Proposed Rules. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
22,417 words·~102 min read·
/register/2006/09/27/06-8180A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P; 4310-55-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0087; FRL-8223-5] RIN-2060-AM24 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances—Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)is proposing to list four substitutes for ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs)in the fire suppression and explosion protection sector as acceptable subject to use conditions under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA)Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP)program. SNAP implements section 612 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for ODSs and find them acceptable where they do not pose a greater overall risk to human health and the environment than other acceptable substitutes. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by October 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0087 by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* OAR Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. To expedite review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Bella Maranion at the address listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . • *Hand Delivery:* Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0087. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.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 www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202)566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bella Maranion, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(202)343-9749; fax number:
(202)343-2363; e-mail address: *maranion.bella@epa.gov.* The published versions of notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Web site at *http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** , EPA is taking this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a non-controversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A rationale for this action is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comments and no requests for public hearings in response to this action, we will take no further activity in relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments or a request for public hearing, we will withdraw this direct final action as it applies to the substitute or substitutes on which the Agency has received adverse comment and will consider and respond to any comments prior to taking any new, final action for the substitute or substitutes. If a public hearing is requested, EPA will provide notice in the **Federal Register** as to the location, date, and time. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at that this time. I. EPA Proposal EPA would add four fire suppression agents to the list of acceptable substitutes subject to use conditions. The regulations implementing the SNAP program are codified at 40 CFR Part 82, Subpart G. The appendices to Subpart G list substitutes for ODSs that are unacceptable or that have restrictions imposed on their use. Today's action will add the four halon substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions to the appendices to Subpart G. The direct final rule will be effective on November 27, 2006 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment (or a request for a public hearing) by October 27, 2006. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the **Federal Register** informing the public that all or part of this rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second public comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. You may claim that information in your comments is confidential business information, as allowed by 40 CFR Part 2. If you submit comments and include information that you claim as confidential business information, we request that you submit them directly to Bella Maranion in two versions: one clearly marked “Public” to be filed in the public docket, and the other marked “Confidential” to be reviewed by authorized government personnel only. II. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order
(EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. B. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , that are not already approved by the OMB. OMB has reviewed and approved two Information Collection Requests
(ICRs)by EPA which are described in the March 18, 1994 rulemaking (59 FR 13044, at 13121, 13146-13147) and in the October 16, 1996 rulemaking (61 FR 54030, at 54038-54039). These ICRs included five types of respondent reporting and record-keeping activities pursuant to SNAP regulations: submission of a SNAP petition, filing a SNAP/TSCA Addendum, notification for test marketing activity, record-keeping for substitutes acceptable subject to narrowed use limits, and record-keeping for small volume uses. The OMB Control Numbers are 2060-0226 and 2060-0350. The EPA ICR Numbers are 1596.06 and 1774.03. Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at *auby.susan@epa.gov,* or by calling
(202)566-1672. Include the ICR and/or OMB number in any correspondence. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statutes unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are defined as
(1)a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's
(SBA)regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3)a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Today's action effectively supports the introduction of four new alternatives to the fire protection extinguishing systems market thus providing additional options for users making the transition away from ozone-depleting halons. Use of halon 1301 total flooding systems have historically been in specialty fire protection applications including essential electronics, civil aviation, military mobile weapon systems, oil and gas and other process industries, and merchant shipping with smaller segments of use including libraries, museums, and laboratories. The majority of halon 1301 system owners continue to maintain and refurbish existing systems since halon 1301 supplies continue to be available in the U.S. Owners of new facilities make up the market for the new alternative agent systems and may also consider employing other available fire protection options including new, improved technology for early warning and smoke detection. Thus, EPA is providing more options to any entity, including small entities, by finding these substitutes acceptable for use. The use restrictions imposed on the substitutes in today's rule are consistent with the applications suggested by the submitters. Thus far, these alternatives have not been sold or used in the end uses not found acceptable under today's rule. Until a manufacturer or other party requests a SNAP review for such end uses, these products may not be sold for such end uses. Therefore, we conclude that the rule does not impose a new cost on businesses. Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. By introducing new substitutes, today's rule gives additional flexibility to small entities that are concerned with fire suppression. EPA also has worked closely together with the National Fire Protection Association, which conducts regular outreach with, and involves small state, local, and tribal governments in developing and implementing relevant fire protection standards and codes. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Section 204 of the UMRA requires the Agency to develop a process to allow elected state, local and tribal government officials to provide input in the development of any proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Because this rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal government it is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments; therefore, EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments under section 203. Finally, because this rule does not contain a significant intergovernmental mandate, the Agency is not required to develop a process to obtain input from elected state, local, and tribal officials under section 204. E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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 does not have federalism implications. It will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule will provide additional options for fire protection subject to safety guidelines in industry standards. These standards are typically already required by state or local fire codes, and this rule does not require state, local, or tribal governments to change their regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 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.” This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 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. This proposed rule will provide additional options for fire protection subject to safety guidelines in industry standards. These standards are typically already required by state or local fire codes, and this rule does not require tribal governments to change their regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The acceptability listings in this proposed rule primarily apply to the workplace, and thus, do not put children at risk disproportionately. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The rule allows wider use of substitutes, providing greater flexibility for industry related to choices of alternative fire suppression systems to support the transition away from ozone-depleting substances, but little if any impact related to energy. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA is not requiring that specific technical standards be met in these regulations. EPA defers to existing National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)voluntary consensus standards and Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)regulations that relate to the safe use of halon substitutes reviewed under SNAP. EPA refers users to the latest edition of NFPA 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems which provides for exposure guidelines and safe use of halocarbon and inert gas agents used to extinguish fires. EPA also refers to the latest edition of NFPA 2010 Standard on Aerosol Extinguishing Systems, 2005 edition, which provides for safe use of aerosol extinguishing agents and technologies. Copies of these standards may be obtained by calling the NFPA's telephone number for ordering publications at 1-800-344-3555. The NFPA 2001 and 2010 standards meet the objectives of the rule by setting scientifically-based guidelines for safe exposure to halocarbon and inert gas agents and aerosol extinguishing agents, respectively. In addition, EPA has worked in consultation with OSHA to encourage development of technical standards to be adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 21, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-15842 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586; FRL-8089-5] Propanil, Phenmedipham, Triallate, and MCPA; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain tolerances for herbicides propanil, triallate, and MCPA. Also, EPA is proposing to modify certain tolerances for the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. In addition, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances for the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586, 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket'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 telephone number is
(703)305-5805. *Instructions* : Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0586. 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 Federal 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. 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 Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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 telephone number is
(703)3057-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7805P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@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. C. What Can I do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke? This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60-day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the **Federal Register** under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA is proposing to revoke, remove, modify, and establish specific tolerances for residues of the herbicides propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA 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 the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is discussed in detail in each Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED)and Report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision
(TRED)for the active ingredients. 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 452427-2419, telephone 1-800-490-9198; fax 1-513-489-8695; internet at *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 1-800-553-6847 or
(703)605-6000; internet at *http://www.ntis.gov* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA at the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* and in public dockets EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0348 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0033 (propanil); EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0384 (phenmedipham); and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0156 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0239
(MCPA)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. 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 and
(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. 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 paper copies are available in the public docket for this proposed rule, while 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-006-0586, 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. With respect to the tolerances that are proposed in this document to be modified, unless technical (e.g., commodity tolerance nomenclature revision), EPA has found that these tolerances are safe in accordance with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A), and 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 section 408(b)(2)(C). These findings are discussed in detail in each RED. The references are available for inspection as described in this document under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . In addition, EPA is proposing to revoke certain specific tolerances because either they are no longer needed or are associated with food uses that are no longer registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The registrations for these pesticide chemicals were canceled because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/or the registrant voluntarily canceled one or more registered uses of the pesticide. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of those tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. 1. *Propanil.* Currently, in 40 CFR 180.274 (a)(1) and (2), tolerances are established for the combined residues of propanil and its metabolites (calculated as propanil) in or on both raw agricultural commodities
(RACs)and processed foods and feeds. EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance expression to specify the residues of concern and combine the RACs and processed foods and feed tolerances in accordance with FFDCA 408 as amended by FQPA
(1996)in 40 CFR 180.274(a) to read as follows: Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propanil (3′, 4′-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA). Tolerances currently exist for rice milling fractions and rice polishings. Rice milling fractions are no longer considered a significant animal feed item as delineated in “Table 1.—Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Feedstuffs Derived from Crops” which is found in Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines OPPTS 860.1000 dated August 1996, available at *http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/860_Residue_Chemistry_Test_Guidelines/Series* . Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined residues of propanil in or on rice milling fractions and rice, polishings at 10 parts per million (ppm). The registered uses on barley, oat, and wheat (small grains) have been voluntarily cancelled (68 FR 68901, December 10, 2003) (FRL-7332-5), (68 FR 38328, June 27, 2003) (FRL-7310-6). In the absence of registered uses, the tolerances associated with the small grains should be revoked. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on barley, straw; oat, straw; and wheat, straw at 0.75 ppm; barley, grain at .2 ppm; oat, grain at .2 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.2 ppm. Two studies depicting the magnitude of regulated propanil residues in or on rice, grain exceeded the established tolerance of 2 ppm in or on treated rice, grain samples demonstrating residues ranging from 0.03 ppm to 8.7 ppm. Based on these data, EPA determined the tolerance should be 10 ppm on rice, grain. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on rice, grain from 2 ppm to 10 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. A rice processing study showed no concentration of residues in polished rice and average concentration factors of 3.5x for rice, hulls and 4.6x for rice, bran. The highest average field trial
(HAFT)propanil residues found in rice were 8.7 ppm. Based on this HAFT and the observed concentration factors, the maximum expected residues are 30.45 ppm in or on rice, hulls (8.7 x 3.5) and 40.02 ppm in or on rice, bran (8.7 x 4.6). These expected residues are higher in the processed commodities than the reassessed tolerance of 10 ppm for rice, grain. Based on these data, EPA has determined that the tolerances should be 30 ppm on rice, hulls and 40 ppm on rice, bran. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase tolerances in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on rice, hulls from 10 to 30 ppm and rice, bran from 10 to 40 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. The potential for secondary transfer of propanil residues to animal commodities exists because the herbicide is registered for use on rice, which may be used as animal feed. Based on a maximum theoretical dietary burden
(x)and using the residues levels found in dairy cattle and milk fed 15 ppm (0.75x) resulted in residues of: 0.035 ppm in milk, 0.31 ppm in liver, 0.77 ppm in kidney, < 0.05 ppm (non-detectable) in muscle, and 0.10 ppm in fat. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.05 ppm in cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat; and 1.0 ppm in cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,meat byproducts. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the milk and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern to maintain and revise the tolerances in or on milk from 0.05(N) ppm to 0.05 ppm and cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat from 0.1(N) ppm to 0.10 ppm; to decrease and revise the tolerances in or on cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm; and to increase and revise the tolerances in or on cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep,meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 1.0 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. Maximum propanil residues were 0.212 ppm and 0.372 ppm, respectively, in eggs from hens dosed with propanil 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x). Residues in liver from hens in the 15 ppm (0.9x), and 50 ppm (3.1x) dose groups were 0.183-0.236, and 0.824-1.755 ppm, respectively. Residues in muscle were < 0.050-0.076 and 0.087-0.161 ppm from the 0.9x and 3.1x dose groups, respectively. In fat, propanil residues of concern were < 0.05 ppm (< non-detectable) up to 0.9x feeding levels, and < 0.139-0.348 ppm at 3.1x. Based on these data, the Agency has determined that the propanil tolerances should be 0.30 ppm for egg; 0.05 ppm for poultry, fat; 0.50 ppm for poultry, meat byproducts; and 0.10 ppm for poultry, meat. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the egg and animal tissue tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern to increase and revise the tolerance for egg from 0.05(N) to 0.30 ppm; to decrease and revise the tolerance in or on poultry, fat from 0.1(N) to 0.05 ppm; to increase and revise the tolerance for poultry, meat byproducts from 0.1(N) to 0.50 ppm; and maintain and revise the tolerance in or on poultry, meat from 0.1(N) to 0.10 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. Residues of propanil and its metabolites, determined as base-releasable 3, 4 DCA and expressed as propanil equivalents, were < 0.01-0.03 ppm in or on the edible portions of crayfish (1x maximum season rate). Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerance should be 0.05 ppm on crayfish. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on crayfish at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the “N” (negligible residues) designation correlated with tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.274(a) for the combined propanil residues of concern in or on rice, straw from 75(N) ppm to 75 ppm. 2. *Phenmedipham.* The current tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.278 refers to phenmedipham as methyl *m* -hydroxycarbanilate *m* -methylcarbanilate which should be changed to the more appropriate chemical name, 3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate. Therefore, EPA proposes to change the chemical name in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of the herbicide phenmedipham to 3-methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate. Spinach field trial residue data generated at the 1x seasonal application rate and 14-22 day pre-harvest interval
(PHI)resulted in residues ranging from 2.1-3.6 ppm. Additional trials conducted at similar rates and PHIs yielded residues ranging from < 0.05 to 0.17 ppm. Based on the more recent residue data and use pattern, EPA has determined the tolerance on spinach should be 4.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in or on spinach from 0.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Sugar beet processing studies indicate that phenmedipham residues of concern concentrated 3x in dried pulp, 1.3x in molasses, and did not concentrate in sugar. Because of the concentration factors associated with dried pulp and molasses, the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm for raw beet, sugar, roots and beet, sugar, tops is not adequate to cover the dried pulp and molasses from sugar beets; therefore, the Agency has determined that tolerances should be established for beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in or on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.5 ppm and beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm. In addition, the “N” (negligible residues) designation that is correlated with some of the tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency practice. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.278(a) for residues of phenmedipham in or on beet, garden at 0.2(N) ppm to beet, garden, roots at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm. 3. *Triallate.* The available data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns, indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of concern were 0.26 ppm in or on barley, straw; 0.12 ppm in or on the seed and pods of succulent peas; 0.39 ppm in or on the vines of succulent peas; 0.27 ppm in or on the vines of dried peas; 0.73 ppm in or on the straw
(hay)of succulent peas; 0.36 ppm in or on the straw of dried peas; and 0.94 ppm in or on wheat, straw in the states of: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)” associated with the barley, grain tolerance is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.3 ppm on barley, straw; 1.0 ppm on pea, field, hay; 0.5 ppm on pea, field, vines; 0.2 ppm on pea, succulent; and 1.0 ppm on wheat, straw and recodified under 40 CFR 180.314(c) as regional tolerances. Therefore, EPA is proposing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined residues of concern to be increased in or on barley, straw from 0.05 to 0.3 ppm; pea, field, hay from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; pea, field, vines from 0.05 to 0.5 ppm; pea, succulent from 0.05 to 0.2 ppm; wheat, straw from 0.05 to 1.0 ppm; and reclassified from 40 CFR 180.314(a) to 40 CFR 180.314(c) for barley, grain at 0.05 ppm and wheat, grain at 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. Lentil, hay is no longer considered significant livestock feed item and has been removed from Table 1 (OPPTS GLN 860.1000) and lentil, seed is covered by the established pea tolerance in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(h). As a result, EPA proposes removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(a) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on lentil, hay at 0.05 ppm and lentil, seed at 0.05 ppm. Sugar beet processing studies were conducted on sugar beets treated at 5x the seasonal application rate resulting in maximum residues of 0.14 ppm in root, 0.30 ppm in dried pulp, and < 0.03 ppm in sugar and molasses. Therefore, EPA is proposing to maintain the tolerances and correct the terminology for sugar beets to include roots in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on beet, sugar, dried pulp at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm. The available data, reflecting the maximum registered use patterns, indicate that the maximum combined triallate residues of concern were < 0.02 ppm in or on the seed and pods of pea, dry and 0.94 ppm on wheat, straw. Because of similar cultural practices and identical use rates, wheat, straw data is used to support tolerances for barley, hay and wheat, hay. Based on these data, the Agency determined the tolerances should be 0.2 ppm for pea, dry and 1.0 ppm for barley, hay and wheat, hay by translating the data from wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish tolerances in 40 CFR 180.314(c) for the combined triallate residues of concern in or on barley, hay at 1.0 ppm; pea, dry at 0.2 ppm; and wheat, hay at 1.0 ppm. The Agency determined that the establishment of these tolerances is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Although tolerances are established on animal feed items, tolerances on the edible tissues of animals are not necessary because the available residue data generated using exaggerated rates indicate there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs as a result of ingestion of pesticide residues on raw agricultural commodities in accordance with 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). 4. *MCPA.* The current tolerance expression 40 CFR 180.339(a) regulates residues of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
(MCPA)from application of the herbicide in acid form or in the form of its sodium, ethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, isopropanolamine, diisopropanolamine, triisopropanolamine, or dimethylamine salts or isooctyl or butoxyethyl esters and 40 CFR 180.339(b) tolerances are established for combined negligible residues
(N)of the herbicide 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol. Based on toxicity data for 2-methyl-4-chlorophenol, a currently regulated livestock metabolite, EPA determined that it is of significantly less concern than the parent compound and therefore can be excluded from the tolerance expression. Although the chemical name for MCPA has been presented as “(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)acetic acid”, under current chemical naming conventions the “(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid” designation is preferred. EPA determined the residues to be regulated in plant commodities (40 CFR 180.339(a)) are parent, free and conjugated MCPA. When MCPA is applied in various forms (e.g. ethanolamine and other salts and esters), a single common moiety is released that is the pesticidally active component and serves as the basis for tolerance regulation. Therefore, EPA is proposing to change the tolerance expression in 40 CFR 180.339(a) to read as follows: tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)], both free and conjugated, resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester and in 40 CFR 180.339(b) to read as follows: tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA [(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid)] resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester. 40 CFR 180.339
(a)and
(b)will be revised to read 40 CFR 180.339 (a)(1) and
(2)for consistency. Lastly, the term “negligible residue” and its designation, “(N)”, associated with some tolerances is being removed to conform to current Agency policy and practice. Currently, tolerances exist reflecting uses of MCPA on rice, sorghum, flax (straw) and canarygrass. The uses on rice, sorghum, and canarygrass are no longer registered uses (69 FR 39467, June 30, 2004) (FRL-7363-4) (71 FR 24687, April 26, 2006) (FRL-8059-2). EPA policy no longer requires tolerances to be established for flax, straw. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for the combined MCPA residues of concern in or on flax, straw at 2 ppm; grass, canary, annual, straw at 0.1 ppm; canary, annual, seed at 0.1 ppm; rice, grain at 0.1(N) ppm; rice, straw at 2 ppm; sorghum, forage at 20 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.1 ppm; and sorghum, grain, stover at 20 ppm. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are < 0.29 ppm in or on alfalfa, forage and < 1.07 ppm in or on alfalfa, hay. Alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay data will also be used to satisfy crop field trial requirements for the clover, forage; clover hay; lespedeza, forage; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; and vetch, hay. Ordinarily, the Agency would not translate data from alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay to support uses on clover, forage; clover hay; lespedeza, forage; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, forage; trefoil, hay; vetch, forage; and vetch, hay; however, because the only supported use of MCPA on these crops is to the crops underseeded to small grains it is reasonable to use alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay data to support these uses. Based on these data, EPA has determined the tolerance should be 0.5 ppm in or on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage; and 2.0 ppm in or on alfalfa, hay; clover hay; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase tolerances and revise the terminology to include forage consistently in 40 CFR 180.339 (a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or on alfalfa, forage; clover, forage; lespedeza, forage; trefoil, forage; and vetch, forage from 0.1 to 0.5 ppm and alfalfa, hay; clover hay; lespedeza, hay; trefoil, hay; and vetch, hay from 0.1 to 2.0 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. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 0.72 ppm in or on wheat, grain and 21.4 ppm in or on wheat, straw. Based on the HAFT residue of 0.08 ppm for wheat, grain, expected MCPA residues of concern in or on wheat bran and germ will not exceed the established tolerance of 0.1 ppm for wheat, grain and for wheat processed commodities. Because of similar cultural practices and identical use rates, wheat residue field trial data is used to support tolerances for barley, oat, and rye. Based on these data, EPA has determined the tolerance should be 1.0 ppm in or on barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and wheat, grain and 25 ppm in or on barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw. Therefore, EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or on barley, grain; oat, grain; rye, grain; and wheat, grain from 0.1 to 1.0 ppm and barley, straw; oat, straw; rye, straw; and wheat, straw from 2 to 25 ppm. The Agency determined that these increased tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The crop field trial data indicate that the maximum combined residues of MCPA and its metabolites are 19.4 ppm (7 day PHI) in or on wheat, forage, 39.5 ppm and 111 ppm (7 and14 day PHIs, respectively) in or on wheat, hay. Also, these data are translated to support tolerances for barley, hay and oat, hay and oat, forage and rye, forage. Based on these data, EPA determined the tolerances should be 20 ppm on oat, forage; rye, forage; and wheat, forage and 115 ppm on barley, hay; oat, hay; and wheat, hay. EPA is proposing tolerances be established in 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1) for residues of MCPA in or on wheat, forage at 20 ppm; and barley, hay; oat, hay; and wheat, hay at 115 ppm; and maintain tolerances for oat, forage and rye, forage at 20 ppm. The Agency determined that these newly established tolerances are safe; i.e. there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemicals residue. In addition, EPA is proposing to revise commodity terminology and tolerances to conform to current Agency practice at 40 CFR 180.339 as follows: “grass, pasture and grass, rangeland at 300 ppm to grass, forage at 300 ppm;” “peavines at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, vines at 0.1 ppm;” “peavines, hay at 0.1(N) ppm to pea, hay at 0.1 ppm;” “vegetables, seed and pod at 0.1 ppm to pea, dry at 0.1 ppm and pea, succulent at 0.1 ppm;” “cattle, fat; goat, fat; hog, fat; horse, fat; and sheep, fat; cattle, meat byproducts; goat, meat byproducts; hog, meat byproducts; horse, meat byproducts; and sheep, meat byproducts; and cattle, meat; goat, meat; hog, meat; horse, meat; and sheep, meat at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm;” and “milk at 0.1(N) ppm to 0.1 ppm.” 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 the 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 the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 342(a). Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a)). For a food-use 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. 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 the FQPA. The safety finding determination is discussed in detail in each Post-FQPA RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued post-FQPA REDs for propanil, phenmedipham, triallate, and MCPA, and a TRED for propanil. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including requirements for additional data on the active ingredients to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and in REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are proposed in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in 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. Furthermore, as a general matter, the Agency believes that retention of import tolerances not needed to cover any imported food may result in unnecessary restriction on trade of pesticides and foods. Under section 408 of the FFDCA, a tolerance may only be established or maintained if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe based on a number of factors, including an assessment of the aggregate exposure to the pesticide and an assessment of the cumulative effects of such pesticide and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. In doing so, EPA must consider potential contributions to such exposure from all tolerances. If the cumulative risk is such that the tolerances in aggregate are not safe, then every one of these tolerances is potentially vulnerable to revocation. Furthermore, if unneeded tolerances are included in the aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, the estimated exposure to the pesticide would be inflated. Consequently, it may be more difficult for others to obtain needed tolerances or to register needed new uses. To avoid potential trade restrictions, the Agency is proposing to revoke tolerances for residues on crops uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist, unless someone expresses a need for such tolerances. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is inviting individuals who need these import tolerances to identify themselves and the tolerances that are needed to cover imported commodities. Parties interested in retention of the tolerances should be aware that additional data may be needed to support retention. These parties should be aware that, under FFDCA section 408(f), if the Agency determines that additional information is reasonably required to support the continuation of a tolerance, EPA may require that parties interested in maintaining the tolerances provide the necessary information. If the requisite information is not submitted, EPA may issue an order revoking the tolerance at issue. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, consideration must be given to the possible residues of those chemicals in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). When considering this possibility, EPA can conclude that: 1. Finite residues will exist in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs. 2. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will exist. 3. There is a reasonable expectation that finite residues will not exist. If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and (c)). EPA has evaluated certain specific meat, milk, poultry, and egg tolerances proposed for revocation in this proposed rule and has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues of concern in or on those commodities. C. When do These Actions Become Effective? EPA is proposing that modifications, establishment, commodity terminology revisions, and revocation of these tolerances become effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** because their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented with information that existing stocks would still be available and that information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the expiration date of the tolerance. If you have comments regarding existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . 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 section, 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 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 revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically-produced and imported foods meet the food safety standard established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. The tolerance actions in this proposal apply equally to domestically-produced and imported foods. In making its tolerance decisions, the Agency seeks to harmonize 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 Alimentarius Commission, as required by section 408(b)(4) of the FFDCA. The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 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 also considers MRLs established in Canada and Mexico. 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. Specific tolerance actions in this proposed rule are discussed in Unit II.A. EPA's efforts to harmonize with MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs and TREDs as mentioned in Unit II.A. 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, Regulations, and Dockets,” 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. 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, *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), 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 action 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 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 the 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 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 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: September 20, 2006. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.274 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)to read as follows: § 180.274 Propanil; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide propanil (3′, 4′-dichloropropionanilide) and its metabolites convertible to 3, 4-dichloroaniline (3, 4-DCA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.10 Cattle, meat byproducts 1.0 Cattle, meat 0.05 Crayfish 0.05 Egg 0.30 Goat, fat 0.10 Goat, meat byproducts 1.0 Goat, meat 0.05 Hog, fat 0.10 Hog, meat byproducts 1.0 Hog, meat 0.05 Horse, fat 0.10 Horse, meat byproducts 1.0 Horse, meat 0.05 Milk 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.50 Poultry, meat 0.10 Rice, bran 40 Rice, grain 10 Rice, hulls 30 Rice, straw 75 Sheep, fat 0.10 Sheep, meat byproducts 1.0 Sheep, meat 0.05 3. Section 180.278 is revised to read as follows: § 180.278 Phenmedipham; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide phenmedipham (3- methoxycarbonylaminophenyl-3-methylcarbanilate) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Beet, garden, roots 0.2 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 0.5 Beet, sugar, molasses 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.1 Beet, sugar, tops 0.1 Spinach 4.0
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 4. Section 180.314 is revised to read as follows: § 180.314 Triallate; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . [Reserved]
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide ( *S* -2, 3, 4-trichloroallyl diisopropylthiocarbamate) and its metabolite 2, 3, 3-trichloroprop-2-enesulfonic acid (TCPSA) in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, hay 1.0 Barley, straw 0.3 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 0.2 Beet, sugar, roots 0.1 Beet, sugar, tops 0.5 Pea, dry 0.2 Pea, field, hay 1.0 Pea, field, vines 0.5 Pea, succulent 0.2 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, hay 1.0 Wheat, straw 1.0
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 5. Section 180.339 is revised to read as follows: § 180.339 MCPA; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid), both free and conjugated, resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 0.5 Alfalfa, hay 2.0 Barley, grain 1.0 Barley, hay 115 Barley, straw 25 Clover, forage 0.5 Clover, hay 2.0 Flax, seed 0.1 Grass, forage 300 Grass, hay 20 Lespedeza, forage 0.5 Lespedeza, hay 2.0 Oat, forage 20 Oat, grain 1.0 Oat, hay 115 Oat, straw 25 Pea, dry 0.1 Pea, hay 0.1 Pea, succulent 0.1 Pea, vines 0.1 Rye, forage 20 Rye, grain 1.0 Rye, straw 25 Trefoil, forage 0.5 Trefoil, hay 2.0 Vetch, forage 0.5 Vetch, hay 2.0 Wheat, forage 20 Wheat, grain 1.0 Wheat, hay 115 Wheat, straw 25
(2)Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid) resulting from the direct application of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester in or on the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.1 Goat, fat 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Goat, meat 0.1 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Hog, meat 0.1 Horse, fat 0.1 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, meat 0.1 Milk 0.1 Sheep, fat 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1 Sheep, meat 0.1
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] [FR Doc. E6-15841 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0755, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0758, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0759, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0760, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0761, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0762; FRL-8223-2] RIN 2050-AD75 National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 45 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add six new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table below. FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/state FDMS docket ID No. Elm Street Ground Water Contamination Terre Haute, IN EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0755. South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Minneapolis, MN EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0759. Sonford Products Flowood, MS EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0758. Bandera Road Ground Water Plume Leon Valley, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0760. East 67th Street Ground Water Plume Odessa, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0761. Lockheed West Seattle Seattle, WA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0762. Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket number, by one of the following methods: • *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov* • *Mail:* Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460 • *Hand Delivery or Express Mail:* Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to the appropriate FDMS Docket number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made available online at *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 *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* website is an “anonymous access” system, that 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 www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone
(703)603-8852, State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, Phone
(800)424-9346 or
(703)412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites from the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? B. How Do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Comments? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule Proposed Additions to the NPL IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What is Executive Order 12866? 2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule? C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 2. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 1. What is Executive Order 13175? 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What is Executive Order 13045? 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to this Proposed Rule? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. B. What Is the NCP? To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)). C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the “General Superfund Section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities Section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS)score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. At Federal Facilities Section sites, EPA's role is less extensive than at other sites. D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1)A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”), that EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL;
(2)Pursuant to 42 U.S.C 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2);
(3)The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release. • EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. • EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually. E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * * ” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws. F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites? The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( *e.g.* , the “Jones Co. plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property ( *e.g.* , it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( *e.g.* , where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the “nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release. G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i)Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii)All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
(iii)The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1)Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2)EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( *e.g.* , institutional controls); or
(3)The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at *http://www.epa.gov/superfund.* II. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by electronic access at *www.regulations.gov* (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section above). B. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours. The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-1744. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows: Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417. Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343. Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-5364. Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862. Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821. Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436. Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335. Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-2466; 303/312-6463. Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097. Denise Baker, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-4303. You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. You may use the Docket *www.regulations.gov* at to access documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are outlined below. C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. E. How Do I Submit My Comments? Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail. F. What Happens to My Comments? EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the **Federal Register** document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL. G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria ( *Northside Sanitary Landfill* v. *Thomas* , 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments. I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters Docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes. All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public Docket at *www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate Docket ID number. J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the Docket. III. Contents of This Proposed Rule Proposed Additions to the NPL In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add six new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the table below. State Site name City/county IN Elm Street Ground Water Contamination Terre Haute. MN South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Minneapolis. MS Sonford Products Flowood. TX Bandera Road Ground Water Plume Leon Valley. TX East 67th Street Ground Water Plume Odessa. WA Lockheed West Seattle Seattle. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What Is Executive Order 12866? Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2)create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* , an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act? This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any Federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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.” Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What Is Executive Order 13175? Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 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.” 2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It 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. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1)is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211? This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 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), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated: September 20, 2006. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. E6-15854 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Part 263 RIN 0970-AC15 Cost Allocation Methodology Applicable to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families proposes to regulate the cost allocation methodology to be used in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF)program. The proposed rule would require States to use the “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology required by OMB Circular A-87 (2 CFR Part 225) and previously required under HHS' Office of Grants and Acquisition Management
(OGAM)Action Transmittal
(AT)98-2. DATES: We will consider all comments received on or before November 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may download an electronic version of the proposed rule at either of the following two Web Sites. You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)0970-AC, by the following methods: • *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* • *Agency Web Site: http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA), 5th Floor East, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* Office of Family Assistance/ACF, 5th Floor East, 901 D St., SW., Washington, DC 20447. *Instructions:* All comments received, including any personal information provided, will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov.* Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at 901 D St., SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Shelbourne, Director, State TANF Policy Division at
(202)401-5150, *rshelbourne@acf.hhs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Authority We are issuing this proposed regulation under the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS)by 42 U.S.C. 1302(a). Section 1302(a) authorizes the Secretary to make and publish such rules as may be necessary for the efficient administration of functions with which he is charged under the Social Security Act. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 617 limits the authority of the Federal government to regulate State conduct or enforce the TANF provisions of the Social Security Act, except as expressly provided. We interpret this provision to allow us to regulate the use of a permissible cost allocation methodology because States and the Territories need to know what they may and may not do to avoid potential misuse of funds penalties at 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(1). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 609(a)(1), we may impose a financial penalty whenever a State misuses Federal TANF funds. The TANF regulations at 45 CFR 263.11 address the proper and improper uses of Federal TANF funds. Section 263.11(b) sets forth the circumstances that constitute misuse of Federal funds. Use of Federal TANF funds in violation of any of the provisions in OMB Circular A-87 is one such circumstance. We are accordingly specifying that the “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology is the only allowable methodology for the proper use of Federal TANF funds. We are issuing the proposed rule in light of a decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in *Arizona* v. *Thompson* , 281 F.3d 248 (DC Cir. 2002). The Appeals Court invalidated HHS' Office of Grants and Acquisition Management
(OGAM)Action Transmittal
(AT)98-2, dated September 30, 1998, which required States to allocate costs to each “benefiting program” in accordance with OMB Circular A-87. II. Background The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has issued government-wide standards for allocating the costs of government programs. Specifically, OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments,” provides that “A cost is allocable to a particular cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to such cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.” Thus, costs that benefit multiple programs may not be allocated to a single program. An illustrative way to determine whether multiple programs benefit from costs is to ask, for example: In the absence of the TANF program, would another program still have to undertake the function? If the answer is yes, there is a benefit to each program and the costs should be allocated using the “benefiting programs” cost allocation method. The “benefiting program” cost allocation method applies to all Federal programs, unless there is a statutory or OMB-approved exception. Prior to enactment of the TANF program, HHS allowed States and the Territories to charge the common administrative costs of determining eligibility and case maintenance activities for the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs to the AFDC program—a so-called “primary program” allocation method. This exception to the “benefiting program” cost allocation requirement of OMB Circular A-87 was consistent with Conference Committee language indicating AFDC might pay for these common costs because families who were eligible for AFDC (the primary program) were also automatically eligible for Medicaid and met the categorical, but not necessarily the income, requirements of Food Stamps. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) (Pub. L. 104-193) was enacted on August 22, 1996. Title I of PRWORA repealed the AFDC program and replaced it with the TANF program. Unlike AFDC, TANF eligibility no longer automatically makes a family eligible for Medicaid, and eligibility for certain TANF services and benefits do not lead to categorical eligibility for Food Stamps. As a result, HHS issued guidance prohibiting States from continuing to use the “primary program” allocation methodology. On September 30, 1998, the Office of Grants and Acquisition Management
(OGAM)in HHS issued OGAM Action Transmittal
(AT)98-2 which required States to allocate costs to each “benefiting program” in accordance with the provisions in OMB Circular A-87. According to the instructions and rationale in OGAM AT 98-2, “Cost shifting (to a primary program) is not permitted by most program statutes, except where there is a specific legislative provision allowing such cost shifting. While the former AFDC program allowed such an exception, the TANF legislation that replaced AFDC does not permit it being designated as the sole benefiting or primary program.” All States submitted revised cost allocation plans to comply with this policy and since then have continued to allocate Medicaid, Food Stamp and TANF costs in accordance with a “benefiting” methodology. Six States filed suit in District Court to prevent HHS from enforcing OGAM AT 98-2 ( *State of Arizona, et al.* , v. *Tommy G. Thompson* ). The States alleged that they incur common administrative costs that benefit the TANF, Medicaid, and Food Stamp programs and contended that the “grandfather provision” under 42 U.S.C. 604(a)(2) permits them to use TANF grants as they did under the AFDC program. Section 604(a)(2) provides that States may use Federal TANF funds in any manner that the State was authorized to use Federal funds received under the State's former AFDC program, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training
(JOBS)program or the Emergency Assistance program in effect as of either September 30, 1995 or August 21, 1996, whichever date the State has elected. The District Court upheld the Department's position. However, the States appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Court of Appeals). The Court of Appeals decided, on March 5, 2002, that the TANF legislation does not require HHS to conclude that States are prohibited from using the “primary program” cost allocation methodology. The Appeals Court found: “the background against which Congress enacted welfare reform included both Circular A-87's general principle of benefiting program allocation and its well-recognized exception for the AFDC program.” However, the Court left open the possibility that HHS could, in the exercise of its rulemaking discretion, prospectively prescribe that States use the “benefiting program” method to allocate common costs among programs. (281 F.3d 248 (DC Cir. 2002)). III. Discussion of Regulatory Provisions We propose to add the following new section to Part 263, Subpart B of the TANF regulations. Section 263.14 What methodology shall a State use to allocate Federal TANF costs? In light of the Appeal Court's decision that PRWORA does not preclude a State's use of “primary program” cost allocation, we propose to require that States, the District of Columbia and the Territories (hereinafter referred to as the “States”) shall use only the “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology. Requiring a “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology is consistent with the TANF final rules which make the TANF program subject to 45 CFR Part 92 and includes the cost principles of OMB Circular A-87. One of the fundamental Federal appropriation principles at 31 U.S.C. 1301(a) states that appropriations can only be used for the purposes for which they were appropriated, unless otherwise provided by law. OMB Circular A-87 reflects this principle by requiring “benefiting program” cost allocation. The overall purpose of OMB Circular A-87 is to achieve more efficient and uniform administration of Federal awards and to provide the foundation for greater uniformity in the costing procedures of non-Federal governments. Without an explicit legislative provision permitting “primary program” cost allocation, we believe it would be inconsistent with and contrary to these appropriation principles to allow TANF funds to be used to pay for costs allocable to other programs. Since the decision of the Appeals Court, no State has submitted a revised “primary program” cost allocation plan for allocating the common costs of determining eligibility or case maintenance for TANF, Food Stamps and Medicaid to HHS for approval. These were the primary common costs previously claimed and allowed under a “primary program” cost allocation methodology under the former AFDC program. We believe these are the common costs that could be claimed under the “grandfather” provision of 42 U.S.C. 604(a)(2), if a “primary program” cost allocation method were allowed. Because TANF eligibility no longer automatically makes a family eligible for Medicaid, and eligibility for certain TANF services and benefits do not lead to categorical eligibility for Food Stamps, the common costs of eligibility among the three programs also is now limited. This and the 15 percent administrative cost cap under the TANF block grant severely restricts the value of using a “primary program” cost allocation methodology. Therefore, we are exercising the Secretary's discretion to require a “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology under TANF in accordance with OMB Circular A-87. This proposed rule, if finalized, will require States to make no changes to their TANF cost allocation plans, but instead will affirm and lock in place current cost allocation practice. Under the President's Management Agenda of improved accountability, each program needs to know its full costs using consistent and comparable data to assess program trends and measure performance. Appropriate program and funding decisions, both now and in the future, must be based on the knowledge and accounting of total program costs, including those costs incurred under a consistent benefiting program methodology. Under the proposed rule, we would no longer permit an exception to the benefiting program cost allocation methodology generally required under OMB Circular A-87 (as permitted for the AFDC program prior to the enactment of the TANF program). Thus, HHS will disapprove any TANF cost allocation amendments proposing a “primary program” cost allocation methodology. IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This proposed rule contains no new information collection activities that are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, codified at 44 U.S.C. 3507. V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on State governments. State governments are not considered small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. This rule is considered a “significant regulatory action” under the Executive Order, and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Since all States should be using a “benefiting program” cost allocation methodology under TANF, we believe the impact of this proposed rule is minimal. We do not believe the proposed policy will have a significant negative impact or reduce potential Federal reimbursement. Funding for TANF is a fixed block grant amount that is not affected by the allocation method. We welcome comments on our analysis and other circumstances that could impact on States and urge States to consider the interaction of the proposed policy on their operations. We will carefully consider these comments as we finalize the regulations. VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The Department has determined that this rule would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. VIII. Congressional Review This regulation is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8. IX. Assessment of Federal Regulation and Policies on Families Section 654 of The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations will not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation. X. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 “Federalism” requires that Federal agencies consult with State and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with Federalism implications. We solicit and welcome comments from State and local government officials on this proposed rule, consistent with Executive Order 13132. List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 263 Grant programs—Federal aid programs, Penalties, Public assistance programs—Welfare programs. Dated: July 5, 2006. Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: July 7, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Administration for Children and Families proposes to amend 45 CFR chapter II to read as follows: PART 263—EXPENDITURES OF STATE AND FEDERAL TANF FUNDS 1. The authority citation for 45 CFR part 263 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 604, 607, 609, and 862a. 2. Add section 263.14 to subpart B to read as follows: § 263.14 What methodology shall a State or Territory use to allocate TANF costs? A State or Territory shall use a benefiting program cost allocation methodology consistent with the general requirements of OMB Circular A-87 to allocate TANF costs. [FR Doc. E6-15852 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-106] Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. SUMMARY: This document corrects a proposed rule published in the **Federal Register** of September 13, 2006, regarding Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities. This correction clarifies text that was revised or omitted when previously published in the **Federal Register** . DATES: Comments are due on or before October 30, 2006. Reply comments are due on or before November 13, 2006. Written Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)comments on the proposed information collection requirements should be submitted on or before November 13, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Chandler, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at
(202)418-1475 (voice),
(202)418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at *Thomas.Chandler@fcc.gov.* Correction In proposed rule FR Doc. E6-14901, beginning on pages 54009 and 54010 in the issue of September 13, 2006, make the following corrections: 1. On page 54009, in the 2nd column, correct the ADDRESSES section as follows: ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [CG Docket number 03-123 and/or FCC Number 06-106], by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *People with Disabilities:* Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: *FCC504@fcc.gov* or phone
(202)418-0539 or TTY:
(202)418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, you may submit your PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. postal mail. To submit your comments by e-mail send them to *PRA@fcc.gov,* and to Allison E. Zaleski, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to *Allison_E._Zaleski@omb.eop.gov,* or via fax at
(202)395-6466. To submit your comments by U.S. postal mail, mark it to the attention of Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-C216, Washington, DC 20554. 2. On page 54010, in the 2nd and 3rd columns, where it reads Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis, correct as follows: Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis The *2006 Cost Recovery FNPRM* contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comment are due November 27, 2006. Comments should address:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” *OMB Control Number:* 3060-0463. *Title:* Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, *2006 Cost Recovery Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-106. *Form Number:* N/A. *Type of Review:* Revision of currently approved collection. *Number of Respondents:* 5,098. *Number of Responses:* 5,285. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit entities; and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Time per response:* 10 hours—1,000 hours. *Frequency of Response:* Annual and on occasion reporting requirements; Recordkeeping; Third party disclosure. *Total Annual Hourly Burden:* 37,757. *Total Annual Costs:* $0.00. *Privacy Act Impact Assessment:* No impact(s). *Needs and Uses:* On December 21, 2001, the Commission released the *2001 TRS Cost Recovery MO&O & FNPRM,* In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Recommended TRS Cost Recovery Guideline, CC Docket No. 98-67, FCC 01-371. In the 2001 TRS Cost Recovery MO&O & *FNPRM* , the Commission directed the TRS administrator to continue applying the average per minute compensation methodology to develop traditional TRS compensation rates; required TRS providers to submit certain TRS-related costs and demand data to TRS Fund administrator; and directed the TRS administrator to expand the TRS Center Data Request, a form for providers to itemize their actual and projected cost and demand data, to include specific sections to capture STS and VRS costs and minutes of use. On October 25, 2002, the Commission released the *Fifth Report and Order on TRS,* In the Matter of Telecommunications Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, CC Docket Nos. 90-571 & 98-67, FCC 02-269. In the *Fifth Report and Order on TRS,* the Commission concluded that carriers need not provide coin sent-paid TRS calls from payphones because it was infeasible to provide coin sent-paid relay service through payphones at that time, and coin sent-paid functionality was not necessary to achieve functional equivalence. Further, in the *Fifth Report and Order on TRS,* the Commission required TRS providers to submit a one-time report to the Commission, detailing the steps taken to comply with the consumer education recommendations contained in the *Fifth Report and Order on TRS.* The submission of a one-time report has been completed, thus the TRS providers are no longer required to submit a report in compliance of the *Fifth Report and Order on TRS.* On July 20, 2006, the Commission released a *2006 Cost Recovery FNPRM,* In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-106. The Commission seeks comment on a broad range of issues concerning the compensation of providers of TRS from the Interstate TRS Fund (Fund). In the *2006 Cost Recovery FNPRM,* the Commission seeks comment on:
(1)Hamilton's proposed “MARS” plan and alternative cost recovery methodologies for traditional TRS, STS and Internet Protocol
(IP)Relay, including any possible changes to the existing TRS Center Data Request form;
(2)appropriate cost recovery methodology for VRS, including possible changes to the existing TRS Center Data Request form; and
(3)the basis of “reasonable” costs of providing all forms of TRS that should be compensable under present cost recovery methodology, including marketing and outreach expenses, overhead costs and executive compensation. The * 2006 Cost Recovery FNPRM* proposes a reporting requirement that certified state TRS programs would be required to submit rate data to the Commission, either annually or for a multi-year period, for their respective intrastate traditional TRS and STS services. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-8180 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
register
U.S. Code
- Purposes§ 3501
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Tolerances and exemptions for pesticide chemical residues§ 346a
- Adulterated food§ 342
- Prohibited acts§ 331
- Definitions§ 136
- Definitions§ 601
- Definitions; generally§ 321
- Definitions§ 9601
- National contingency plan§ 9605
- Oil and hazardous substance liability§ 1321
- Rules and regulations; impact analyses of Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations on small rural hospitals§ 1302
- Limitation on Federal authority§ 617
- Penalties§ 609
- Use of grants§ 604
- Application§ 1301
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
44 references not yet in our index
- 40 CFR 82
- 40 CFR 2
- 40 CFR 9
- Pub. L. 104-4
- Pub. L. 104-113
- 40 CFR 180
- 40 CFR 180.274
- 40 CFR 180.274(a)
- 40 CFR 180.278
- 40 CFR 180.278(a)
- 40 CFR 180.314(c)
- 40 CFR 180.314(a)
- 40 CFR 180.1(h)
- 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3)
- 40 CFR 180.339(a)
- 40 CFR 180.339(b)
- 40 CFR 180.339
- 40 CFR 180.339(a)(1)
- Pub. L. 104-170
- 40 CFR 180.6
- 40 CFR 180.6(b)
- 40 CFR 300
- 42 USC 9601-9675
- Pub. L. 99-499
- 100 Stat. 1613
- 40 CFR 300.425(c)
- 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2)
- 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3)
- 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1)
- 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)
- 40 CFR 300.5
- 40 CFR 300.425(e)
- 849 F.2d 1516
- 42 USC 9601-9657
- 45 CFR 263
- 2 CFR 225
- 45 CFR 263.11
- 281 F.3d 248
- Pub. L. 104-193
- 45 CFR 92
+ 4 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
F. App'x849 F.2d 1516
F. App'x281 F.3d 248
Cite40 CFR 82
Cites 71 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources