Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31081

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 (4) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order. Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

This action does not impose any

enforceable duty, or contain any

‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership

Partnership, or special consideration as

required by Executive Order 12898 (59

FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612), the Administrator has

determined that regulations establishing

new tolerances or raising tolerance

levels or establishing exemptions from

tolerance requirements do not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. A

certification statement explaining the

factual basis for this determination was

published in the Federal Register of

May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 180 be amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.441, by revising paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for

residues.

* * * *

*

(c) Tolerances are established for the

combined residues of the herbicide

quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-

((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl]

propionate], its acid metabolite

quizalofop-p [R-(2-[4-((6-

chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxy])

propanoic acid], and the S enantiomers

of both the ester and the acid, all

expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in

or on the following raw agricultural

commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Cottonseed ................................ 0.05

Peppermint, tops ....................... 2

Spearmint, tops ......................... 2

[FR Doc. 96–15595 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Parts 180 and 185

[OPP–300431; FRL–5379–7]

RIN 2070–AC18

Triadimefon; Revocation of Pesticide

Tolerances and a Food Additive

Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke

the pesticide tolerances for triadimefon

on barley grain, green forage and straw

and the food additive regulation for

triadimefon on milled fractions of barley

(except flour) because there are no

longer registered uses of triadimefon on

barley. EPA is proposing that the

revocation of the tolerance become

effective as of May 23, 1997.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the docket number OPP–300431, must

be received on or before July 19, 1996.

This revocation is proposed to become

effective on May 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

Information submitted and any

comment(s) concerning this notice 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 comment(s) 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 to the submitter.

Information on the proposed action and

any written comments will be available

for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the

Virginia address given above, from 8

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[OPP–300431]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed 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, Lisa Nisenson, Special Review

Branch (7508W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: 3rd floor, Crystal Station, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202,

(703) 308–8031; e-mail:

nisenson.lisa@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

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 FFDCA and may not

be legally moved in interstate

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

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. 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA

regulates pesticide residues in

processed foods under section 409,

which pertains to ‘‘food additives.’’ 21

U.S.C. 348. Maximum residue
31082 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules

regulations established under section

409 are commonly referred to as food

additive regulations (hereafter referred

to as ‘‘FARs’’).

If a food additive regulation must be

established, section 409 of the FFDCA

requires that the use of the pesticide

will be ‘‘safe’’ (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)).

Relevant factors in this safety

determination include (1) the probable

consumption of the pesticide or its

metabolites; (2) the cumulative effect of

the pesticide in the diet of man or

animals, taking into account any related

substances in the diet; and (3)

appropriate safety factors to relate the

animal data to the human risk

evaluation. Section 409 also contains

the Delaney clause, which specifically

provides that ‘‘no additive shall be

deemed safe if it has been found, after

tests which are appropriate for the

evaluation of the safety of food

additives, to induce cancer when

ingested by man or animal.’’

B. Regulatory Background

Following a series of petitions related

to EPA’s interpretation of the Delaney

clause, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth

Circuit on July 8, 1992, ruled that the

Delaney clause barred the establishment

of a FAR for pesticides which ‘‘induce

cancer’’ even though the associated

cancer risk may be small (Les v. Reilly,

968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113

S.Ct. 1361 (1993)). Shortly thereafter,

the sole registrant of triadimefon, Miles

Inc., requested voluntary cancellation of

the triadimefon use on barley, which

EPA granted on August 25, 1993 (58 FR

44823). The effective date of the

cancellation of the use of triadimefon on

barley was November 23, 1993 and the

registrant was allowed to sell stocks

labeled with the barley use up to 18

months after the effective date.

On January 18, 1995 (59 FR

3602)(FRL–4910–8), EPA proposed to

revoke, among other things, the FAR for

triadimefon on milled fractions of barley

(except flour) based on the Agency’s

determination that triadimefon induces

cancer in man or animals and that the

FAR at issue violates the Delaney

clause. This notice supplements the

proposed revocation published in the

January 18, 1995 proposal with respect

to triadimefon, and announces an

alternative proposal to revoke the

triadimefon FAR and associated

tolerances on the basis that the tolerance

is not needed because the use was

cancelled in 1993. EPA may finalize the

revocation on either of the grounds

proposed. Readers are therefore

encouraged to consult OPP Docket

300360 to obtain copies of the

comments received in EPA’s earlier

proposal.

II. Proposed Revocation

EPA is proposing to revoke the food

additive regulation for triadimefon (1-(4-

chlorophenoxy)-3,3-dimethyl-1-(1H1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-2-butanone) and its

metabolite beta-(4-chlorophenoxy)-

alpha-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-

triazole-1-ethanol set to cover residues

in or on milled fractions of barley

(except flour). This FAR, which is

codified at 40 CFR 185.800 is set at 4

ppm. EPA is also proposing to revoke

the tolerances for 1-(4-chlorophenoxy)-

3,3-dimethyl-1(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)-2-

butanone and its metabolite containing

chlorophenoxy and triazole moieties

(expressed as the fungicide) in or on

barley grain, green forage and straw.

These tolerances are codified at 40 CFR

180.410 at 1 ppm.

EPA is proposing to revoke the abovestated tolerance and FAR since the use

of triadimefon on barley is no longer

registered. As a matter of policy, where

a use is no longer registered, EPA

revokes the tolerance(s) and/or FAR’s

for any residues related to the deleted

use(s). Although EPA had proposed

revocation of the FAR for triadimefon

on barley in a previous notice based on

Delaney clause grounds, EPA has noted

that where there are gounds for

revocation of a FAR unconnected to

safety, EPA generally would, as a policy

matter, rely on those grounds to revoke

the FAR prior to revoking finally under

the Delaney clause (61 FR 11994, March

22, 1996) (FRL–5357–7) However, EPA

has also noted that the Agency is under

no legal obligation to subordinate the

Delaney clause to other grounds in a

revocation proceeding (61 FR 2377,

January 25, 1996)(FRL–4991–9).

In the case of triadimefon on barley,

the registrant requested, and EPA

granted, voluntary cancellation. In the

August 25, 1993 notice, the registrant

was given 18 months, or until May 23,

1995, to sell existing stocks labelled

with the use on barley. With voluntary

cancellations, EPA generally allows 2

years for legally-treated commodities to

clear channels of trade, thus EPA is

proposing that the tolerance and FAR on

barley be revoked as of May 23, 1997.

III. Consideration of Comments

Any interested person may submit

comments on this proposed action on or

before July 19, 1996 at the address given

in the section above entitled

‘‘ADDRESSES.’’ Before issuing a final

revocation, EPA will consider all

relevant comments, including those on

the proposed effective date. Comments

should be limited only to the tolerances

and food additive regulation subject to

this proposed notice. After

consideration of comments, EPA will

issue a final order determining whether

revocation of the tolerances and food

additive regulation is appropriate. Such

order will be subject to objections

pursuant to section 409(f)(21 U.S.C.

348(f)). Failure to file an objection

within the appointed period will

constitute waiver of the right to raise

issues presented in the order in future

proceedings.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [OPP–

300431] (including comments and data

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.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments 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 all comments 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

comments submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the Virginia

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document.

IV. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

EPA submitted this action to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and any changes made

during that review have been

documented in the public record. EPA

does not expect any adverse economic

impacts from this proposed action since

the use on barley was cancelled in 1993

at the request of the registrant.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Proposed Rules 31083

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA has reviewed this proposed rule

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980 [Pub. L. 96–354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.], and has determined

that it will not have a significant

economic impact on any small

businesses, governments or

organizations.

Accordingly, I certify that this

proposed rule does not require a

separate Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and

Executive Order 12875

This action does not impose any

enforceable duty, or contain any

‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership, or

special consideration as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 180

Administrative practice and

procedure, Agricultural commodities,

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements

40 CFR Part 185

Food additives, Pesticides and pests

Dated: June 11, 1996.

Lois Rossi,

Acting Director, Special Review and

Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR parts 180 and 185

are proposed to be amended as follows:

1. In part 180:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

a. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 371.

§ 180.410 [Amended]

b. By removing from the table in

§ 180.410 the entries for ‘‘Barley; grain,’’

‘‘Barley, green forage,’’ and ‘‘Barley,

straw.’’

2. In part 185:

PART 185—[AMENDED]

a. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 348.

§ 185.800 [Amended]

b. By removing from the table in

§ 185.800; the entry for ‘‘Barley, milled

fractions of barley (except flour).’’

[FR Doc. 96–15479 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–129; RM–8814]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Tehachapi, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of Tehachapi

Broadcasting requesting the allotment of

Channel 261A to Tehachapi, California,

as that community’s second local FM

service. Coordinates used for Channel

261A at Tehachapi are 35–13–04 and

118–20–37. Tehachapi is located within

320 kilometers (199 miles) of the

Mexico border, and therefore, the

Commission must obtain concurrence of

the Mexican government to this

proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before August 5, 1996, and reply

comments on or before August 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Dan J.

Alpert, Esq., Law Office of Dan J. Alpert,

2120 N. 21st Rd., Suite 400, Arlington,

VA 22201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–129, adopted June 7, 1996, and

released June 14, 1996. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–15472 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–127; RM–8805]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Kula, HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Sonia A. Humphrey seeking the

allotment of FM Channel 244A to Kula,

Hawaii, as that locality’s first local aural

transmission service. Petitioner is

requested to provide additional

information to establish Kula’s status as

a community for allotment purposes.

Coordinates for this proposal are 20–46–

00 and 156–20–00.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 29, 1996, and reply

comments on or before August 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Sonia A.

Humphrey, c/o Magic City Media, Inc.,

1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 300,

Cheyenne, WY 82001.