Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.Start Printed Page 16815
This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Aizawai strain PS811 CryIF insecticidal protein in cotton when applied/used as a plant incorporated protectant. Dow AgroSciences, LLC submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting the temporary/tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus thuringiensis var. Aizawai strain PS811 CryIF insecticidal protein in cotton. The temporary tolerance exemption will expire on May 1, 2005.
This regulation is effective March 31, 2004. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0007, must be received by EPA on or before June 1, 2004.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5412; e-mail address: email@example.com.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 manufacture. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to
- Crop production (NAICS, 111)
- Animal production (NAICS, 112)
- Food manufacturing (NAICS, 311)
- Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS, 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0007. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available on E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of October 9, 2002 (67 FR 62971) (FRL-7196-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 2G6494) by Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Dow AgroSciences, LLC. Comments were received in response to the notice of filing. These comments were from grower groups, state agencies, and academia. All comments were in support of the registration of Dow AgroSciences' stacked gene plant-incorporated protectant.
A one year experimental use permit was issued on April 15, 2003 for CryIAc/CryIF in cotton. On April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23073) (FRL-7302-4), a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (40 CFR 180.1227) was granted for Bacillus thuringiensis var. Aizawai strain PS811 CryIF insecticidal protein in cotton. This tolerance exemption will expire on May 1, 2004. Dow AgroSciences, petitioned the Agency for an amended/extension for the CryIAc/CryIF EUP and the related temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the 2004-2005 planting season.
New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.Start Printed Page 16816
III. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Data were submitted, reviewed, and determined acceptable for product characterization of Cry1F expressed in cotton (construct pAGM281). Adequate product characterization data also were submitted to demonstrate that the Cry1F protein expressed in or on cotton and Cry1F protein expressed in or on corn were the same protein (Ref. 2). The registrant requested that the data submitted for corn (construct PHI 8999) be used to support the acute oral toxicity, in vitro digestibility, and heat stability studies for Cry1F protein expressed in or on cotton based on the substantial similarity to Cry1F protein expressed in corn which is already exempt from the requirement of a tolerance (40 CFR 180.1217). EPA reviewed the product characterization data for both Cry1F expressed in or on cotton and corn and determined that the Cry1F proteins are the same. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the data which supported the tolerance exemption for Cry1F and its genetic material necessary for its production in corn can also support Cry1F and its genetic material necessary for its production in or on cotton.
Adequate data also was submitted to demonstrate that the Cry1F test material derived from microbial cultures was biochemically and, functionally similar to the protein produced by the plant-incorporated protectant expressed in cotton (Ref. 2). Production of microbially-produced protein was chosen in order to obtain sufficient material for testing and because a diet of only cotton seed would not provide an adequate diet for test animals. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel has supported this approach. See Mammalian Toxicity Assessment Guidelines for Protein Plant Pesticides (SAP Report No. 2000-03B, September 28, 2000) at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/June/finbtmamtox.pdf.
Given that the Cry1F protein produced in corn and cotton have been determined to be the same protein, EPA has determined that the acute oral toxicity (MRID numbers 446911-01 and 450201-18), heat stability (MRID numbers 452748-01 and 449717-01), and in vitro digestibility (MRID number 447149-03) studies which support 40 CFR 180.1217 also support this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Although Cry1F expression level data were required for an environmental fate and effects assessment, residue chemistry data were not required for a human health effects assessment of the subject plant-incorporated protectant ingredients because of the lack of mammalian toxicity.
Data were submitted and reviewed which demonstrate the lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure to the pure Cry1F protein (Ref. 3). These data adequately demonstrate the safety of the Cry1F protein at levels well above maximum possible exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in the cotton crops (Ref. 2). This is similar to the Agency position regarding toxicity and the requirement of residue data for the microbial Bacillus thuringiensis products from which this plant-incorporated protectant was derived. See 40 CFR 158.740(b)(2)(i).
For microbial products, further toxicity testing and residue data are riggered by significant acute effects in studies such as the mouse oral toxicity study, to verify the observed effects and clarify the source of these effects (Tiers II and III). Refer to the Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants Reassessment Biopesticide Regulatory Action Document (BRAD) dated October 15, 2001 (Ref. 3).
The acute oral toxicity data (MRID numbers 446911-01 and 450201-18) submitted support the prediction that the Cry1F protein is non-toxic to humans. Male and female mice (5 of each) were dosed with 15% (w/v) of the test substance, which consisted of Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai Cry1F protein at a net concentration of 11.4%. Two doses were administered approximately an hour apart to achieve the dose totaling 33.7 milliliter/kilogram (mL/kg) body weight. Outward clinical signs and body weights were observed and recorded throughout the 14-day study. Gross necropsies performed at the end of the study indicated no findings of toxicity. No mortality or clinical signs were noted during the study. A lethal dose (LD)50 was estimated at greater than 5,050 milligrams (mg)/kg body weight of this microbially produced test material. The actual dose administered contained 576 mg Cry1F protein/kg body weight. At this dose, no LD50 was demonstrated as no toxicity was observed. Cry1F cotton seeds contain 0.0017 to 0.0034 mg of Cry1F/gram of cotton tissue which is a much lower level than the highest no observable effect level.
When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Ref. 1). Therefore, since no effects were shown to be caused by the plant-incorporated protectant, even at relatively high dose levels, the Cry1F protein is not considered toxic. Further, amino acid sequence comparisons showed no similarity between Cry1F protein to known toxic proteins available in public protein data bases.
Since Cry1F is a protein, allergenic sensitivities were considered. Current scientific knowledge suggests that common food allergens tend to be resistant to degradation by heat, acid, and proteases may be glycosylated and present at high concentrations in the food (Ref. 3). Data were submitted and reviewed, and these data demonstrate that the Cry1F protein is rapidly degraded by gastric fluid in vitro and is non-glycosylated. In a solution of Cry1F: Pepsin at a molar ratio of 1:100, complete degradation of Cry1F to amino acids and small peptides occurred in 5 minutes. A heat lability study demonstrated the loss of bioactivity of Cry1F protein to neonate tobacco budworm larvae after 30 minutes at 75°C. Studies submitted to EPA using laboratory animals have not indicated any potential for allergic reactions to Bacillus thuringiensis or its components, including the delta-endotoxin of the crystal protein. Additionally, a comparison of amino acid sequences of known allergens uncovered no evidence of any homology with Cry1F, even at the level of eight contiguous amino acids residues. The potential for the Cry1F protein to be a food allergen is minimal (Ref. 2).
Regarding toxicity to the immune system, the acute oral toxicity data submitted support the prediction that the Cry1F proteins are non-toxic to humans. When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Ref. 1). Therefore, since no effects were shown to be caused by the plant-incorporated protectant, even at relatively high dose levels, the Cry1F protein is not considered toxic.
IV. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or Start Printed Page 16817buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
Dietary exposure. The Agency has considered the product characterization data showing expression levels of Cry1F protein in cotton seed exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in effect for the plant-incorporated protectants' chemical residue, and exposure from non-occupational sources. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is not likely since the plant-incorporated protectant is contained within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces these exposure routes to negligible. Oral exposure, at very low levels, may occur from ingestion of processed cottonseed oils and, potentially, drinking water. However, a lack of mammalian toxicity and the digestibility of the plant-incorporated protectants have been demonstrated. The use sites for the Cry1F protein are all agricultural for control of insects. Therefore, exposure via residential or lawn use to infants and children is not expected. Even if negligible exposure should occur, the Agency concludes that such exposure would present no risk due to the lack of toxicity demonstrated for the Cry1F protein. Refer to the Bacillus thuringiensis Reassessment BRAD dated October 15, 2001.
V. Cumulative Effects
Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v), EPA has considered available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children of such residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity to these plant-incorporated protectants, EPA concludes that there are no cumulative effects for the Cry1F protein.
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
A. Toxicity and Allergenicity Conclusions
The product characterization data are acceptable for Cry1F protein expressed in cotton. The Agency was able to determine that the Cry1F protein expressed in cotton was the same protein as the Cry1F expressed in corn which is covered by an existing tolerance exemption (40 CFR 180.1217). Also the Cry1F protein produced by microbial culture was biochemically and functionally similar to the protein produced by the plant-incorporated protectant in cotton. Therefore, the Agency was able to bridge mammalian toxicity data from a previous submission for Cry1F protein expressed in corn to cover the mammalian toxicity studies required for Cry1F protein expressed in cotton. These studies are the acute oral toxicity (MRID numbers 446911-01 and 450201-18), heat stability, amino acid homology (MRID numbers 452749-01 and 449717-01) and in vitro digestibility (MRID number 447149-03) studies.
The data submitted and cited regarding potential health effects for the Cry1F protein include the characterization of the expressed Cry1F protein in corn, as well as the acute oral toxicity, heat stability, and in vitro digestibility of the proteins. The results of these studies were determined applicable to evaluate human risk and the validity, completeness, and reliability of the available data from the studies were considered.
The acute oral toxicity data submitted supports the prediction that the Cry1F protein would be non-toxic to humans. When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Ref. 1). Since no effects were shown to be caused by Cry1F protein, even at relatively high dose levels (>5,050 mg test substance/kg body weight; 576 mg Cry1F/kg body weight), the Cry1F protein is not considered toxic. This is similar to the Agency position regarding toxicity and the requirement of residue data for the microbial Bacillus thuringiensis products from which this plant-incorporated protectant was derived. See 40 CFR 158.740(b)(2)(i). For microbial products, further toxicity testing and residue data are triggered by significant acute effects in studies such as the mouse oral toxicity study to verify the observed effects and clarify the source of these effects (Tiers II and III).
Although Cry1F expression level data were required for an environmental fate and effects assessment, residue chemistry data were not required for a human health effects assessment of the subject plant-incorporated protectant ingredients because of the lack of mammalian toxicity.
Available information concerning the dietary consumption patterns of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers including infants and children); and safety factors which, in the opinion of experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety of food additives, are generally recognized as appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data. The lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of exposure to the Cry1F protein demonstrates the safety of the product at levels well above possible maximum exposure levels anticipated in the crop. Refer to the Bacillus thuringiensis Reassessment BRAD dated October 15, 2001. Its genetic material necessary for the production of the plant-incorporated protectant active ingredients are the nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) which comprise genetic material encoding these proteins and their regulatory regions.
The genetic material (DNA, RNA) necessary for the production of Cry1F protein in cotton has been exempted under the blanket exemption for all nucleic acids (40 CFR 174.175).
B. Infants and Children Risk Conclusions
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(B)(2)(C) also provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.
In this instance, based on all the available information, the Agency concludes that there is a finding of no toxicity for the Cry1F protein and its genetic material necessary for its production in or on cotton. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and, as a result, the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply. Further, the provisions of consumption patterns, special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply.
C. Overall Safety Conclusion
There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and children, to the Cry1F protein and its genetic material necessary for its production in or on cotton. This includes all anticipated Start Printed Page 16818dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion because, as discussed above, no toxicity to mammals has been observed for the plant-incorporated protectants.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
The pesticidal active ingredients are proteins, derived from sources that are not known to exert an influence on the endocrine system. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine effects of these plant-protectants at this time.
B. Analytical Method
A method for extraction and direct enzyme linked immunosorbent assay analysis of Cry1F in cotton has been submitted (MRID number 458084-23). This method is adequate to support a temporary tolerance exemption.
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
No Codex maximum residue levels exists for the plant-incorporated protectants Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and its genetic material necessary for its production in or on cotton.
VIII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0007 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before June 1, 2004.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (703) 603-0061.
2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VIII.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0007, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: email@example.com. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes an amended/extension exemption from the tolerance requirement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Start Printed Page 16819Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under 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 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). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the tolerance/exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government”. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
X. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
- Environmental protection
- Administrative practice and procedure
- Agricultural commodities
- Pesticides and pests
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: March 11, 2004.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 180—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Section 180.1227 is revised to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein and its genetic material necessary for its production in cotton are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in the food and feed commodity of cotton. This temporary tolerance exemption expires on May 1, 2005.End Supplemental Information
[FR Doc. 04-7077 Filed 3-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S