact with a

controlled substance in an intermittent

manner, not as a routine part of the direct

manufacturing process;

(3) Where the controlled substance has

been transformed, except for trace quantities;

or

(4) Where the controlled substance has

been completely destroyed.

The current labeling requirements are

codified at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart E

(including sections 82.100–82.124).1

Section 82.102(a) of the labeling rule

specifically provides that, in the case of

any substance designated as a class I

substance after February 11, 1993, the

labeling requirements are applicable

beginning one year after the designation

of such substance, unless the

rulemaking designating such substance

provides otherwise.

C. Methyl Bromide Rule

EPA issued a final rule on December

10, 1993, at 58 FR 65018, pursuant to

sections 602 and 604 of the CAA, listing

methyl bromide as a class I ozonedepleting substance and establishing a

phaseout date for its production and

importation (the ‘‘methyl bromide

rule.’’) Methyl bromide is used as a

pesticide and fumigant.

The labeling rule became applicable

to methyl bromide on January 1, 1995,

one year following the effective date of

its designation as a class I substance. In

the preamble to the methyl bromide

rule, EPA discussed the applicability of

the labeling rule to methyl bromide.

With respect to containers of methyl

bromide, EPA stated that such

containers would be subject to the

labeling rule. With respect to

agricultural products, EPA ‘‘determined

that activities involved in growing,

harvesting, storing and transporting

food are part of an agricultural process

that falls outside the intent of Congress

to require labeling on products

‘manufactured with’ a class I or II

substance’’ (58 FR at 65043, col. 3.)

Based on this determination, EPA

concluded that ‘‘products treated with

methyl bromide would not require

labeling.’’ Id.

In reaching its conclusion, EPA

recognized that ‘‘the general purpose of

alerting consumers that certain goods

were produced in a manner that may

cause harm to stratospheric ozone could

apply to certain agricultural products

for which methyl bromide is used.’’ Id.

The Agency nevertheless concluded that

the labeling requirement applicable to

products ‘‘manufactured with’’ a class I

substance was reasonably interpreted

not to apply to agricultural products

because ‘‘such products are grown and

not manufactured.’’ Id. EPA cited

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate

Dictionary (1983) for the ordinary

definition of the word ‘‘manufacture’’ as

making something from raw materials

by hand or by machinery, which would

not include the growing of fruits and

vegetables. The Agency also stated that

it believed Congress did not anticipate

labeling of raw agricultural products

given the practical difficulty of labeling

such products, many of which are sold

without any packaging at all.

D. Litigation

In February, 1994, the National

Resources Defense Council, together

with other parties, challenged this as

well as other aspects of the methyl

bromide rule by filing a petition in the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit. EPA is issuing this clarification

pursuant to a settlement agreement in

that case.

II. Clarification

The need for this clarification arises

out of the breadth of some of the

Agency’s statements taken out of

context. In isolation, statements that

‘‘products treated with methyl bromide’’

and ‘‘agricultural products’’ do not

require labeling could be interpreted to

mean that any agricultural product is

exempt from the labeling rule,

regardless of whether and how methyl

bromide was used in its production.

EPA’s discussion of the applicability of

the labeling rule to methyl bromide

addressed specific activities and types

of products. Read in context, the

Agency’s statements are properly

limited to the specific activities and

products it addressed. The purpose of

this notice is to confirm the limits of

those statements and clarify the extent

to which the labeling rule is applicable

to methyl bromide.

As noted above, EPA addressed

specific activities and products in its

discussion of the labeling rule’s

applicability to methyl bromide. The

Agency determined that ‘‘activities

involved in growing, harvesting, storing

and transporting food’’ do not constitute

manufacturing under the labeling rule,

and that Congress did not intend raw

agricultural products such as fruits and

vegetables to be labeled. From those

determinations, EPA concluded that

‘‘products treated with methyl bromide

would not require labeling.’’

EPA’s conclusion is appropriate for

the specific activities and products

addressed. Growing and harvesting, as

the Agency explained, do not constitute

manufacturing, since they do not fit the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26985

ordinary definition of manufacturing as

making something from raw materials

by hand or by machinery. Indeed,

agricultural crops are generally

considered ‘‘raw materials’’ that may or

may not be made into something else by

hand or by machine. (See, for example,

the definition of ‘‘raw material’’ in

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate

Dictionary (1990): ‘‘wheat * * * is a

raw material for the flour mill.’’) As a

result, use of methyl bromide as a

pesticide in growing a crop does not

make the harvested crop a product

‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide.

Generally speaking, use of methyl

bromide as a fumigant in storing or

transporting also does not make a

product ‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl

bromide. The labeling rule’s definition

of ‘‘manufactured with’’ specifies that

the manufacturer of the product itself

uses a class I substance ‘‘directly in the

product’s manufacturing.’’ Storing and

transporting are generally not part of a

direct manufacturing process, although

they may precede or follow such a

process. By themselves, storing and

transporting also do not meet the

ordinary definition of manufacturing,

since neither entails making something

from raw materials by hand or by

machine. Instead, they simply provide

for the safekeeping or movement of a

product, either raw or manufactured.

Further, the labeling rule requires that

a product be labeled by the time it

enters interstate commerce (section

82.124.) If a product has not been

‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide

by the time it enters interstate

commerce, it does not become

‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide

by virtue of being treated with methyl

bromide in storage or shipment

following its entry into interstate

commerce. Section 82.104(n) of the rule

defines the possible points of entry into

interstate commerce as the ‘‘release of a

product from the facility in which the

product was manufactured, the entry

into a warehouse from which the

domestic manufacturer releases the

product for sale or distribution, and at

the site of United States Customs

clearance.’’ Obviously, these points of

entry will often precede storage or

shipment of a product in the United

States.

In the methyl bromide rule preamble,

EPA also discussed the applicability of

the labeling rule to particular products.

The particular products addressed by

EPA—raw agricultural products,

including fruits and vegetables—result

from particular activities that EPA

determined do not constitute

manufacturing—growing, harvesting,

storing and transporting. It thus follows

that they are not products

‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide.

For the reasons given above, EPA

believes that its discussion in the

methyl bromide rulemaking of the

labeling rule’s applicability to methyl

bromide was appropriate for the specific

activities and products addressed.

However, some members of the public

have raised concerns that the discussion

may be read to imply that an

agricultural product is not subject to the

labeling rule even when it contains or

is manufactured with methyl bromide.

The point of today’s notice is to remove

any such inadvertent implication.

The labeling rule applies to any

product that ‘‘contains’’ or is

‘‘manufactured with’’ a class I ozonedepleting substance. Methyl bromide

has been classified as a class I ozonedepleting substance. Therefore, any

product containing or manufactured

with methyl bromide is subject to the

labeling rule’s requirements in the same

way as a product containing or

manufactured with any other class I

substance. For the reasons stated above,

use of methyl bromide in growing,

harvesting, storing or shipping a crop

does not constitute ‘‘manufacturing

with’’ methyl bromide and so would not

subject the crop to the labeling

requirement for products

‘‘manufactured with’’ a class I

substance. But use of methyl bromide in

the direct manufacturing process of a

product would subject that product to

the requirement.

EPA, however, is not aware of any

agricultural product that ‘‘contains’’ or

is ‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl

bromide, as those terms are defined by

the labeling rule. The definition of

‘‘product containing’’ specifies that the

product ‘‘physically holds a controlled

substance at the point of sale.’’ To EPA’s

knowledge, no agricultural product so

holds methyl bromide, nor is it likely

that any would, given the volatility of

methyl bromide. One of methyl

bromide’s advantages as a pesticide and

fumigant is that it leaves virtually no

residues on or in products treated with

it. In any event, section 82.106(b)(1) of

the labeling rule exempts from its

requirements products containing no

more than trace quantities of a

controlled substance remaining as a

residue where the controlled substance

serves no useful purpose in or for the

product itself. With respect to

containers of methyl bromide itself, EPA

made clear in the methyl bromide rule

that such containers are subject to the

labeling requirement for products

‘‘containing’’ a class I substance.

As noted above, EPA is also not aware

of any agricultural products

‘‘manufactured with’’ methyl bromide.

EPA has issued several applicability

determinations related to the labeling

rule. Five of them addressed whether

particular uses of a class I substance

constitute ‘‘manufacturing with’’ the

substance. EPA found that these

particular uses did not constitute

‘‘manufacturing with’’ a class I

substance because the class I substance

did not have physical contact with the

product or was used in an intermittent,

non-routine manner (which section

82.104(o)(2) of the rule exempts from

the definition of ‘‘manufactured with.’’)

These applicability determinations are

available in the docket for the labeling

rule.

Methyl bromide is currently used as

a post-harvest pest control tool for

raisins. Grapes are typically allowed to

dry in the field and are harvested as

raisins. They are then typically sold to

a packer who treats the raisins with

methyl bromide when held in storage.

This use of methyl bromide would not

require that the raisins be labeled.

Storage of the raisins is not

manufacturing, nor is it a part of any

manufacturing process. Moreover,

storage generally occurs after the raisins

have been introduced into interstate

commerce.

In the case of other dried fruits and

nuts, methyl bromide is used in a

similar manner. To EPA’s knowledge,

methyl bromide is not a direct part of

any dried fruit or nut ‘‘manufacturing’’

process, but is used as a storage or preshipment pest control tool. Since these

uses are not part of a direct

manufacturing process, labeling is not

required.

Methyl bromide is also used to treat

empty food processing facilities for pest

control. An example of such use is the

periodic fumigation of flour mills when

they are empty. In these cases, food

products are typically removed from the

facility prior to the methyl bromide

treatment, which takes place on an asneeded basis (typically once or twice a

year, depending on pest levels.) The

methyl bromide used in these cases has

no physical contact with any food

products that are manufactured in the

facility, so labeling is not required. Even

if food products were present in the

facility during the methyl bromide

treatment, labeling would not be

required if the treatment is done on an

intermittent or infrequent basis.

EPA may not be aware of the details

of all of the processes involving use of

methyl bromide. There may be uses that

are part of the direct manufacturing

process for a product and that are not

otherwise exempt from the labeling

rule’s definition of ‘‘manufactured
26986 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 94 / Friday, May 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

with.’’ Any such use of methyl bromide

would subject the resulting product to

the labeling rule. Similarly, any product

‘‘containing’’ methyl bromide, as that

phrase is defined by the labeling rule, is

subject to the rule.

III. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act

(‘‘Act’’), 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does

not apply because this action is not a

rule.

IV. Additional Information

For more information on methyl

bromide, please contact the

Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1–

800–296–1996, Monday–Friday,

between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and

4:00 p.m. (EST). Federal Register

publications can be ordered from the

Government Printing Office Order Desk

(202) 783–3238; the citation is the date

of publication. Each of the final rules

referred to in this Notice may also be

retrieved from EPA’s Ozone Depletion

World Wide Web site, at http://

www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/ .

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 8, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98–12851 Filed 5–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300640; FRL–5784–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Tebufenozide; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

tebufenozide in or on peppers (bell and

non-bell) . This action is in response to

EPA’s granting of an emergency

exemption under section 18 of the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act authorizing use of the

pesticide on peppers (bell and non-bell).

This regulation establishes a maximum

permissible level for residues of

tebufenozide in this food commodity

pursuant to section 408(l)(6) of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance

will expire and is revoked on September

30, 1999.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

15, 1998. Objections and requests for

hearings must be received by EPA on or

before July 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300640],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300640], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300640]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Andrew Ertman, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308–9367, e-mail:

ertman.andrew@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing

a tolerance for residues of the

insecticide tebufenozide, in or on

peppers (bell and non-bell) at 0.5 part

per million (ppm). This tolerance will

expire and is revoked on September 30,

1999. EPA will publish a document in

the Federal Register to remove the

revoked tolerance from the Code of

Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. The FQPA

amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

These activities are described below and

discussed in greater detail in the final

rule establishing the time-limited

tolerance associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum published in the Federal

Register of November 13, 1996 (61 FR

58135) (FRL–5572–9).

New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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) 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) 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. . . .’’

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA

to exempt any Federal or State agency

from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA

determines that ‘‘emergency conditions