2446 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

purpose of judicial rule, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. See section

307(b)(2) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Oxides of nitrogen,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: January 18, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart T—Louisiana

2. Section 52.992 is amended by

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.992 Area-wide nitrogen oxides (NOX)

exemptions.

* * * * *

(b) The LDEQ submitted to the EPA

on November 17, 1994, a petition

requesting that the Baton Rouge serious

ozone nonattainment area be exempted

from the NOX control requirements of

the CAA. In addition, supplemental

information was submitted to the EPA

by the LDEQ on January 26, 1995, June

6, 1995, and June 16, 1995. The Baton

Rouge nonattainment area consists of

East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge,

Pointe Coupee, Livingston, Iberville,

and Ascension Parishes. The exemption

request was based on photochemical

grid modeling which shows that

reductions in NOX would not contribute

to attainment in the nonattainment area.

On January 18, 1996, the EPA approved

the State’s request for an areawide

exemption from the following

requirements: NOX new source review,

NOX reasonably available control

technology, NOX general conformity,

and NOX inspection and maintenance

requirements.

[FR Doc. 96–1288 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 185

[OPP–300394A; FRL–4983–6]

RIN 2070–AB78

Trifluralin; Revocation of Food

Additive Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking the food

additive regulation (FAR) for residues of

the herbicide trifluralin in peppermint

oil and spearmint oil. EPA is taking this

action because peppermint oil and

spearmint oil are not ready-to-eat

commodities, and residues of trifluralin

are not likely to concentrate in ready-toeat foods containing peppermint and

spearmint oil. Therefore, this FAR is not

required.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes

effective January 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections, requests

for a hearing, and/or requests of stays

identified by the document control

number, OPP-300394A, must be

submitted by February 26, 1996, and

comments on all of the above must be

submitted by March 11, 1996 to the OPP

docket: Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Hand deliver to: Rm. 1132,

CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA.

Information submitted as a filing

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the filings that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written (nonCBI) filings will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

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 in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [OPP-300394A]. 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. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Niloufar Nazmi, Special Review

Branch (7508W), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

and telephone number: Crystal Mall #2,

Rm. 1113, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703)-308-8028; e-mail:

nazmi.niloufar@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

EPA is revoking the FAR for residues

of the herbicide trifluralin in

peppermint oil and spearmint oil (40

CFR 185.5900).

A. Statutory Background

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.,

authorizes the establishment by

regulation of maximum permissible

levels of pesticides in foods. Such

regulations are commonly referred to as

‘‘tolerances.’’ Without such a tolerance

or an exemption from the requirement

of a tolerance, a food containing a

pesticide residue is ‘‘adulterated’’ under

section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and may not

be legally moved in interstate

commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331, 342. EPA was

authorized to establish pesticide

tolerances under Reorganization Plan

No. 3 of 1970. 5 U.S.C. App. at 1343

(1988). Monitoring and enforcement of

pesticide tolerances are carried out by

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA). EPA can establish

a tolerance in response to a petition

(FFDCA sections 408(d)(1) and

409(b)(1)) or on its own initiative

(FFDCA sections 408(e) and 409(d)).

The FFDCA has separate provisions

for tolerances for pesticide residues on

raw agricultural commodities (RACs)

and tolerances on processed food. For

pesticide residues in or on RACs, EPA

establishes tolerances, or exemptions

from tolerances when appropriate,

under section 408 of the act (21 U.S.C.

346a.) EPA regulates pesticide residues

in processed foods under section 409 of
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2447

the act, which pertains to ‘‘food

additives’’ (21 U.S.C. 348). Maximum

residue regulations established under

section 409 of the act are commonly

referred to as food additive regulations

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘FARs’’).

Section 409 FARs are needed, however,

only for certain pesticide residues in

processed food. Under section 402(a)(2)

of the FFDCA, a pesticide residue in

processed food generally will not render

the food adulterated if the residue

results from application of the pesticide

to a RAC and the residue in the

processed food when ready to eat is

below the RAC tolerance. This

exemption in section 402(a)(2) is

commonly referred to as the ‘‘flowthrough’’ provision because it allows the

section 408 raw food tolerance to flow

through to the processed food forms.

Thus, a section 409 food additive

regulation is only necessary to prevent

foods from being deemed adulterated

when the level of the pesticide residue

in a processed food when ready to eat

is greater than the tolerance prescribed

for the RAC, or if the processed food

itself is treated or comes in contact with

a pesticide.

B. Regulatory Background

In the Federal Register of July 14,

1993 (58 FR 37862) EPA issued a final

order, hereafter referred to as ‘‘1993

Order’’, that was subject to objections

and requests for a hearing and that

revoked the trifluralin FAR for

peppermint oil and spearmint oil. The

1993 Order was issued in response to

the decision by the U.S. Court of

Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in the case of

Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.

1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361

(1993). DowElanco, the manufacturer of

trifluralin, filed objections to the revised

Order, as well as requests for a hearing

on, and a stay of, the revocation Order.

In the Federal Register of June 30, 1994

(59 FR 33684), EPA issued a final order

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘1994 Order’’)

denying DowElanco’s objections and

requests for a hearing and a stay of the

revocation. On July 14, 1994,

DowElanco filed an action in the U.S.

Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, for

review of EPA’s 1993 Order, and moved

for summary reversal or, in the

alternative, an emergency stay of the

revocation. E.I. DuPont DeNemours and

Co., et al. v. EPA, Civ. Action No. 94-

1504 (D.C. Cir.). On August 24, 1994,

the Court denied DowElanco’s motion

for summary reversal, but issued an

emergency stay of the revocation. In the

Federal Register of September 12, 1994

(59 FR 46768), EPA reinstated the FAR

for trifluralin (as well as for benomyl),

and they are currently in effect.

On September 11, 1992, the National

Food Processors Association (NFPA)

and other organizations filed a petition

with EPA challenging, among other

things, EPA’s interpretation of the

phrase ‘‘ready to eat’’ in the Delaney

Clause. (Petition to the Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide

Programs, Concerning EPA’s Pesticide

Concentration Policy (1992))

(hereinafter cited as ‘‘NFPA petition’’).

The petition requested that EPA apply

the term ‘‘ready to eat’’ in the flowthrough provision according to what

NFPA asserts is its plain meaning. EPA

sought public comment on the petition

(58 FR 7470, Feb. 5, 1993). In the

Federal Register of June 14, 1995 (60 FR

31300), EPA issued a partial response to

the NFPA petition, addressing the

‘‘ready to eat’’ policy. In that response,

EPA agreed that the term ‘‘ready to eat’’

food has a common-sense meaning of

food which is consumed without further

preparation, and stated its intention to

apply that interpretation in future

actions.

In the Federal Register of July 28,

1995 (60 FR 38781), EPA issued a

proposed rule to revoke the FAR for

trifluralin on peppermint and spearmint

oils. In the same proposed rule, EPA

proposed to withdraw its Order dated

July 14, 1993 (58 FR 37862), to the

extent that it revoked the FAR for

trifluralin in peppermint oil and

spearmint oil. Today’s document

contains a final rule revoking the

trifluralin FAR and responds to

comments on the July 28, 1995 proposal

II. Revocation of the Food Additive

Regulations for Trifluralin in

Peppermint Oil and Spearmint Oil

EPA has determined that no section

409 FAR is necessary for mint oils

because they are not ‘‘ready to eat’’

processed foods, and because ‘‘ready to

eat’’ foods containing mint oils are

unlikely to have trifluralin residues

greater than the RAC tolerances for

peppermint hay and spearmint hay. The

proposed rule for this action was

published in the Federal Register of

July 28, 1995 (60 FR 38781). The

Federal Register document and all the

supporting documents are in the OPP

docket number 300394.

As noted above, under FFDCA section

402(a)(2), processed foods containing

pesticide residues are not deemed

adulterated if the level of pesticide

residues in the processed food ‘‘when

ready to eat is not greater than the

tolerance prescribed for the raw

agricultural commodity.’’ EPA believes

that the common sense meaning of the

term ‘‘ready to eat’’ food is food ready

for consumption without further

preparation. Mint oils are not consumed

‘‘as is’’ but are used as a flavoring in

other foods. As such, peppermint oil

and spearmint oil are not ‘‘ready to eat.’’

Mint oils are used as flavoring agents

in foods such as beverages, ice cream,

candy, and chewing gum. Chewing gum

is a ready-to-eat food with the highest

concentration of peppermint and

spearmint oils. The information

available to EPA shows that trifluralin

residues are diluted during

manufacturing so that there is no

concentration over the RAC tolerance in

the ready-to-eat chewing gum. Thus, no

section 409 FAR is needed for

peppermint oil and spearmint oil, and

EPA is revoking the existing FAR. (60

FR 38781)

III. Response to Comments

EPA received comments on the

proposed revocation of the trifluralin

FAR. All the commenters support the

basis for the revocation of the referenced

FAR. In addition, many of the

commenters raise other issues that EPA

believes are not relevant to EPA’s

conclusion that mint oils are not readyto-eat commodities and that as a result,

the section 409 FAR covering residues

of trifluralin in mint oils are not

necessary. However, the following are

brief responses to these comments.

Comment

The National Food Processor’s

Association (NFPA), the American Crop

Protection Association (ACPA),

DowElanco, and Gowan Co. submitted

comments in support of the revocation

of the proposed FAR and the

withdrawal of the July 14, 1993 Order.

However, NFPA, ACPA, and DowElanco

contend that there are other controlling

legal reasons why the 1993 and 1994

Orders must be withdrawn.

The commenters contend that once it

has been determined that trifluralin

residues in mint oil are subject to the

section 402 flow-through provision, the

1993 and 1994 Orders must be

withdrawn because those Orders

purported to revoke the FAR on the

grounds that the pesticide ‘‘induces

cancer’’ within the meaning of the

Delaney clause. The commenters

contend that, as a matter of law, EPA is

precluded from revoking a section 409

FAR under the safety standard in

section 409(c) if EPA has determined, as

it has here, that the FAR is not needed

to prevent the adulteration of processed

food.

According to the commenters, the

flow-through provision prohibits EPA

from determining that an agricultural

pesticide in a processed food is

‘‘unsafe,’’ notwithstanding the
2448 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

provisions of section 409, if the

pesticide residue has been removed to

the extent possible in good

manufacturing practice and the level of

the residue in the processed food when

ready to eat is not greater than the

applicable section 408 tolerance. Thus,

the commenters reason that since EPA

has decided that trifluralin residues in

mint oil are likely to fall within the

protection of the flow-through

provision, EPA is barred from revoking

the trifluralin FAR on grounds that the

pesticide ‘‘induces cancer’’ within the

meaning of the Delaney clause in

section 409 of the FFDCA. On June 10,

1995, NFPA separately filed a petition

with EPA raising this same issue.

EPA’s Response

As will be explained in more detail in

EPA’s response to the June 10, 1995

NFPA petition, the commenters’

argument is without any legal basis. The

commenters misunderstand the

relationship between a section 409 FAR

and the flow-through provision. As a

result of the flow-through provision, a

FAR only has legal effect as to residues

of the pesticide in processed food that

exceed the residue levels qualifying

under the flow-through provision. Thus,

a finding that a pesticide does not meet

the safety standard under section 409

and a revocation of a FAR based on such

a finding has no effect on residues of the

pesticide that are in compliance with

the flow-through provision. Such a lack

of safety finding under section 409(c)

does not render pesticide residues in

compliance with the flow-through

provision unsafe. If a section 409 FAR

is revoked, residues still retain the same

legal safe harbor they always had under

the flow-through provision.

Accordingly, the flow-through provision

contains no bar to the revocation of a

section 409 FAR on safety grounds.

Comment

DowElanco further requests that the

Agency explicitly acknowledge that

DowElanco and other adversely affected

parties will not be precluded from

challenging any ‘‘induce cancer’’

finding for trifluralin in any future

FFDCA tolerance revocation actions.

DowElanco insists that without such an

acknowledgement, today’s Notice will

not resolve the underlying controversy

in the Dupont and DowElanco v.

Browner litigation. In addition,

DowElanco urges that the EPA should

use today’s Notice to clarify its position

on chemicals classified as Group C

carcinogens with quantification by the

Reference Dose approach (or found not

to be quantifiable). DowElanco further

argues that by using the Reference Dose

approach for quantifying risk, EPA is

recognizing that the carcinogenic risk is

so uncertain that it is disregarded for

evaluating risk.

EPA’s Response

EPA believes that there are no

additional trifluralin tolerances or FARs

that are likely to be revoked on grounds

that trifluralin ‘‘induces cancer.’’ The

trifluralin Reregistration Eligibility

Document, which will soon be issued by

EPA, indicates that there are no section

409 FARs needed for this chemical.

Therefore, EPA does not foresee a

situation that would result in any

hearings under the FFDCA on whether

trifluralin ‘‘induces cancer.’’ However,

as explained below, EPA will consider

future hearing requests raising any

evidence relevant and material to a

finding that trifluralin ‘‘induces cancer’’

within the meaning of the Delaney

clause when that finding serves as the

basis for an order issued by EPA under

the authority of sections 408 and 409 of

the FFDCA.

EPA believes that precluding review

of issues that could have and should

have been raised in prior proceedings is

an appropriate and essential policy and

legal position for the Agency to take in

FFDCA proceedings because it ensures

that such Agency decisions are accorded

finality. In the interest of administrative

efficiency and economy, final

determinations in such administrative

proceedings deserve to be treated with

the same finality as final determinations

in judicial proceedings. Further, under

section 409 of the FFDCA, the only way

to prevent EPA from according finality

to a section 409(f) order, and the legal

and factual basis for that order, is to file

objections within the time period

specified, Nader v. EPA, 859 F.2d 747

(9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S.

1931 (1989; and CNI v. Young, 773 F2.d

1356 (1985).

EPA found, in its 1990 and 1991

Orders, that trifluralin ‘‘induces cancer’’

but that because the trifluralin cancer

risks were de minimis, EPA would

retain the trifluralin FAR that was the

subject of NRDC’s petition. However,

because EPA retained the FAR, and

because this was the first proceeding of

this nature under section 409 of the

FFDCA, proponents of the FAR and

chemicals, including DowElanco, may

not have understood that their failure to

raise objections to the cancer finding at

that time could result in that finding

being accorded finality by EPA. Given

that such circumstances are not likely to

be repeated, EPA believes it is

appropriate to assure DowElanco that

EPA will not assert in future FFDCA

proceedings that the issue of whether

trifluralin ‘‘induces cancer’’ must or will

be accorded finality based on EPA’s

1990 and 1991 Orders.

Because EPA is providing the

assurances requested by commenters,

EPA believes there should be no

objections to an EPA final order

withdrawing the 1993 and 1994 Orders.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Filing of Objections and Requests for

Hearings

Any person adversely affected by this

final rule may file written objections to

the final rule, and may include with any

such objection a written request for an

evidentiary hearing on the objection.

Such objections must be submitted to

the Hearing Clerk on or before February

26, 1996. A copy of the objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk shall be submitted to the Office of

Pesticide Programs Docket Room.

Regulations applicable to objections and

requests for hearings are set out at 40

CFR parts 178 and 179. Those

regulations require, among other things,

that objections specify with particularity

the provisions of the final rule objected

to, the basis for the objections, and the

relief sought. Additional requirements

as to the form and manner of the

submission of objections are set out at

40 CFR 178.25. The Administrator will

respond as set forth in 40 CFR 178.30,

178.35, and/or 178.37 to objections that

are not accompanied by a request for

evidentiary hearing.

A person may include with any

objection a written request for an

evidentiary hearing on the objection. A

hearing request must include a

statement of the factual issues on which

a hearing is requested, the requestor’s

contentions on each such issue, and a

summary of any evidence relied upon

by the requestor. Additional

requirements as to the form and manner

of submission of requests for an

evidentiary hearing are set out at 40 CFR

178.27. Under 40 CFR 178.32(c), the

Administrator, where appropriate, will

make rulings on any issues raised by an

objection if such issues must be

resolved prior to determining whether a

request for an evidentiary hearing

should be granted. The Administrator

will respond to requests for evidentiary

hearings as set forth in 40 CFR 178.30,

178.32, 178.35, 178.37, and/or 179.20.

Under 40 CFR 178.32(b), a request for an

evidentiary hearing on an objection will

be granted if the objection and request

have been properly submitted and if the

Administrator determines that the

material submitted show: (1) There is a

genuine and substantial issue of fact for

resolution at a hearing; (2) There is a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2449

reasonable possibility that available

evidence identified by the requestor

would, if established, resolve one or

more of such issues in favor of the

requestor; and (3) Resolution of one or

more of the factual issues in the manner

sought by the person requesting the

hearing would be adequate to justify the

action requested.

Any person wishing to comment on

any objections or requests for a hearing

may submit such comments to the

Hearing Clerk on or before March 11,

1996.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [OPP300394A] (including objections and

hearing requests submitted

electronically as described below). A

public version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI, is available

for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [OPP-300394A], may be

submitted to the Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer any objections and hearing

requests received electronically into

printed, paper form as they are received

and will place the paper copies in the

official rulemaking record which will

also include all objections and hearing

requests submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

B. Effective Date

EPA is making this final rule effective

January 26, 1996 given the lack of

adverse comments on EPA’s proposed

action. In addition, if EPA does not

receive objections to this Order, this

Order and the factual and legal basis for

this Order become final and are not

judicially reviewable. See section

409(g)(1), 21 U.S.C. 348(g)(1), and Nader

v. EPA: 859 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1988),

cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1931 (1989).

C. Request for Stays of Effective Date

A person filing objections to this final

rule may submit with the objections a

petition to stay the effective date of this

final rule. Such stay petitions must be

submitted to the Hearing Clerk on or

before February 26, 1996. A copy of the

stay request filed with the Hearing Clerk

shall be submitted to the Office of

Pesticide Programs Docket Room. A stay

may be requested for a specific time

period or for an indefinite time period.

The stay petition must include a citation

to this final rule, the length of time for

which the stay is requested, and a full

statement of the factual and legal

grounds upon which the petitioner

relies for the stay. In determining

whether to grant a stay, EPA will

consider the criteria set out in the Food

and Drug Administration’s regulations

regarding stays of administrative

proceedings at 21 CFR 10.35. Under

those rules, a stay will be granted if it

is determined that: (1) The petitioner

will otherwise suffer irreparable injury;

(2) The petitioner’s case is not frivolous

and is being pursued in good faith; (3)

The petitioner has demonstrated sound

public policy grounds supporting the

stay; and (4) The delay resulting from

the stay is not outweighed by public

health or other public interests.

Under FDA’s criteria, EPA may also

grant a stay if EPA finds such action is

in the public interest and in the interest

of justice.

Any person wishing to comment on

any stay request may submit such

comments and objections to a stay

request, to the Hearing Clerk, on or

before March 11, 1996. Any subsequent

decisions to stay the effect of this Order,

based on a stay request filed, will be

published in the Federal Register, along

with EPA’s response to comments on

the stay request.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether the

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) and

the requirements of the Executive Order.

Under the order, a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ is an action that is

likely to result in a rule (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, and the environment, public health

or safety, of State, local, or tribal

governments or communities’’; (2)

creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)

raising novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order. EPA

has determined that this final rule is not

a ‘‘significant’’ action under E.O. 12866.

EPA is taking this action because it has

determined that the food additive

regulation for trifluralin is not needed.

Therefore, the Agency expects that no

economic impact will result.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The regulatory action has been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, and, as stated

above, EPA expects that it will not have

any economic impacts, including

impacts on small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This Order does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 185

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

Agricultural commodities, Food

additives, Pesticides and pests,

Reporting and recordkeeping.

Dated: January 19, 1996.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 185 is

amended as follows:

PART 185—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

§ 185.5900 [Removed]

2. By removing § 185.5900 Trifluralin.

[FR Doc. 96–1402 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F