Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0159-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Methoprene, Watermelon Mosaic Virus-2 Coat Protein, and Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus Coat Protein; Final Tolerance Actions
Posted Date: 2003-06-11T04:00Z

34825
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
112
/
Wednesday,
June
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
not
affect
the
finality
of
this
rule
for
the
purposes
of
judicial
review
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).)

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:
April
24,
2003.
L.
John
Iani,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
10.


Part
52,
chapter
I,
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
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
et
seq.
Subpart
WW
 
Washington

2.
Amend
§
52.2470
by
adding
paragraph
(
c)(
82)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.2470
Identification
of
plan.

*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
*
*
*
(
82)
On
November
5,
1999,
the
State
of
Washington,
Department
of
Ecology
submitted
a
revision
to
the
Visibility
SIP.
EPA
approves
all
provisions
to
the
November
5,
1999
Visibility
SIP
revision
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
1998
Smoke
Management
Plan,
and
South
West
Air
Pollution
Control
Agency,
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
order
on
the
Centralia
Power
plant.
EPA
is
taking
no
action
on
Section
VIII.
Identification
and
Analysis
for
Best
Available
Retrofit
Technology
(
BART)
and
Section
X,
New
Source
Review,
of
the
November
5,
1999,
Visibility
SIP
revision.
(
i)
Incorporation
by
reference.
(
A)
South
West
Air
Pollution
Control
Agency
(
SWAPCA)
regulatory
order,
SWAPCA
97
 
2057R1,
Regulatory
Order
to
Establish
RACT
Limits
and
Order
of
Approval,
Adopted
February
26,
1998.
(
B)
[
Reserved]


3.
Amend
§
52.2475
by
adding
paragraph
(
g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.2475
Approval
of
plans.

*
*
*
*
*
(
g)
Visibility.
(
1)
EPA
approves
as
a
revision
to
the
Washington
State
Implementation
Plan,
the
November
5,
1999,
Visibility
SIP
revision,
except
that
EPA
is
taking
no
action
on
Section
VIII.
Identification
and
Analysis
for
Best
Available
Retrofit
Technology
(
BART),
and
Section
X,
New
Source
Review
of
the
November
5,
1999,
Visibility
SIP
revision.
(
2)
[
Reserved]


4.
In
§
52.2479,
the
table
is
amended
by
revising
the
entries
under
Section
5
to
read
as
follows:

§
52.2479
Contents
of
the
Federally
approved,
State
submitted
implementation
plan.

*
*
*
*
*

WASHINGTON
STATE
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
FOR
AIR
QUALITY
STATE
AND
LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS
 
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Section
5
 
Federally
Mandated
Programs
[
Dates
in
brackets
indicate
EPA
effective
date]

5.
BAP
 
Business
Assistance
Program
[
5/
8/
95]
5.
IM
 
Motor
Vehicle
Inspection/
Maintenance
Program
[
9/
25/
96]
5.
OXY
 
Oxygenated
Gasoline
Program
[
3/
21/
94]
5.
SMP
 
Smoke
Management
Program
[
7/
6/
87]
5.
VIS
 
Washington
State
Visibility
Protection
Program
[
7/
6/
87]
5.
VIS.
NSR
 
Visibility
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
for
nonattainment
areas
for
Washington
[
7/
28/
86]

Supplemental
Section
A
 
Reference
Material
[
Date
in
brackets
indicate
EPA
effective
date]

A.
1
 
Description
of
Source
test
Program
for
the
State
Implementation
Plan
[
10/
24/
84]

Supplemental
B
 
Administrative
and
Procedural
Material
[
Dates
in
brackets
indicate
EPA
effective
date]

B.
3
 
Correspondence
B.
3.1
 
Legal
Authority
[
6/
05/
80]
B.
3.2
 
Correspondence
prior
to
1991
B.
3.2.1
 
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
for
Tri­
Counties
[
9/
23/
81]

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
14573
Filed
6
 
10
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2003
 
0159;
FRL
 
7309
 
5]

Methoprene,
Watermelon
Mosaic
Virus­
2
Coat
Protein,
and
Zucchini
Yellow
Mosaic
Virus
Coat
Protein;
Final
Tolerance
Actions
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.
SUMMARY:
EPA
is
amending
the
text
of
the
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
for
methoprene
and
is
revoking
all
of
the
tolerances
for
residues
for
methoprene
because
a
recent
EPA
review
finds
that
no
harm
is
expected
to
the
public
from
exposure
to
residues
of
methoprene.
Therefore,
these
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
and
their
associated
uses
are
covered
by
tolerance
exemptions.
Also,
EPA
is
revoking
the
exemptions
for
watermelon
mosaic
virus­
2
coat
protein,
and
zucchini
yellow
mosaic
virus
coat
protein
and
specific
portions
of
the
viral
genetic
material
when
used
as
plantincorporated
protectants
in
squash,
because
these
exemptions
are
covered
in
later
sections
of
40
CFR
part
180.
Because
methoprene's
35
tolerances
and
the
2
exemptions
from
the
virus
materials
were
previously
reassessed,
the
regulatory
actions
taken
in
this
document
do
not
contribute
toward
the
Agency's
tolerance
reassessment
requirements
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA)
section
408(
q),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
of
1996.
By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.

DATES:
This
regulation
is
effective
June
11,
2003.
Objections
and
requests
for
hearings,
identified
by
docket
ID
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
48
Jun
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11JNR1.
SGM
11JNR1
34826
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
112
/
Wednesday,
June
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0159,
must
be
received
on
or
before
August
11,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Written
objections
and
hearing
requests
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
IV.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Barbara
Mandula,
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division
(
7511C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308
 
7378;
e­
mail
address:
mandula.
barbara@
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
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAICS
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAICS
311)
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAICS
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
IIA.
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.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0159.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
180
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr180_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.

II.
Background
A.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?

In
the
Federal
Register
of
February
12,
2003
(
68
FR
7097)
(
FRL
 
7288
 
7),
EPA
issued
a
proposed
rule
to
amend
the
exemption
expression
for
methoprene
to
indicate
that
methoprene
is
exempt
from
tolerances
when
used
on
food
commodities
as
an
insect
larvicide,
to
revoke
all
the
tolerances
for
residues
of
methoprene
because
they
are
no
longer
needed
to
protect
the
public,
and
to
revoke
the
exemptions
for
watermelon
mosaic
virus­
2
coat
protein
and
zucchini
yellow
mosaic
virus
coat
protein
and
specific
portions
of
the
viral
genetic
material
when
used
as
plantincorporated
protectants
in
squash,
because
these
exemptions
are
covered
in
later
sections
of
40
CFR
part
180.
Also,
the
February
12,
2003
proposal
provided
a
60
 
day
comment
period
which
invited
public
comment
for
consideration
and
for
support
of
tolerance
retention
under
FFDCA
standards.
No
comments
were
received.
On
August
1,
2002,
EPA
concluded
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
the
general
population,
infants,
and
children
from
aggregate
exposure
to
residues
of
methoprene
based
on
its
review
and
evaluation
of
available
information
and
conservative
assumptions
that
assumed
the
existence
of
a
broad­
based
tolerance
exemption;
i.
e.,
that
methoprene
can
be
used
on
all
crop
commodities.
In
addition,
EPA
determined
that
all
methoprene
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.359
and
its
exemption
in
§
180.1033
were
considered
to
be
reassessed.
For
reassessment
counting
purposes,
the
tolerance
for
the
cereal
grain
milled
fractions
was
counted
as
two
to
reflect
the
original
tolerances
found
previously
in
40
CFR
185.4150
and
186.4150.
Methoprene
is
being
granted
a
tolerance
exemption
for
use
as
an
insect
larvicide
on
all
food
commodities
based
on
the
Agency's
safety
finding
which
supports
tolerance
exemption.
The
tolerances
revoked
by
this
final
rule
are
no
longer
necessary
for
the
continued
use
of
methoprene
as
a
pesticide.
A
copy
of
EPA's
August
1,
2002
memo
is
available
in
e­
docket
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
EPA
is
aware
that
revocation
of
some
of
the
methoprene
tolerances
leads
to
or
continues
a
lack
of
harmonization
with
some
of
the
existing
methoprene
CODEX
maximum
residue
limits
(
MRLs).
For
egg,
the
EPA
tolerance
of
0.1
ppm
is
being
revoked
while
the
CODEX
MRL
remains
at
0.05
milligrams/
kilogram
(
mg/
kg).
For
mushroom,
EPA's
tolerance
of
1.0
ppm
is
being
revoked
while
the
CODEX
MRL
remains
at
0.2
mg/
kg.
For
peanut,
EPA's
tolerance
of
2.0
ppm
is
being
revoked
while
the
CODEX
MRL
remains
at
2
mg/
kg.
For
residues
of
methoprene
in
other
food
commodities,
there
was
either
a
tolerance
or
there
is
a
CODEX
MRL,
but
not
both;
therefore,
a
lack
of
harmonization
remains
for
residues
in
these
other
food
commodities.
EPA
is
revoking
the
methoprene
tolerances
in
all
food
commodities
because
a
thorough
risk
analysis
has
shown
that
these
tolerances
are
not
necessary
to
protect
human
health
or
the
environment.
Risk
assessments
were
performed
for
oral
exposure
for
acute,
short­
term,
intermediate­
term,
and
chronic
exposures.
No
evidence
of
risk
to
adults,
infants,
or
children
were
found,
and
the
EPA
review
stated
``
There
are
no
concerns
for
chronic
dietary
exposure.''
Similarly,
the
review
states
``
There
are
no
concerns
for
any
oral,
dermal,
or
inhalation
intermediateterm
exosures
to
methoprene.''
The
review
concludes,
``
Based
on
its
review
and
evaluation
of
the
available
information,
EPA
concludes
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
the
general
population,
and
to
infants
and
children,
from
aggregate
exposure
to
residues
of
methoprene.''
In
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
48
Jun
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11JNR1.
SGM
11JNR1
34827
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
112
/
Wednesday,
June
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
addition,
EPA's
risk
assessment
was
based
on
conservative
assumptions
that
assumed
the
existence
of
the
tolerance
exemption.
Therefore,
EPA
is
amending
40
CFR
180.1033
to
exempt
methoprene
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
by
revising
the
commodities
from
``
raw
agricultural''
to
``
food''
and
the
use
of
control
from
``
mosquito''
to
``
insect''
larvae.
Because
they
are
no
longer
needed,
EPA
is
revoking
all
35
tolerances
for
methoprene
in
40
CFR
180.359,
including:
barley;
buckwheat;
cattle,
fat;
cattle,
meat;
cattle,
meat
byproducts;
cereal
grain
milled
fractions
(
except
flour
and
rice
hulls);
corn
(
except
popcorn
and
sweetcorn);
egg;
goat,
fat;
goat,
meat;
goat,
meat
byproducts;
hog,
fat;
hog,
meat;
hog,
meat
byproducts;
horse,
fat;
horse,
meat;
horse,
meat
byproducts;
milk;
millet;
mushroom;
oat;
peanut;
poultry,
fat;
poultry,
meat;
poultry,
meat
byproducts;
rice;
rice,
hulls;
rye;
sheep,
fat;
sheep,
meat;
sheep,
meat
byproducts;
sorghum
(
milo);
and
wheat
in
§
180.359(
a)(
1),
and
feed
supplement
tolerances
for
beef
cattle
and
dairy
cattle
in
§
180.359(
a)(
2).
On
July
9,
2002,
EPA
concluded
that
exemptions
in
40
CFR
180.1132
watermelon
mosaic
virus­
2
coat
protein
and
zucchini
yellow
mosaic
virus
coat
protein,
and
the
genetic
material
necessary
for
the
production
of
these
proteins
in
or
on
summer
squash
were
superseded
by
the
exemption
in
40
CFR
180.1184
in
or
on
all
food
commodities.
In
addition,
the
Agency
determined
that
these
two
exemptions
were
considered
to
be
reassessed.
Therefore,
EPA
is
revoking
the
exemptions
in
40
CFR
180.1132
because
they
are
no
longer
needed.
This
final
rule
does
not
change
availability
or
use
of
the
pesticides
mentioned.
A
copy
of
the
July
9,
2002
memo
is
in
the
docket
for
this
action.

B.
What
is
the
Agency's
Authority
for
Taking
this
Action?
It
is
EPA's
general
practice
to
propose
revocation
of
tolerances
for
residues
of
pesticide
active
ingredients
on
crop
uses
if
a
numerical
tolerance
is
being
replaced
by
a
tolerance
exemption
for
those
uses,
or
if
the
tolerance
statement
is
redundant
or
has
been
superceded.
EPA
also
proposes
revocation
of
tolerances
for
which
FIFRA
registrations
no
longer
exist.
EPA
has
historically
been
concerned
that
retention
of
tolerances
that
are
not
necessary
to
cover
residues
in
or
on
legally
treated
foods
may
encourage
misuse
of
pesticides
within
the
United
States.
Nonetheless,
EPA
will
establish
and
maintain
tolerances
even
when
corresponding
domestic
uses
are
canceled
if
the
tolerances,
which
EPA
refers
to
as
``
import
tolerances,''
are
necessary
to
allow
importation
into
the
United
States
of
food
containing
such
pesticide
residues.
However,
where
there
are
no
imported
commodities
that
require
these
import
tolerances,
the
Agency
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
revoke
tolerances
for
unregistered
pesticides
in
order
to
prevent
potential
misuse.

C.
When
Do
These
Actions
Become
Effective?
The
actions
in
this
final
rule
are
effective
on
the
date
of
its
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
only
effect
of
the
final
rule
will
be
to
remove
redundancies
and
inconsistencies
in
40
CFR
part
180.
No
person
or
entity
is
expected
to
be
adversely
affected.
This
final
rule
does
not
change
the
regulatory
status
of
any
registered
products.

D.
What
is
the
Contribution
to
Tolerance
Reassessment?
By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.
As
of
May
7,
2003,
EPA
has
reassessed
over
6,500
tolerances.
In
this
final
rule,
EPA
is
revoking
35
tolerances
and
2
exemptions.
These
tolerances
and
exemptions
were
previously
reassessed
and
counted
as
described
in
Unit
II.
A.

III.
Are
There
Any
International
Trade
Issues
Raised
by
this
Final
Action?
EPA
is
working
to
ensure
that
the
U.
S.
tolerance
reassessment
program
under
FQPA
does
not
disrupt
international
trade.
EPA
considers
Codex
MRLs
in
setting
U.
S.
tolerances
and
in
reassessing
them.
MRLs
are
established
by
the
Codex
Committee
on
Pesticide
Residues,
a
committee
within
the
Codex
Alimentarius
Commission,
an
international
organization
formed
to
promote
the
coordination
of
international
food
standards.
When
possible,
EPA
seeks
to
harmonize
U.
S.
tolerances
with
Codex
MRLs.
EPA
may
establish
a
tolerance
that
is
different
from
a
Codex
MRL;
however,
FFDCA
section
408(
b)(
4)
requires
that
EPA
explain
in
a
Federal
Register
document
the
reasons
for
departing
from
the
Codex
level.
EPA's
effort
to
harmonize
with
Codex
MRLs
is
summarized
in
the
tolerance
reassessment
section
of
individual
REDs.
The
U.
S.
EPA
has
developed
guidance
concerning
submissions
for
import
tolerance
support
(
65
FR
35069,
June
1,
2000)
(
FRL
 
6559
 
3).
This
guidance
will
be
made
available
to
interested
persons.
Electronic
copies
are
available
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/.
On
the
Home
Page
select
``
Laws
and
Regulations,''
then
select
``
Regulations
and
Proposed
Rules''
and
then
look
up
the
entry
for
this
document
under
``
Federal
Register
 
Environmental
Documents.''
You
can
also
go
directly
to
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.

IV.
Objections
and
Hearing
Requests
Under
section
408(
g)
of
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
the
FQPA,
any
person
may
file
an
objection
to
any
aspect
of
this
regulation
and
may
also
request
a
hearing
on
those
objections.
The
EPA
procedural
regulations
which
govern
the
submission
of
objections
and
requests
for
hearings
appear
in
40
CFR
part
178.
Although
the
procedures
in
those
regulations
require
some
modification
to
reflect
the
amendments
made
to
the
FFDCA
by
the
FQPA,
EPA
will
continue
to
use
those
procedures,
with
appropriate
adjustments,
until
the
necessary
modifications
can
be
made.
The
new
section
408(
g)
of
the
FFDCA
provides
essentially
the
same
process
for
persons
to
``
object''
to
a
regulation
for
an
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
issued
by
EPA
under
new
section
408(
d)
of
FFDCA,
as
was
provided
in
the
old
sections
408
and
409
of
the
FFDCA.
However,
the
period
for
filing
objections
is
now
60
days,
rather
than
30
days.

A.
What
Do
I
Need
to
Do
to
File
an
Objection
or
Request
a
Hearing?

You
must
file
your
objection
or
request
a
hearing
on
this
regulation
in
accordance
with
the
instructions
provided
in
this
unit
and
in
40
CFR
part
178.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
you
must
identify
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0159
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
submission.
All
requests
must
be
in
writing,
and
must
be
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Hearing
Clerk
on
or
before
August
11,
2003.
1.
Filing
the
request.
Your
objection
must
specify
the
specific
provisions
in
the
regulation
that
you
object
to,
and
the
grounds
for
the
objections
(
40
CFR
178.25).
If
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
objections
must
include
a
statement
of
the
factual
issues(
s)
on
which
a
hearing
is
requested,
the
requestor's
contentions
on
such
issues,
and
a
summary
of
any
evidence
relied
upon
by
the
objector
(
40
CFR
178.27).
Information
submitted
in
connection
with
an
objection
or
hearing
request
may
be
claimed
confidential
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI.
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
A
copy
of
the
information
that
does
not
contain
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
record.
Information
not
marked
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
48
Jun
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11JNR1.
SGM
11JNR1
34828
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
112
/
Wednesday,
June
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
confidential
may
be
disclosed
publicly
by
EPA
without
prior
notice.
Mail
your
written
request
to:
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
(
1900C),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
You
may
also
deliver
your
request
to
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
in
Rm.
104,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
The
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
open
from
8
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
the
Hearing
Clerk
is
(
703)
603
 
0061.
2.
Tolerance
fee
payment.
If
you
file
an
objection
or
request
a
hearing,
you
must
also
pay
the
fee
prescribed
by
40
CFR
180.33(
i)
or
request
a
waiver
of
that
fee
pursuant
to
40
CFR
180.33(
m).
You
must
mail
the
fee
to:
EPA
Headquarters
Accounting
Operations
Branch,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
P.
O.
Box
360277M,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15251.
Please
identify
the
fee
submission
by
labeling
it
``
Tolerance
Petition
Fees.''
EPA
is
authorized
to
waive
any
fee
requirement
``
when
in
the
judgement
of
the
Administrator
such
a
waiver
or
refund
is
equitable
and
not
contrary
to
the
purpose
of
this
subsection.''
For
additional
information
regarding
the
waiver
of
these
fees,
you
may
contact
James
Tompkins
by
phone
at
(
703)
305
 
5697,
by
e­
mail
at
tompkins.
jim@
epa.
gov,
or
by
mailing
a
request
for
information
to
Mr.
Tompkins
at
Registration
Division
(
7505C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
If
you
would
like
to
request
a
waiver
of
the
tolerance
objection
fees,
you
must
mail
your
request
for
such
a
waiver
to:
James
Hollins,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
3.
Copies
for
the
Docket.
In
addition
to
filing
an
objection
or
hearing
request
with
the
Hearing
Clerk
as
described
in
Unit
IV.
A.,
you
should
also
send
a
copy
of
your
request
to
the
PIRIB
for
its
inclusion
in
the
official
record
that
is
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Mail
your
copies,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2003
 
0159,
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch,
Information
Resources
and
Services
Division
(
7502C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001.
In
person
or
by
courier,
bring
a
copy
to
the
location
of
the
PIRIB
described
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
You
may
also
send
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
via
e­
mail
to:
oppdocket
epa.
gov.
Please
use
an
ASCII
file
format
and
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
Copies
of
electronic
objections
and
hearing
requests
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
6.1/
8.0
or
ASCII
file
format.
Do
not
include
any
CBI
in
your
electronic
copy.
You
may
also
submit
an
electronic
copy
of
your
request
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.

B.
When
Will
the
Agency
Grant
a
Request
for
a
Hearing?
A
request
for
a
hearing
will
be
granted
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
material
submitted
shows
the
following:
There
is
a
genuine
and
substantial
issue
of
fact;
there
is
a
reasonable
possibility
that
available
evidence
identified
by
the
requestor
would,
if
established
resolve
one
or
more
of
such
issues
in
favor
of
the
requestor,
taking
into
account
uncontested
claims
or
facts
to
the
contrary;
and
resolution
of
the
factual
issues(
s)
in
the
manner
sought
by
the
requestor
would
be
adequate
to
justify
the
action
requested
(
40
CFR
178.32).

V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
This
final
rule
revokes
tolerances
established
under
section
408(
d)
of
the
FFDCA.
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
exempted
this
type
of
action
(
i.
e.,
a
tolerance
revocation
for
which
extraordinary
circumstances
do
not
exist)
from
review
under
Executive
Order
12866,
entitled
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993).
Because
this
rule
has
been
exempted
from
review
under
Executive
Order
12866
due
to
its
lack
of
significance,
this
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
This
final
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collections
subject
to
OMB
approval
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
or
impose
any
enforceable
duty
or
contain
any
unfunded
mandate
as
described
under
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
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
revocations
of
tolerances
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.
This
analysis
was
published
on
December
17,
1997
(
62
FR
66020),
and
was
provided
to
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration.
Taking
into
account
this
analysis,
and
available
information
concerning
the
pesticides
listed
in
this
rule,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Specifically,
the
pesticides
mentioned
in
this
rule
have
tolerance
exemptions
and
will
therefore
remain
available
after
this
rule
becomes
effective.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
Federalism
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
final
rule
directly
regulates
growers,
food
processors,
food
handlers
and
food
retailers,
not
States.
This
action
does
not
alter
the
relationships
or
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
by
Congress
in
the
preemption
provisions
of
section
408(
n)(
4)
of
the
FFDCA.
For
these
same
reasons,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
have
any
``
tribal
implications''
as
described
in
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
Consultation
and
Coordination
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
48
Jun
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11JNR1.
SGM
11JNR1
34829
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
112
/
Wednesday,
June
11,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000).
Executive
Order
13175,
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

VI.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
this
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
final
rule
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
180
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Agricultural
commodities,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
May
21,
2003.

James
Jones,

Director,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.


Therefore,
40
CFR
chapter
I
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
180
 
[
AMENDED]


1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
180
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
21
U.
S.
C.
321(
q),
346(
a)
and
371.
§
180.359
and
180.1132
[
Removed]


2.
Sections
180.359
and
180.1132
are
removed.


3.
Section
180.1033
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.1033
Methoprene;
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance.

Methoprene
is
exempt
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
in
or
on
all
food
commodities
when
used
to
control
insect
larvae.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
14330
Filed
6
 
10
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
271
[
FRL
 
7511
 
1
]

Utah:
Final
Authorization
of
State
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Program
Revision
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Utah
applied
to
EPA
for
Final
authorization
of
revisions
to
its
hazardous
waste
program
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
EPA
has
reached
a
final
determination
that
these
changes
satisfy
all
requirements
needed
to
qualify
for
Final
authorization.
Thus,
with
respect
to
these
revisions,
EPA
is
granting
Final
authorization
to
the
State
to
operate
its
program
subject
to
the
limitations
on
its
authority
retained
by
EPA
in
accordance
with
RCRA,
including
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(
HSWA)
of
1984.
DATES:
Final
authorization
for
the
revisions
to
Utah's
hazardous
waste
management
program
will
become
effective
June
11,
2003.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Kris
Shurr,
8P
 
HW,
U.
S.
EPA,
Region
VIII,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
300,
Denver,
Colorado
80202
 
2466,
phone
number:
(
303)
312
 
6139
or
e­
mail:
shurr.
kris@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

A.
Why
Are
Revisions
to
State
Programs
Necessary?

States
which
have
received
Final
authorization
from
EPA
under
RCRA
section
3006(
b),
42
U.
S.
C.
6926(
b),
must
maintain
a
hazardous
waste
program
that
is
equivalent
to,
consistent
with,
and
no
less
stringent
than
the
Federal
program.
As
the
Federal
program
changes,
States
must
change
their
programs
and
ask
EPA
to
authorize
the
changes.
Changes
to
State
programs
may
be
necessary
when
Federal
or
State
statutory
or
regulatory
authority
is
modified
or
when
certain
other
changes
occur.
Most
commonly,
States
must
change
their
programs
because
of
changes
to
EPA's
regulations
in
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
parts
124,
260
through
266,
268,
270,
273
and
279.
Utah
initially
received
Final
Authorization
on
October
10,
1984,
effective
October
24,
1984
(
49
FR
39683)
to
implement
its
base
hazardous
waste
management
program.
Utah
received
authorization
for
revisions
to
its
program
on
February
21,
1989
(
54
FR
7417),
effective
March
7,
1989;
May
23,
1991
(
56
FR
23648)
and
August
6,
1991
(
56
FR
37291),
both
effective
July
22,
1991;
May
15,
1992
(
57
FR
20770),
effective
July
14,
1992;
February
12,
1993
(
58
FR
8232)
and
May
5,
1993
(
58
FR
26689),
both
effective
April
13,
1993;
October
14,
1994
(
59
FR
52084),
effective
December
13,
1994;
May
20,
1997
(
62
FR
27501),
effective
July
21,
1997;
January
13,
1999
(
64
FR
02144),
effective
March
15,
1999;
October
16,
2000
(
65
FR
61109),
effective
January
16,
2001,
and
May
7,
2002
(
67
FR
30599),
effective
July
7,
2002.
On
February
12,
2003,
Utah
submitted
a
final
complete
program
revision
application,
seeking
authorization
of
additional
changes
to
its
program
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
271.21.
On
April
10,
2003,
EPA
published
both
an
Immediate
Final
Rule
(
68
FR
17556)
granting
Utah
Final
authorization
for
these
revisions
to
its
Federallyauthorized
hazardous
waste
program,
along
with
a
companion
Proposed
Rule
announcing
EPA's
proposal
to
grant
such
a
Final
authorization
(
68
FR
17577).
EPA
announced
in
both
notices
that
the
Immediate
Final
Rule
and
the
Proposed
Rule
were
subject
to
a
thirtyday
public
comment
period.
The
public
comment
period
ended
on
May
12,
2003.
EPA
did
receive
identical
written
comments
from
two
commenters
during
the
public
comment
period.
Today's
action
responds
to
the
comments
EPA
received
and
publishes
EPA's
Final
determination
granting
Utah
Final
authorization
of
its
program
revisions.
Further
background
on
EPA's
Immediate
Final
Rule
and
its
tentative
determination
to
grant
authorization
to
Utah
for
its
program
revisions
appears
in
the
aforementioned
Federal
Register
notices.
The
issues
raised
by
the
commenters
are
summarized
and
responded
to
in
Item
B.

B.
What
Were
the
Comments
and
Responses
to
EPA's
Proposal?
Both
commenters
challenged
Region
VIII's
process
for
authorizing
revisions
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
23:
48
Jun
10,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
11JNR1.
SGM
11JNR1