Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174-0128
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Addendums to Proposed Orders Granting Objections to Tolerances and Denying Requests for a Stay: Sulfuryl Fluoride; Extension of Comment Period
Posted Date: 2011-04-06T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19001-19003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8183]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174; FRL-8867-9]

Sulfuryl Fluoride; Addendum to Proposed Order Granting Objections 
to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay; Extension of Comment 
Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed order and extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is supplementing its proposed order 
published January 19, 2011, regarding sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride 
tolerances promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA) to include proposed effective dates for the termination of 
tolerances for rice commodities. In order to provide a 90-day comment 
period on the proposed effective date for terminating the rice 
tolerances, while also maintaining a consistent closing date for all 
comments on the proposed sulfuryl fluoride actions and accommodating 
several comment period extension requests, the Agency will accept 
comment on both the proposed order and this addendum for 90 days 
following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In 
addition, EPA is clarifying that all tolerances for sulfuryl fluoride 
and the associated fluoride tolerances were intended to be covered by 
the proposed order despite discrepancies in the way those tolerances 
are described in EPA's regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0174, 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-
2005-0174. 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 e-
mail. The regulations.gov Web site 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., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone 
number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Laws, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 308-7038; e-mail address: laws.meredith@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, pesticide manufacturer, or 
consumer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not 
limited to:
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., grain and 
oilseed milling; animal food manufacturing; flour milling; bread and 
bakery product manufacturing; cookie, cracker, and pasta manufacturing; 
snack food manufacturing.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., 
pesticide manufacturers; commercial applicators.
     Community Food Services (NAICS code 624210), e.g., food 
banks.
     Farm Product Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493130), e.g., 
grain elevators, private and public food warehousing and storage.
    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. 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

[[Page 19002]]

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. Supplement to the Proposed Order

    On January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3422, Jan. 19, 2011), EPA issued a 
proposed order granting objections and denying a stay request filed by 
the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition 
Against the Misuse of Pesticides, and the Environmental Working Group 
with regard to all tolerances established for sulfuryl fluoride and all 
tolerances for fluoride associated with the use of sulfuryl fluoride. 
In that order, EPA proposed a range of effective dates for termination 
of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride tolerances that were based on several 
factors, including the potential for disruption or contamination of 
some commodities in the food supply and the availability of 
alternatives. For cancelled uses, EPA proposed to terminate tolerances 
associated with those uses immediately upon publication of the final 
order. For commodities for which there is little to no use of sulfuryl 
fluoride, EPA proposed to make the effective date for termination of 
the tolerances associated with those uses 90 days following publication 
of the final order in the Federal Register. For direct commodity 
treatments and for structural fumigation for which there is significant 
sulfuryl fluoride use and no readily available alternative, EPA 
proposed an effective date of 3 years following publication of the 
final order in the Federal Register.
    In proposing effective dates, EPA inadvertently failed to address 
the sulfuryl fluoride/fluoride tolerances for rice commodities 
associated with direct fumigation of rice that were covered by the 
objections and came within the scope of EPA's proposed order to grant 
the objections. In this document, EPA is supplementing its proposed 
order to add a proposed effective date of the grant of the objections 
as to these rice commodities (rice, bran, postharvest; rice, flour, 
postharvest; rice, grain, postharvest; rice, hulls, postharvest; rice, 
polished rice, postharvest; and rice, wild, grain, postharvest). (40 
CFR 180.145(a)(3), 180.575). Based on available information, EPA 
concludes that very little to no sulfuryl fluoride is being used on 
rice. Most rice is fumigated with aluminum phosphide (or phosphine) 
rather than sulfuryl fluoride. (See Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 
and Toxic Substances, US EPA, Memorandum from Colwell A. Cook, Jonathan 
Becker, and Elisa Rim to Kable Davis/Venus Eagle and Michael Doherty/
Christina Swartz, ``Revised Assessment of Percent Commodity Treated 
Values used in the Registrant's Dietary Exposure Assessment for 
Fluoride (DP 361041)'' (May 1, 2009).
    Therefore, EPA is proposing that termination of the rice tolerances 
be effective 90 days following publication of the final order in the 
Federal Register. Given the low level of sulfuryl fluoride usage on 
rice and the availability of phosphine as an alternative, 90 days 
should be sufficient for affected parties to come into compliance. This 
proposed termination date applies to the rice tolerances associated 
with direct fumigation of rice. The proposed termination date for 
commodities receiving incidental treatment as a result of structural 
fumigation of food processing facilities remains unchanged from the 
January 19, 2011 proposed order.
    As with the effective dates contained in its proposed order, EPA 
requests public comment on the effective date for terminating 
tolerances associated with rice.
    In addition, to avoid potential confusion, EPA is clarifying that 
it intended to cover all existing tolerances for sulfuryl fluoride and 
all associated fluoride tolerances despite some discrepancies in the 
way tolerances for sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride are described in 40 
CFR 180.575 and 180.145, respectively. In its proposed order, EPA 
proposed 90-day effective dates for termination of the coffee, bean, 
green, postharvest and oats, groats/rolled oats tolerances. This 
language is used to describe the fluoride tolerances for these 
commodities (Sec.  180.145(a)(3)). The similar tolerances for sulfuryl 
fluoride are described as coffee, bean, roasted bean, postharvest and 
oats, groats/rolled oats, postharvest (Sec.  180.575). EPA clarifies 
that it intended to propose a 90-day effective date for termination of 
these tolerances as well. EPA also proposed a 90-day effective date for 
termination of the grape, raisin, postharvest and a 3-year effective 
date for dried fruit other than raisins. EPA's regulation lists 
distinct tolerances for these commodities for fluoride (Sec.  
180.145(a)(3)), whereas EPA's regulation for sulfuryl fluoride lists a 
single tolerance for dried fruit (Sec.  180.575). EPA clarifies that it 
intended to propose that 90 days following publication of a final 
order, the sulfuryl fluoride dried fruit tolerance would be revised to 
narrow its coverage to dried fruit, except grape, raisin, postharvest, 
and that the effective date for termination of this narrowed dried 
fruit tolerance would be 3 years following publication of a final 
order. Finally, EPA clarifies that the 3-year effective date for cocoa 
applies to the sulfuryl fluoride/fluoride tolerances for cacao bean, 
roasted bean, postharvest (Sec.  180.145(a)(3), and Sec.  180.575).

III. Request of Extension of Comment Period

    EPA has received four requests for a 90-day extension of the 
comment period on the January 19, 2011, proposed order. The requests 
were filed by the National Pest Management Association, The American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the North American Millers' Federation, and Dow 
AgroSciences LLC. They have requested additional time in order to 
gather, process, and report to EPA information relevant to the proposed 
order. In response, EPA notes that it established a comment period 
longer than the statutory minimum in issuing its proposed order. 
Nonetheless, given that the comment period is being extended to address 
the issue discussed above with regard to the rice commodity tolerances 
and the overall complexity of this matter, EPA has decided to extend 
the overall comment period on the January 19, 2011, proposed order so 
that all comments on the proposed order are due at the same time. Thus, 
comments on the proposed termination date of the rice commodity 
tolerances as well as all other comments on the January 19,

[[Page 19003]]

2011, proposed order are now due on July 5, 2011.

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    As indicated in the proposed order, this action is an adjudication 
and not a rule. The regulatory assessment requirements imposed on 
rulemaking do not, therefore, apply to this action.

V. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 
not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 
804(3).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
William R. Diamond,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-8183 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P