Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30487 

the public on this proposal for the next 

30 days. Unless we receive convincing 

new information during the comment 

period, we intend to publish a final 

approval action that will incorporate 

these rules into the federally enforceable 

SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 8, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–15145 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0239; FRL–8411–5] 

Metolachlor, S-Metolachlor, Bifenazate, 

Buprofezin, and 2,4-D; Proposed 

Tolerance Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to modify, 

establish and revoke certain tolerances 

for the herbicides metolachlor and Smetolachlor and correct the tolerance 

guava (from guave) on bifenazate and 

buprofezin and 2,4-D on cranberry. The 

regulatory actions proposed in this 

document are in follow-up to the 

Agency’s reregistration program under 

the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and tolerance 

reassessment program under the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

section 408(q). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0239, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009– 

0239. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the docket 

without change and may be made 

available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

hours of operation of this Docket 

Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

30488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 

number is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Smith, Special Review and 

Reregistration Division (7508P), Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (703) 308– 

0048; e-mail address: smith.janescott@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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

Unit II.A. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is proposing to modify, revoke, 

and establish specific tolerances for 

residues of the herbicides metolachlor, 

S-metolachlor, bifenazate, buprofezin, 

and 2,4-D in or on commodities listed 

in the regulatory text. 

EPA is proposing these tolerance 

actions 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 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 

and Report of the Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) Tolerance 

Reassessment Progress and Risk 

Management Decision (TRED) for the 

active ingredient. REDs and TREDs 

recommend the implementation of 

certain tolerance actions, including 

modifications to reflect current use 

patterns, meet safety findings, and 

change commodity names and 

groupings in accordance with new EPA 

policy. Printed copies of many REDs 

and TREDs 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 and TREDs are available on the 

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

pesticides/reregistration/status.htm and 

in the public docket, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

The selection of an individual 

tolerance level is based on crop field 

residue studies designed to produce the 

maximum residues under the existing or 

proposed product label. Generally, the 

level selected for a tolerance is a value 

slightly above the maximum residue 

found in such studies, provided that the 

tolerance is safe. The evaluation of 

whether a tolerance is safe is a separate 

inquiry. EPA recommends the raising of 

a tolerance when data show that: 

1. Lawful use (sometimes through a 

label change) may result in a higher 

residue level on the commodity. 

2. The tolerance remains safe, 

notwithstanding increased residue level 

allowed under the tolerance. 

In REDs, Chapter IV on ‘‘Risk 

management, Reregistration, and 

Tolerance reassessment’’ typically 

describes the regulatory position, FQPA 

assessment, cumulative safety 

determination, determination of safety 

for U.S. general population, and safety 

for infants and children. In particular, 

the human health risk assessment 

document which supports the RED 

describes risk exposure estimates and 

whether the Agency has concerns. In 

TREDs, the Agency discusses its 

evaluation of the dietary risk associated 

with the active ingredient and whether 

it can determine that there is a 

reasonable certainty (with appropriate 

mitigation) that no harm to any 

population subgroup will result from 

aggregate exposure. EPA also seeks to 

harmonize tolerances with international 

standards set by the Codex Alimentarius 

Commission, as described in Unit III. 

Explanations for proposed 

modifications in tolerances can be 

found in the RED and TRED document 

and in more detail in the Residue 

Chemistry Chapter document which 

supports the RED and TRED. Copies of 

the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

documents are found in the 

Administrative Record and EPA’s 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30489 

electronic copies are available through 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, regulations.gov at 

http://www.regulations.gov. You may 

search for docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0239, EPA–HQ–OPP–2002– 

0223, EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0445, EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2007–0674, EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2007–0097, and EPA–HQ–OPP–2007– 

1170, then click on that docket ID 

number to view its contents. 

EPA has determined that the aggregate 

exposures and risks are not of concern 

for the above-mentioned pesticide active 

ingredients based upon the data 

identified in the RED or TRED which 

lists the submitted studies that the 

Agency found acceptable. 

EPA has found that the tolerances that 

are proposed in this document to be 

modified, are safe; i.e., that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residues, in accordance with 

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C). (Note that 

changes to tolerance nomenclature do 

not constitute modifications of 

tolerances). These findings are 

discussed in detail in each RED or 

TRED. The references are available for 

inspection as described in this 

document under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

In the Federal Register notices 

published August 8, 2007 (72 FR 44439) 

(FRL–8138–8) and May 21, 2008 (73 FR 

29456) (FRL–8362–1), EPA proposed to 

revoke, modify, and establish specific 

tolerances for residues of the herbicides 

metolachlor and S-metolachlor as well 

as tolerances for other pesticide 

chemicals. These proposals provided a 

60–day comment period which invited 

public comment for consideration and 

for support of tolerance retention under 

FFDCA standards. These proposed 

actions were finalized on September 10, 

2008 (73 FR 52607) (FRL–8379–3) and 

September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732) 

(FRL–8375–2). The Agency received 

comments to the proposal published 

August 8, 2007 on S-metolachlor in 

which we indicated we would respond 

in the future. This action responds to 

those comments and addresses other 

tolerance actions associated with 

metolachlor, S-metolachlor, bifenazate 

and buprofezin. The proposal published 

May 21, 2008 provides related 

information on metolachlor and Smetolachlor. 

1. Metolachlor/S-metolachlor. The 

Agency received comments from 

Syngenta (EPA–HQ–2007–0445–0013) 

in response to the Federal Register 

proposal published August 8, 2007 (73 

FR 53732) as follows: 

(i) Revocation of tolerance in stone fruit– 

Use of S-Metolachlor in stone fruit is an 

important tool for Canadian fruit producers 

and therefore, it would be beneficial to 

maintain U.S. tolerances to avoid any trade 

irritant issues for these crops being exported 

from Canada to the U.S. Canada currently has 

a tolerance of 0.1 ppm for S-metolachlor in 

apples, apricots, cherries, peaches/ 

nectarines, pears and plums. 

(ii) Increase in tolerance for Crop Group 6A 

from 0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm–Canada currently 

has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for S-metolachlor 

in peas and snap beans. An increase in the 

U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant 

for these crops exported from the U.S. to 

Canada. 

(iii) Decrease in tolerance for Crop Group 

6C from 0.3 ppm to 0.1 ppm–Canada 

currently has a tolerance of 0.3 ppm for Smetolachlor in dry beans. A decrease in the 

U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant 

for these crops exported from Canada to the 

U.S. 

(iv) Increase in tolerance for egg and meat 

from 0.02 pm to 0.04 ppm–Canada currently 

has a tolerance of 0.02 ppm for S-metolachlor 

in eggs, meat of cattle, goats, hogs, poultry 

and sheep. An increase in the U.S. tolerance 

could result in a trade irritant for these 

animal products exported from the U.S. to 

Canada. 

(v) Increase tolerance in animal liver from 

0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm–Canada currently has 

a tolerance of 0.05 ppm for S-metolachlor in 

liver of cattle and poultry. An increase in the 

U.S. tolerance could result in a trade irritant 

for these animal products exported from the 

U.S. to Canada. 

The Agency responded to Syngenta’s 

first comment (i) on September 17, 2008 

(73 FR 53732). In response to the 

remaining comments (ii)–(v), the 

Agency has re-evaluated new and 

existing data for the legume crop group 

6, and existing data for cattle meat, fat 

and liver, poultry meat, fat and egg for 

both metolachlor and S-metolachlor 

which, in general, the Agency agrees 

with the comments. The maximum Smetolachlor residue field trial data in/ 

on legume vegetables support the 

harmonization of the corresponding 

legume vegetable crop group 6 

tolerances with the Canadian MRLs at 

0.3 ppm for existing S-metolachor 

tolerances and the establishment of a 

tolerance of 0.3 ppm in/on pea and 

bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B 

where maximum residues were 0.14 

ppm. Extrapolating the residue data 

from the ruminant feeding study to a 1x 

feeding level for cattle, goats, horses, 

and sheep the maximum combined 

residues of concern for metolachlor and 

S-metolachlor would be 0.01 ppm in 

meat and fat and 0.03 ppm in liver; and 

considering the harmonization of 

tolerances with Canadian MRLs under 

the North American Free Trade 

Agreement (NAFTA), the Agency 

determined that the tolerances should 

be decreased for cattle, goat, horse, and 

sheep liver to 0.05 ppm and meat and 

fat to 0.02 ppm. Based on feeding 

studies in hens dosed up to 3.9x the 

maximum theoretical dietary burden, 

metolachlor and S-metolachlor residues 

of concern were not detected (< 0.02 

ppm the levels of quantitation (LOQ)) in 

eggs, liver, fat, meat and meat 

byproducts and the importance of 

harmonizing MRLs with Canada, the 

Agency determined the tolerances for 

eggs and poultry meat and fat should be 

0.02 ppm and poultry meat byproducts 

(which includes liver) should be 0.05 

ppm The Agency inadvertently 

published the harmonized tolerances for 

residues of S-metolachlor in/on cattle 

meat and liver, poultry meat and egg in 

the Federal Register published 

September 17, 2008 (73 FR 53732) 

before proposing and receiving 

comment which we are correcting with 

this action. Therefore, EPA proposes the 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) for 

the combined S-metolachlor residues of 

concern be established for pea and bean, 

succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.30 

ppm; increased in/on pea and bean, 

dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 

6C from 0.10 ppm to 0.30 ppm; 

decreased in/on vegetable, legume, 

edible podded, subgroup 6A from 0.50 

ppm to 0.30 ppm; cattle, goat, horse, 

and sheep, liver from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; 

cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, meat and 

fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; egg and 

poultry, meat and fat from 0.04 to 0.02 

ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts 

from 0.04 to 0.05 ppm. Also, EPA 

proposes the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.368(a)(1) for the combined 

metolachlor residues of concern be 

increased in/on pea and bean, dried 

shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C 

from 0.10 ppm to 0.3 ppm; decreased 

in/on vegetable, legume, edible podded, 

subgroup 6A from 0.50 ppm to 0.30 

ppm; cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, liver 

from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, goat, 

horse, and sheep, meat and fat from 0.04 

to 0.02 ppm; egg and poultry, meat and 

fat from 0.04 to 0.02 ppm; and poultry, 

meat byproducts from 0.04 to 0.05 ppm. 

The Agency determined that the 

increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there 

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate exposure to 

the pesticide chemical residue. 

Additional rotational crop field trials 

conducted with S-metolachlor on wheat 

and oats indicate that the maximum 

residues levels were 0.40 ppm in/on oat 

forage, 0.50 ppm in/on oat hay, 0.09 

ppm in/on oat straw, <0.08 ppm in/on 

wheat and oat grain, 0.47 ppm in/on 

wheat forage, 0.26 ppm in/on wheat 

hay, and 0.28 ppm in/on wheat straw. 

30490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Based on these residues levels and 

translating these data to the other small 

grains, the Agency has determined that 

the tolerances should be 0.50 ppm for 

barley, oat, wheat and millet hay; 0.10 

ppm for millet, grain; and 0.50 ppm for 

millet, forage and straw. Based on 

residue data conducted on soybean, 

corn, wheat and sorghum, the maximum 

residues found on aspirated grain 

fractions were 0.63 ppm; therefore, the 

Agency has determined that the 

tolerance for aspirated grain fractions 

(AGF) should be 0.7 ppm. Rice straw is 

no longer considered a significant 

animal feed item, therefore, tolerances 

are no longer required for rice straw. 

Therefore, EPA proposes tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.368(a)(2) be established for 

the combined S-metolachlor residues of 

concern in/on grain, aspirated fractions 

at 0.70 ppm; and in 40 CFR 

180.368(d)(2) be revoked on rice, straw 

at 0.50 ppm; decreased on barley, oat, 

and wheat, hay from 1.0 ppm to 0.50 

ppm; established on millet, grain at 0.10 

ppm; millet, forage at 0.50 ppm; millet, 

hay at 0.50 ppm; and millet, straw at 

0.50 ppm. 

Additional rotational crop field trials 

conducted on wheat and oats with 

metolachlor indicate that the maximum 

total residue levels were 0.35 ppm in/ 

on forage, 0.45 ppm in/on hay, 0.42 

ppm in/on straw, and 0.03 ppm in/on 

grain. Based on these residue levels and 

translating these data to the other small 

grains, the Agency has determined that 

the tolerances for metolachlor residues 

should be 0.80 ppm for barley, millet, 

oat, and wheat hay; 0.10 ppm for barley, 

buckwheat, millet, oat, rice, rye, and 

wheat grain; and 0.50 ppm for millet, 

oat, rye, and wheat forage and 0.80 ppm 

for barley, millet, oat, rye, and wheat 

straw. Rice straw is no longer 

considered a significant animal feed 

item, therefore, tolerances are no longer 

required for rice straw. Currently, since 

there are no active registrations with 

uses of metolachlor on spinach, the 

tolerance on spinach at 0.50 ppm 

should be revoked. Therefore, EPA 

proposes the tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.368(d)(1) for the combined residues 

of concern for metolachlor be 

established on barley, millet, oat, and 

wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm; increased on 

barley, millet, oat, rye, and wheat straw 

from 0.50 ppm to 0.80 ppm; and 

revoked on rice, straw at 0.50 ppm and 

in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) revoked on 

spinach at 0.50 ppm. The Agency 

determined that the increased tolerances 

are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. 

In this action, the Agency has 

proposed modifications to the 

tolerances for the legume vegetable 

subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) such that all 

of the subgroups (6A, 6B, and 6C) have 

the same tolerance of 0.30 ppm for both 

metolachlor and S-metolachlor 

consequently, these tolerances should 

be consolidated as the vegetable, 

legume, group 6 at 0.30 ppm. Therefore, 

EPA proposes the tolerances be revised 

in 40 CFR 180.368(a)(1) and (a)(2) for 

the combined residues of concern for 

metolachlor and S-metolachlor from 

vegetable, legume, edible-podded, 

subgroup 6A; pea and bean, succulent 

shelled, subgroup 6B; and pea and bean, 

dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 

6C to vegetable, legume, succulent or 

dried, group 6. 

2. Bifenazate. The Agency proposes 

the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.572(a) be 

corrected to read guava rather than 

guave. 

3. Buprofezin. The Agency proposes 

the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.511(a) be 

corrected to read guava rather than 

guave. 

4. 2,4-D. In the Federal Register of 

June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL– 

8122-7), the Agency incorrectly 

proposed a tolerance action that 

included the commodity cranberry in 

berry, group 13 at 0.2 ppm in 40 CFR 

180.142(a). That action removed the 

individual cranberry tolerance at 0.5 

ppm in 40 CFR 180.142(a). The proposal 

was finalized September 12, 2007 (72 

FR 52013) (FRL–8142–2). The berry 

crop group 13 is not inclusive of 

cranberries. Further, reestablishing the 

cranberry tolerance at 0.5 ppm will 

harmonize with the Canadian maximum 

residue level (MRL) under the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA). Therefore, the Agency 

proposes reestablishing the tolerance in 

40 CFR 180.142(a) for residues of 2,4-D 

in/on cranberry at 0.5 ppm. The Agency 

determined that the increased tolerances 

are safe; i.e., there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

A ‘‘tolerance’’ represents the 

maximum level for residues of pesticide 

chemicals legally allowed in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a, as amended by FQPA of 1996, 

Public Law 104–170, authorizes the 

establishment of tolerances, exemptions 

from tolerance requirements, 

modifications in tolerances, and 

revocation of tolerances for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on raw 

agricultural commodities and processed 

foods. Without a tolerance or 

exemption, food containing pesticide 

residues is considered to be unsafe and 

therefore ‘‘adulterated’’ under section 

402(a) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such 

food may not be distributed in interstate 

commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a fooduse pesticide to be sold and distributed, 

the pesticide must not only have 

appropriate tolerances under the 

FFDCA, but also must be registered 

under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.). 

Food-use pesticides not registered in the 

United States must have tolerances in 

order for commodities treated with 

those pesticides to be imported into the 

United States. 

C. When Do These Actions Become 

Effective? 

EPA is proposing that the actions 

herein become effective on the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

Any commodities listed in this 

proposal treated with the pesticides 

subject to this proposal, and 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, and 

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 the requirement of a tolerance. 

Evidence to show that food was lawfully 

treated may include records that verify 

the dates when the pesticide was 

applied to such food. 

III. Are the Proposed Actions 

Consistent With International 

Obligations? 

The tolerance actions in this proposal 

are not discriminatory and are designed 

to ensure that both domestically 

produced and imported foods meet the 

food safety standards established by 

FFDCA. The same food safety standards 

apply to domestically produced and 

imported foods. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30491 

Alimentarius is a joint U.N. 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 in a notice 

published for public comment. EPA’s 

effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is 

summarized in the tolerance 

reassessment section of individual REDs 

and TREDs, and in the Residue 

Chemistry document which supports 

the RED and TRED, as mentioned in 

Unit II.A. Specific tolerance actions in 

this proposed rule and how they 

compare to Codex MRLs (if any) are 

discussed in Unit II.A. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

In this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to establish tolerances under 

FFDCA section 408(e), and also modify 

and revoke specific tolerances 

established under FFDCA section 408. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted these types of 

actions (e.g., 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 proposed 

rule has been exempted from review 

under Executive Order 12866 due to its 

lack of significance, this proposed 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 proposed 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 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public 

Law 104–4). 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), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (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 proposed rule, the Agency 

hereby certifies that this proposed rule 

will not have a significant negative 

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 

this proposed rule). Furthermore, for the 

pesticide named in this proposed rule, 

the Agency knows of no extraordinary 

circumstances that exist as to the 

present proposal that would change the 

EPA’s previous analysis. Any comments 

about the Agency’s determination 

should be submitted to the EPA along 

with comments on the proposal, and 

will be addressed prior to issuing a final 

rule. 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 proposed 

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 section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this 

proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed rule. 

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 19, 2009 

Steven Bradbury, 

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

30492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. Section 180.142 is amended by 

adding alphabectically the following 

commodity to the table in paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.142 2,4-D; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Cranberry .................................. 0.5 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

3. Section 180.368 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a)(1), 

(a)(2), (d)(1) and (d)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Almond, hulls ............................ 0.30 

Animal feed, nongrass, group 

18 .......................................... 1.0 

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.02 

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Cattle, liver ................................ 0.05 

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.02 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 6.0 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.10 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 6.0 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 6.0 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 0.10 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 6.0 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 4.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.10 

Dill ............................................. 0.50 

Egg ........................................... 0.02 

Goat, fat .................................... 0.02 

Goat, kidney ............................. 0.20 

Goat, liver ................................. 0.05 

Goat, meat ................................ 0.02 

Goat, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Grass, forage ............................ 10 

Grass, hay ................................ 0.20 

Horse, fat .................................. 0.02 

Horse, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Horse, liver ............................... 0.05 

Horse, meat .............................. 0.02 

Horse, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Milk ........................................... 0.02 

Nut, tree, group 14 ................... 0.10 

Okra .......................................... 0.50 

Peanut ...................................... 0.20 

Peanut, hay .............................. 20 

Peanut, meal ............................ 0.40 

Potato ....................................... 0.20 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Poultry, fat ................................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat ............................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0.05 

Safflower, seed ......................... 0.10 

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.02 

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0.20 

Sheep, liver ............................... 0.05 

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.02 

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ............. 0.04 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 1.0 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.30 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 4.0 

Soybean, forage ....................... 5.0 

Soybean, hay ............................ 8.0 

Soybean, seed .......................... 0.20 

Tomato ...................................... 0.10 

Vegetable, foliage of legume, 

subgroup 7A, except soybean ...................................... 15.0 

Vegetable, legume, succulent 

or dried, group 6 ................... 0.30 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Asparagus ................................. 0.10 

Beet, sugar, molasses .............. 2.0 

Beet, sugar, roots ..................... 0.5 

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 15.0 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ............................... 0.60 

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.02 

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Cattle, liver ................................ 0.05 

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.02 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.10 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 6.0 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 6.0 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.10 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 6.0 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 6.0 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 0.10 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 6.0 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 4.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.10 

Egg ........................................... 0.02 

Garlic, bulb ............................... 0.10 

Grain, aspirated fractions ......... 0.70 

Goat, fat .................................... 0.02 

Goat, kidney ............................. 0.20 

Goat, liver ................................. 0.05 

Goat, meat ................................ 0.02 

Goat, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Grass, forage ............................ 10.0 

Grass, hay ................................ 0.20 

Horse, fat .................................. 0.02 

Horse, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Horse, liver ............................... 0.05 

Horse, meat .............................. 0.02 

Horse, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Milk ........................................... 0.02 

Onion, bulb ............................... 0.10 

Onion, green ............................. 2.0 

Peanut ...................................... 0.20 

Peanut, hay .............................. 20.0 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Peanut, meal ............................ 0.40 

Poultry, fat ................................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat ............................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0.05 

Pumpkin .................................... 0.10 

Safflower, seed ......................... 0.10 

Shallot, bulb .............................. 0.10 

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.02 

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0.20 

Sheep, liver ............................... 0.05 

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.02 

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ............. 0.04 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 1.0 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.3 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 4.0 

Soybean, forage ....................... 5.0 

Soybean, hay ............................ 8.0 

Soybean, seed .......................... 0.20 

Spinach ..................................... 0.50 

Squash, winter .......................... 0.10 

Sunflower, seed ........................ 0.50 

Sunflower, meal ........................ 1.0 

Tomato, paste ........................... 0.30 

Vegetable, foliage of legume, 

except soybean, subgroup 

7A .......................................... 15.0 

Vegetable, fruiting, except tabasco pepper, group 8 .......... 0.10 

Vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 4B ............................... 0.10 

Vegetable, legume, succulent 

or dried, group 6 ................... 0.30 

Vegetable, root, except sugar 

beet, subgroup 1B ................ 0.30 

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, 

subgroup 1C ......................... 0.20 

* * * * * 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Animal feed, nongrass, group 

18 .......................................... 1.0 

Barley, grain ............................. 0.10 

Barley, hay ................................ 0.80 

Barley, straw ............................. 0.80 

Buckwheat, grain ...................... 0.10 

Millet, forage ............................. 0.50 

Millet, grain ............................... 0.10 

Millet, hay ................................. 0.80 

Millet, straw ............................... 0.80 

Oat, forage ................................ 0.50 

Oat, grain .................................. 0.10 

Oat, hay .................................... 0.80 

Oat, straw ................................. 0.80 

Rice, grain ................................ 0.10 

Rye, forage ............................... 0.50 

Rye, grain ................................. 0.10 

Rye, straw ................................. 0.80 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.50 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.10 

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.80 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.80 

(2) * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30493 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Animal feed, nongrass, group 

18 .......................................... 1.0 

Barley, grain ............................. 0.10 

Barley, hay ................................ 0.50 

Barley, straw ............................. 0.50 

Buckwheat, grain ...................... 0.10 

Millet, forage ............................. 0.50 

Millet, grain ............................... 0.10 

Millet, hay ................................. 0.50 

Millet, straw ............................... 0.50 

Oat, forage ................................ 0.50 

Oat, grain .................................. 0.10 

Oat, hay .................................... 0.50 

Oat, straw ................................. 0.50 

Rice, grain ................................ 0.10 

Rye, forage ............................... 0.50 

Rye, grain ................................. 0.10 

Rye, straw ................................. 0.50 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.50 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.10 

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.50 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.50 

* * * * * 

4. Section 180.511 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and 

adding the following commodity to the 

table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Guava ....................................... 0.3 

* * * * * 

5. Section 180.572 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and 

adding the following commodity to the 

table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Guava ....................................... 0.9 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–15139 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 102–39 

[FMR Case 2009–102–3; Docket No. 2009– 

0002, Sequence 3] 

RIN 3090–AI92 

Federal Management Regulation; 

Replacement of Personal Property 

Pursuant to the Exchange/Sale 

Authority 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is proposing to 

amend the Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) by making changes to 

its policy on the replacement of 

personal property pursuant to the 

exchange/sale authority. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments in writing on or before July 

27, 2009 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FMR case 2009–102–3 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘FMR Case 2009–102–3’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Search Documents’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Send a Comment or 

Submission’’ that corresponds with 

FMR Case 2009–102–3. Follow the 

instructions provided to complete the 

‘‘Public Comment and Submission 

Form’’. Please include your name, 

company name (if any), and ‘‘FMR Case 

2009–102–3’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4041, 

ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FMR Case 2009–102–3 in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Holcombe, Office of 

Governmentwide Policy, Office of 

Travel, Transportation, and Asset 

Management (MT), (202) 501–3838 or 

e-mail at robert.holcombe@gsa.gov. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat, 1800 F Street, 

NW., Room 4041, Washington, DC 

20405, (202) 501–4755. Please cite FMR 

Case 2009–102–3. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

This proposed rule would remove the 

exchange/sale prohibition on aircraft 

and airframe structural components, 

subject to certain conditions. These 

commodities have been included on the 

list of properties normally ineligible for 

exchange/sale so that the acquisition 

and disposal of these commodities 

could be managed more closely. To 

conduct an exchange/sale of such 

commodities (which is encouraged to 

reduce the agency costs of managing 

their aircraft fleets), agencies have been 

required to submit deviation requests 

for approval by GSA. Adequate tools are 

now available for managing these assets 

without going through the timeconsuming and onerous deviation 

process. Further, removing these 

commodities from the ‘‘prohibited list’’ 

should not have a detrimental impact on 

the donation of such property. Finally, 

although agencies would no longer need 

to request deviations from GSA, a 

provision would be added to alert 

agencies that they must comply with the 

restrictions and limitations on the 

disposal of aircraft and aircraft parts 

contained in 41 CFR part 102–33. 

This proposed rule would also 

remove the prohibition on using scrap 

in an exchange/sale transaction when 

the property has utility and value at the 

time an exchange/sale determination is 

made. This clarification would address 

situations where the dismantling or 

removal of property may render the 

property as ‘‘scrap’’, but where 

replacement of similar property is still 

required. 

Finally, this proposed rule would 

make a clerical correction to § 102– 

39.80 to clarify that the time limit 

restriction on use of exchange/sale 

exchange allowances is the same as the 

restriction for use of exchange/sale sales 

proceeds. 

B. Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is excepted from 

the definition of ‘‘regulation’’ or ‘‘rule’’ 

under Section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

dated September 30, 1993 and, 

therefore, was not subject to review 

under Section 6(b) of that executive 

order. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is not required to 

be published in the Federal Register for 

comment. Therefore, the Regulatory