issue-1995-11-15•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-15
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-15
issue-1995-11-15Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-15Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-28243 Fish and Wildlife Service, General Provisions and General Permit Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 57386-57387] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 95-28243] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 10, 13 and 17 RIN 1018-AC57 Fish and Wildlife Service, General Provisions and General Permit Procedures AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule notice of reopening of comment period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On September 5, 1995 regulations providing for uniform rules and procedures for general permit procedures, as published in the Federal Register (60 FR 46087) the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a proposed rule to amend regulations providing for general permit procedures. The Service hereby provides notice that the comment period on the proposal is [[Page 57387]] reopened. All interested parties are invited to submit comments on this proposal. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 16, 1996. ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 3247, Arlington, Virginia 22203-3247. Comments and materials may be hand- delivered to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 500, Arlington, Virginia, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Striegler, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, Division of Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240, Telephone number (703) 358-1949 or Maggie Tieger, Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of the Management Authority, Telephone Number (703) 358-2104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comment period is being extended to allow interested parties time for consideration and review of the proposed rule. Supplementary information and the full text of the proposed rule appears in the Federal Register of September 5, 1995, (60 FR 46087). George T. Frampton Jr., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 95-28243 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28210 Disclosure and Amendment of Records Under the Privacy Act
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57372-57373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28210]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 2607
RIN 1212-63
Disclosure and Amendment of Records Under the Privacy Act
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is proposing to amend
its regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, to
describe more accurately the exemption applicable to certain records
maintained by the PBGC in view of changes to PBGC's Privacy Act systems
of records. The PBGC also is proposing an amendment to increase its
standard copying fee in view of increased costs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Office of the General Counsel,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20005-4026, or hand-delivered to Suite 340 at the above address
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments will
be available for inspection at the PBGC's Communications and Public
Affairs Department, Suite 240, at the above address between 9:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Bruce Campbell, Attorney, Office of
the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4123 (202-326-4179 for
TTY and TDD). (These are not toll-free numbers.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's rules implementing the Privacy
Act of 1974, as amended (``Privacy Act'') (5 U.S.C. 552a) (1) establish
procedures whereby an individual can determine whether the PBGC
maintains any system of records that contains a record pertaining to
him or her, access that record, and seek to amend that record (29 CFR
Secs. 2607.3-2607.8), (2) establish fees for making copies of records
(29 CFR Sec. 2607.9), and (3) exempt a system of records from certain
Privacy Act provisions (29 CFR Sec. 2607.10).
The PBGC is proposing to amend Sec. 2607.9(a) by increasing, from
$0.10 to $0.15 per page, the fee it charges for record copies furnished
to individuals. The PBGC will maintain the current exception for record
copies of fewer than 10 pages by increasing from $1.00 to $1.50 the
threshold amount under which the agency does not assess a fee. The
proposed fee, which is the same as the PBGC's standard fee for copies
furnished under the Freedom of Information Act (see 29 CFR
2603.52(b)(2)), will reflect current costs more accurately. The current
fee was established in 1975.
The PBGC is dividing an existing Privacy Act system of records into
two systems of records, PBGC-5 (retitled Personnel Files--PBGC) and
PBGC-12 (Personnel Security Investigation Records--PBGC). (The PBGC's
notice of changes to its system of records, including proposed new and
revised routine uses of records, appears elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.) The PBGC proposes to amend Sec. 2607.10 to exempt PBGC-12
from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because the records to which
the exemption pertains will be maintained in PBGC-12 instead of PBGC-5.
E.O. 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Based on fees assessed in the past, the PBGC estimates that the
copying fee increase under the proposed rule will raise the total
amount of fees assessed annually by less than $1,000. In view of the
small increase in anticipated costs, the PBGC certifies that the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), does not apply
because the proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2607
Privacy.
For the reasons set forth above, the PBGC is proposing to amend 29
CFR Part 2607 as follows:
PART 2607--DISCLOSURE AND AMENDMENT OF RECORDS UNDER THE PRIVACY
ACT
1. The authority citation for Part 2607 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
Sec. 2607.1 [Amended]
2. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 2607.1 is amended by removing ``which''
and adding, in its place, ``that'' and by adding ``or her'' after
``his'' in the first sentence.
Sec. 2607.2 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 2607.2, the definition of record is amended by adding
``or her'' after ``his'' both times it appears.
[[Page 57373]]
Secs. 2607.3-2607.9 [Amended]
4. Sections 2607.3(a) and (c), 2607.4(a) and (c), 2607.5(a),
2607.6(c), 2607.7(b) and (c), and 2607.8(b) and (c) and the
introductory text of Sec. 2607.9 are amended by adding ``or her'' after
``his'' and after ``him'' each time either ``his'' or ``him'' appears.
5. The second sentence of Sec. 2607.3(b), the second sentence of
Sec. 2607.4(b), and the third sentence of Sec. 2607.6(b) are amended by
removing ``he'' and adding, in its place, ``the disclosure officer''.
6. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 2607.4 is amended by adding ``or she''
after ``he''.
7. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 2607.5 is amended by removing ``his
choosing'' and adding, in its place, ``his or her choosing''; by
removing ``he shall'' and adding, in its place, ``the requestor
shall''; by removing ``he wishes'' and adding, in its place, ``he or
she wishes''; by removing ``accompany him'' and adding, in its place
``accompany him or her''; by removing ``his record'' and adding, in its
place, ``the record''; and by removing ``to him'' and adding, in its
place, ``to him or her''.
8. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 2607.8 is amended by removing ``If an
individual requests'' and adding, in its place, ``To request''; by
removing ``review, he'' and adding, in its place, ``review, an
individual''; and by removing ``Counsel and he'' and adding, in its
place, ``Counsel, who''.
9. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 2607.9 is amended by removing ``$0.10''
and adding, in its place, ``$0.15'' in the first sentence and by
removing ``$1.00'' and adding, in its place, ``$1.50'' in the second
sentence.
10. In Sec. 2607.10, the first paragraph is amended by adding
``Security Investigation'' after ``Personnel'' and by removing ``that
the identity of the source would be held in confidence'' both times it
appears and adding, in its place, ``of confidentiality''; and the
second paragraph is amended by removing ``for employment'' and adding,
in its place, ``and fitness for PBGC employment, access to information,
and security clearances'' and by adding ``the'' before ``PBGC''.
Issued in Washington, DC this 8th day of November, 1995.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-28210 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28187 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57373-57375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28187]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5326-9]
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's proposal would revise the applicability of the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) emission control
requirements of the standards of performance for new, modified, and
reconstructed small industrial-commercial-institutional steam
generating units (40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc; September 12, 1990, 55 FR
37683) by excluding certain small steam generating units--when
conducting combustion research--from the category of small steam
generating units that are regulated as new sources (see Clean Air Act
section 111(b)(2)). Small steam generating units are units with a
maximum design heat input capacity of 29 megawatts (MW) (100 million
Btu per hour (Btu/hr)), or less, but greater than or equal to 2.9 MW
(10 million Btu/hr). The proposed revisions would encourage the
development of air pollution control technology that will ultimately
result in reduced air emissions from all steam generating units.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 2,
1996.
Public Hearing. If anyone requests to speak at a public hearing by
December 15, 1995, a public hearing will be held on December 22, 1995,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Donna Collins at (919) 541-5578 to verify that a
hearing will be held. Assistance will be available for persons with
hearing impairments.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must request to speak at the public hearing by December 15,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted in duplicate to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, The Air and Radiation Docket &
Information Center, 401 M Street, S.W., Room 1500, Mail Code 6102,
Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket Number A-86-02.
Public Hearing. If anyone requests a public hearing, it will be
held at the EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the
hearing or wishing to present oral testimony, should notify Ms. Donna
Collins, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5578.
Docket. Docket Number A-86-02, containing information used in
developing the original standards, is available for public inspection
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
the EPA Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Room 1500,
First Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Copland (919) 541-5265 or Mr.
Fred Porter (919) 541-5251, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The revisions to the applicability of the
SO2 and PM emission control requirements of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Dc are being proposed pursuant to a settlement agreement that
would resolve litigation in the case of Babcock and Wilcox Company v.
U.S. EPA, No. 90-1509 (D.C.Cir.). Notice of the proposed settlement was
published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1994 (59 FR 15728) in
accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act. There was only one
comment and it supported the proposed settlement.
Final adoption of today's proposal, which solicits comments on the
appropriateness of the proposed revisions to the applicability of the
SO2 and PM emission control requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Dc,
is contingent upon EPA's review of any comments submitted in response
to this notice. As discussed below, today's proposal is intended to
revise the applicability requirements primarily for a small steam
generating unit operated by the Babcock and Wilcox Company. This steam
generating unit is occasionally used for combustion research to
evaluate the performance of and to develop unproven combustion
technologies. The applicability requirements would be revised, however,
to apply to any small steam generating unit used for research purposes
which operates in a manner similar to the unit operated by the Babcock
and Wilcox Company. There may be other small steam generating
[[Page 57374]]
units also used to evaluate the performance of and to develop unproven
combustion technologies and EPA solicits comments on both the merits
and means of extending these revised applicability requirements to
these units.
The Babcock and Wilcox Company challenged the New Source
Performance Standards' emission control requirements for small-scale,
intermittently-operated steam generating research units, because such
steam generating units are often equipped with experimental, and as yet
unproven, air pollution control technology that may not consistently
meet the required standards of performance. Babcock & Wilcox Company,
therefore, maintains that compliance with the standards of performance
when conducting combustion research (that is used to evaluate the
performance of and to develop unproven combustion technologies) would
create serious start up and shut down problems during test runs and
would hinder the purpose of the tests of obtaining useful data within
normal operating ranges. The Babcock and Wilcox Company, Research &
Development Division, conducts research, development, experimentation,
and testing of small-scale burners, boilers, processes, and special
equipment arrangements in combustion devices for the purpose of
producing data and information necessary to evaluate the performance of
and to develop unproven combustion technologies. The data and
information are used by The Babcock and Wilcox Company, by the EPA, the
Department of Energy, and others to, among other things, ascertain the
technological achievability of air pollution emission control
standards.
EPA initially rejected The Babcock and Wilcox Company's request--in
its comments to the June 9, 1989 proposed standards of performance (54
FR 24792)--for an exemption for small steam generating units conducting
combustion research, because EPA's research showed that the impacts of
the promulgated standards, including the allowable emissions, potential
emission reductions and compliance costs, were reasonable for
intermittently or infrequently operated steam generating units,
irrespective of whether such units were used for combustion research.
Nevertheless, EPA has agreed to revise the applicability of the
SO2 and PM emission control requirements of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart Dc because of the limited potential impact of combustion
research on the environment: Babcock & Wilcox Company, the petitioner
which requested the revision of the applicability of the standards of
performance, operates a single small steam generating unit for research
purposes, which is used for combustion research less than five percent
of its operating time. Significantly, Babcock and Wilcox Company also
does not use the energy that the steam generating unit produces during
periods of combustion research for any other purpose (such as space
heating, process heating, electric generation, etc.). Accordingly, in
order to minimize the potential for inappropriate claims of combustion
research (potentially undermining EPA's ability to enforce the
standards of performance for small steam generating units), EPA has
conditioned today's proposed exclusion of certain limited combustion
research activities from the standards of performance on the
requirement that a steam generating unit not use the energy produced
during combustion research for other purposes. No other members of the
regulated community have commented on or challenged--at the time of the
June 9, 1989 proposed rule or the September 12, 1990 final rule--the
applicability of the standards of performance to combustion research
(that is used to evaluate the performance of and to develop unproven
combustion technologies) that may also use the energy produced for
other purposes.
Economic and Regulatory Impacts
Today's proposal will impose no additional costs on the regulated
community or the national economy. It would reduce the costs of
compliance for some small steam generating units when conducting
combustion research by not requiring them to comply with the standards
of performance for new, modified, and reconstructed small industrial-
commercial-institutional steam generating units. Accordingly, EPA has
determined that today's proposal: (1) Does not constitute a ``major
rule'' under Executive Order 12291 (the proposal would not result in
any increase in costs or prices and would not disrupt market
competition), (2) does not constitute a substantial revision that would
require an economic impact assessment pursuant to section 317 of the
Clean Air Act, (3) does not constitute a Federal mandate under Title II
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4,
for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector, (4) does
not contain regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments under Title II of UMRA, and (5) would
not affect the public reporting burden for the collection of
information required, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, under the new source performance standards for small steam
generating units.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that these
revisions would not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Not only would today's proposal reduce the
regulatory burden on the small steam generating units source category,
but it has previously been determined that even without today's
proposed revisions the standards would not affect a substantial number
of small entities (55 FR 37682, September 12, 1990).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated October 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth
below.
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414, and 7601(a).
2. Section 60.40c is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) as follows:
Sec. 60.40c Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the
affected facility to which this subpart applies is each steam
generating unit for which construction, modification, or reconstruction
is commenced after June 9, 1989 and that has a maximum design heat
input capacity of 29 megawatts (MW) (100 million Btu per hour (Btu/hr))
or less, but greater than or equal to 2.9 MW (10 million Btu/hr).
* * * * *
(c) Steam generating units which meet the applicability
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section are not subject to the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) or particulate matter (PM) emission limits,
performance testing requirements, or monitoring requirements under this
subpart (Secs. 60.42c, 60.43c, 60.44c, 60.45c, 60.46c, or 60.47c)
during
[[Page 57375]]
periods of combustion research, as defined in Sec. 60.41c.
(d) Any temporary change to an existing steam generating unit for
the purpose of conducting combustion research is not considered a
modification under Sec. 60.14.
3. Section 60.41c is amended by adding the following definition in
alphabetical order:
Sec. 60.41c Definitions.
* * * * *
Combustion Research means the experimental firing of any fuel or
combination of fuels in a steam generating unit for the purpose of
conducting research and development of more efficient combustion or
more effective prevention or control of air pollutant emissions from
combustion, provided that, during these periods of research and
development, the heat generated is not used for any purpose other than
preheating combustion air for use by that steam generating unit (i.e.,
the heat generated is released to the atmosphere without being used for
space heating, process heating, driving pumps, preheating combustion
air for other units, generating electricity, or any other purpose).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-28187 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28184 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4- Propyl-1,3-Dioxolan-2-yl]Methyl]- 1H-1,2,4-Triazole; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57375-57377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28184]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2E4037 and 5E4437/P635; FRL-4983-3]
RIN 2070-AC18
1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4- Propyl-1,3-Dioxolan-2-yl]Methyl]-
1H-1,2,4-Triazole; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish tolerances for residues of the
fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2yl]methyl]-
1H-1,2,4-triazole (also called propiconazole) and its metabolites
determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound
in or on the raw agricultural commodities mint tops (leaves and stems)
at 0.3 part per million (ppm) and mushrooms at 0.1 ppm. The
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) submitted petitions under
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requesting that EPA
establish maximum permissible levels for residues of propiconazole in
or on the commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 2E4037
and 5E4437/P635], must be received on or before December 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Comments and data may
also be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by docket numbers [PP 2E4037 and 5E4437/P635]. Electronic
comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information.'' CBI should not be submitted
through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment 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. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above,
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8783; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted to EPA
pesticide petitions, PP 2E4037 and PP 5E4437, on behalf of the named
Agricultural Experiment Stations. The petitions request that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.434 by
establishing tolerances for residues of 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites
determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound
in or on certain raw agricultural commodities as follows:
1. PP 2E4037. Petition submitted on behalf of the Agricultural
Experiment Station of Oregon proposing a tolerance for mint tops
(leaves and stems) at 0.3 ppm. The petitioner proposed that use of
propiconazole on mint be limited to mint production areas west of the
Cascade Mountains based on the geographical representation of the
residue data submitted. Additional residue data will be required to
expand the area of usage. Persons seeking broader registration should
contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided
above.
2. PP 5E4437. Petition submitted on behalf of the Agricultural
Experiment Station of Pennsylvania proposing a tolerance for mushrooms
at 0.1 ppm.
The scientific data submitted in the petitions and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerances include:
1. A 1-year feeding study with dogs, which were fed diets
containing 0, 5, 50, or 250 ppm, with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL)
of 50 ppm (equivalent to 1.25 mg/kg/day). Mild irritation of stomach
mucosa was observed at the 250- ppm dose level.
2. A developmental toxicity study with rabbits, which were given
gavage doses of 0, 30, 90, or 180 mg/kg/day, with no evidence of
maternal or developmental toxicity observed under the conditions of the
study.
3. A second developmental toxicity study in rabbits, which were
given gavage doses of 0, 100, 250, or 400 mg/kg/day on gestation days 7
through 19, with no developmental toxicity observed under the
conditions of the study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity for this study
is established at 100 mg/kg/day based on decreased food consumption,
weight gain, and an increase in the number of resorptions at the higher
dose levels.
4. A developmental toxicity study with rats, which were given
gavage doses of 0, 30, 100, or 300 mg/kg/day, with no developmental
toxicity observed under the conditions of the
[[Page 57376]]
study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity for this study is established at
100 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain and food consumption
in rats from the high-dose group. The NOEL for fetotoxicity
(ossification retardation) is established at 30 mg/kg/day.
5. A second developmental toxicity study with rats, which were
given gavage doses of 0, 30, 90, or 360/300 mg/kg/day, with a NOEL for
developmental toxicity of 30 mg/kg/day. Evidence of developmental
toxicity observed at the 90 mg/kg/day level includes increased
incidence of unossified sternebrae, rudimentary ribs, and shortened or
absent renal papillae.
6. A two-generation reproduction study with rats, which were fed
diets containing 0, 1, 100, 500, or 2,500 ppm, with no reproductive
effects observed under the conditions of the study. The NOEL for
developmental toxicity is established at 500 ppm (equivalent to 25 mg/
kg/day) based on decreased offspring survival, body weight depression,
and increased incidence of hepatic lesions in rats at the 2,500-ppm
level.
7. A 2-year chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with rats fed
diets containing 0, 100, 500, or 2,500 ppm with a systemic NOEL of 100
ppm (equivalent to 5 mg/kg/day) based on hepatocyte changes in males at
the 500-ppm level and in both sexes at the 2,500-ppm level. There were
no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study.
8. A 2-year chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with mice, which
were fed diets containing 0, 100, 500, or 2,500 ppm, with a systemic
NOEL of 100 ppm (equivalent to 15 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body
weight, and increased liver lesions and liver weight in males. There
was a statistically significant increase in combined adenomas and
carcinomas of the liver in male mice at the 2,500-ppm level (equivalent
to 375 mg/kg/day).
9. A battery of mutagenicity studies to determine propiconazole's
potential for gene mutation, chromosomal aberrations, and other
genotoxic effects were all negative.
Propiconazole is classified as a possible human carcinogen (Group
C) by the Office of Pesticide Programs' Health Effects Division's
Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee. (See the Federal Register of May
25, 1994 (59 FR 26948) for additional information regarding EPA's
evaluation of the carcinogenicity potential of propiconazole.) Based on
the weight of evidence, EPA has, therefore, chosen to use the reference
dose (RfD) to estimate dietary risk from propiconazole residues.
The reference dose is established at 0.013 mg/kg/day, based on a
NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg of body weight/day and an uncertainty factor of 100.
The NOEL is taken from a 1-year feeding study in dogs which
demonstrates irritation of the stomach in males as an endpoint effect.
The Agency has evaluated dietary exposure to the propiconazole residues
based the anticipated residue contribution (ARC) from certain existing
tolerances and the theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from
other existing tolerances and the proposed tolerances for mushrooms and
mint. The TMRC assumes that 100 percent of the crops are treated and
that the resulting residues are at tolerance levels. The ARC estimates
expected dietary exposure based on actual residue levels that are
anticipated on the treated commodities and/or the estimated percent of
the crop treated.
Dietary exposure to residues of propiconazole from existing uses
and the proposed uses on mushrooms and mint is estimated at 0.000630
mg/kg/day (5 percent of the RfD) for the general population, or
0.002020 mg/kg/day (16 percent of the RfD) for nonnursing infants, less
than 1-year-old. The dietary risk assessment indicates that there is no
appreciable risk from established tolerances and the proposed
tolerances for mushrooms and mint.
The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood for
the purposes of the proposed tolerances. Adequate analytical methods
are available for enforcement purposes. Because of the long lead time
from establishing these tolerances to publication of the enforcement
methods in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II, the analytical
methods are being made available to anyone with an interest in
pesticide enforcement when requested from: Calvin Furlow, Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Divisions
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone
number: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202, (703)-305-5937.
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will
occur in meat, milk, poultry or eggs since there are no livestock feed
items associated with the proposed tolerances.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerances established by amending 40 CFR 180 would
protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerances be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
numbers [PP 2E4037 and 5E4437/P635] (including comments and data
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the
[[Page 57377]]
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities
(also known as ``economically significant''); (2) creating serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned
by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 24, 1995,
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, 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 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.434, paragraph (a) is amended in the table therein
by adding and alphabetically inserting an entry for mushrooms, and
paragraph (b) is amended in the table therein by adding and
alphabetically inserting an entry for mint, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.434 1 - [[2 - (2,4 - dichlorophenyl) - 4 - propyl - 1,3 -
dioxolan - 2 - yl]methyl] - 1H - 1,2,4 - triazole; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Mushrooms.................................................. 0.1
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Mint, tops (leaves and stems).............................. 0.3
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-28184 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28183 Hydrochloric Acid; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-To-Know
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57382-57386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28183]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400062; FRL-4045-4]
Hydrochloric Acid; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community
Right-To-Know
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition by proposing to modify the listing
for hydrochloric acid on the list of toxic chemicals subject to section
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
(EPCRA). Specifically, EPA proposes to delete non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid from the list of toxic chemicals subject to section
313. The proposal to delete non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid is
based on the Agency's conclusion that releases of non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid do not cause adverse effects to human health or the
environment under ordinary exposure scenarios, and therefore, do not
meet the section 313(d)(2) criteria. This proposed rule does not
contain an analysis of aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid because they
are not the subject of the petition.
DATES: Written comments must be received by January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: OPPT
Docket Clerk, TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center (NCIC), also
known as, TSCA Public Docket Office (7407), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket Control
Number OPPTS-400062.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments
must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number OPPTS-400062. No confidential business information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in Unit
VII. of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria J. Doa, Petitions Coordinator,
202-260-9592, e-mail: [email protected], for specific
information on this proposed rule, or for more information on EPCRA
section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and
Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This action is taken under sections 313(d) and (e)(1) of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42
U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499).
B. Background
Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals to report their
environmental releases of such chemicals annually. Beginning with the
1991 reporting year, such facilities must also report pollution
prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13106). When enacted,
section 313 established an initial list of toxic chemicals that was
comprised of more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
Hydrochloric acid was included in the initial list of chemicals and
chemical categories. Section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to
or delete chemicals from the list, and sets forth criteria for these
actions. Under section 313(e)(1), any person may petition EPA to add
chemicals to or delete chemicals from the list. EPA has added and
deleted chemicals from the original statutory list. Pursuant to EPCRA
section 313(e)(1), EPA must respond to petitions within 180 days either
by initiating a rulemaking or by publishing an explanation of why the
petition has been denied.
EPA issued a statement of petition policy and guidance in the
Federal Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR 3479), to provide guidance
regarding the recommended content and format for petitions. On May 23,
1991 (56 FR 23703), EPA issued a statement of policy and guidance
regarding the recommended content of petitions to delete individual
members of the section 313 metal compound categories. EPA has published
a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and
(3) criteria for adding and deleting chemicals from the section 313
toxic chemical list (November 30, 1994; 59 FR 61439).
II. Description of Petition and Related Activities
On September 11, 1991, EPA received a petition from BASF
Corporation, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, Monsanto Company, and Vulcan
Materials
[[Page 57383]]
Company to qualify the listing for hydrochloric acid by requiring
release reporting only for hydrochloric acid aerosols and deleting
other forms of hydrochloric acid from the list of chemicals under EPCRA
section 313. The petitioners maintain that non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid do not meet the statutory criteria for acute,
chronic, or environmental effects. For the purposes of this proposal,
EPA considers the term aerosol to cover any generation of airborne
hydrochloric acid (including mists, vapors, gas, or fog) without regard
to particle size.
On February 1, 1993 (58 FR 6609), EPA published a notice announcing
that a public hearing would be held to address petitions to modify the
listings for both hydrochloric and sulfuric acids (on December 24,
1990, a petition was received from the Environmental Policy Center on
behalf of American Cyanamid to modify the listing of sulfuric acid to
include only aerosols). In the February 1, 1993 notice, EPA requested
comment on a number of the issues raised by commenters in response to
the proposed rule to modify the listing for sulfuric acid (July 26,
1991, 56 FR 34156). The Agency believed that these issues would also
apply to hydrochloric acid. Specifically, these issues were: (1) The
extent to which EPA should rely on existing regulatory controls under
other statutes to support a determination that continuous or frequently
recurring releases of these acids are unlikely to cause adverse acute
human health effects or significant adverse environmental effects; (2)
the sufficiency of the evidence required to determine if the non-
aerosol forms of these acids meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) and
(C) criteria; (3) whether EPA should consider accidental release data
in making a finding for environmental effects under EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(C); (4) the relevance of release reporting under other
statutory provisions to the issue of whether non-aerosol forms of these
acids meet the listing criteria; and (5) other reporting options.
The public meeting was held on March 3, 1993. At this meeting, EPA
discussed the specific issues described in the February 1, 1993 notice
and presented data on accidental and routine releases of sulfuric and
hydrochloric acids. Comments were then presented by the public.
Responses to the major issues raised by the comments presented and/or
submitted at the public meeting specific to the listing for
hydrochloric acid will be addressed at the time final regulation is
promulgated. Many of the issues discussed above have been addressed by
the Agency in the final rulemaking delisting non-aerosol forms of
sulfuric acid (June 30, 1995; 60 FR 34182).
III. EPA's Technical Review of Hydrochloric Acid
EPA's technical review of non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid is
detailed in the support document for today's proposal (Technical
Support Document for the Petition to Delist Non-aerosol Forms of
Hydrochloric Acid from EPCRA Section 313, Ref. 1). A summary of the
chemistry, health, and environmental effects associated with non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid follows.
A. Chemistry
Hydrogen chloride is a colorless, corrosive, nonflammable gas,
having a characteristic pungent odor. Aqueous hydrochloric acid (also
commonly known as muriatic acid) refers to solutions of hydrogen
chloride gas in water.
Like all strong acids, hydrogen chloride is virtually completely
dissociated in aqueous solutions. It is the hydrogen ion species that
is responsible for the acidic characteristics of aqueous hydrochloric
acid. Such solutions can be very mild to severe irritants, depending
upon concentration.
B. Toxicological Evaluation
Toxicological data on non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid were
reviewed for evidence indicating acute toxicity, chronic toxicity,
carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental
toxicity, and environmental effects.
1. Acute toxicity. Hydrochloric acid is a strongly acidic,
corrosive substance that is acutely toxic to all human tissue. The
extent of tissue damage is dependent upon concentration (pH) and
duration of exposure, and can range from a mild, transient irritation,
to corrosion, chemical burn, and, in extreme and isolated cases, death.
Non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid pose a significant health hazard
only under aberrant conditions of exposure (e.g., deliberate
ingestion).
2. Chronic toxicity. EPA has not identified any evidence that
indicates that chronic exposures to low doses of non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid at low concentrations in food or water produces
adverse health effects. Chronic exposure to more concentrated forms
(lower pH), may affect metabolism, growth, nutritional status, and
produce lethality. These effects are dependent upon pH.
3. Carcinogenicity. Data available to the Agency are insufficient
to classify the carcinogenic potential of hydrochloric acid. The
currently available animal bioassays are not sufficient for this
purpose, and the available epidemiological evidence is limited. The
total weight of evidence is not strong enough to draw a causal
conclusion.
4. Mutagenicity. The overall weight of evidence suggests that
hydrochloric acid is not mutagenic in vitro. No in vivo mutagenicity
studies on hydrochloric acid have been reported.
5. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. There is insufficient
information to determine whether hydrochloric acid may cause
reproductive or developmental effects in humans.
6. Environmental effects. The pH range of 6.5 to 9.0 corresponds to
the EPA Water Quality Criteria for freshwater organisms. Available data
indicate that non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid can produce acute
effects to freshwater aquatic organisms below pH 5. Chronic exposure of
fish to hydrochloric acid resulted in abnormal behavior and deformed
fish at pH 4.5 and 5.2, but not at pH 5.9; at pH values less than 5.9,
reduction was noted in egg production and egg hatchability.
Hydrochloric acid is not a persistent chemical. In addition,
hydrochloric acid, a very hydrophilic and water soluble substance, is
not expected to undergo bioconcentration or bioaccumulation.
C. Release and Exposure
In making listing determinations under EPCRA section 313, there are
limited circumstances under which it is appropriate for EPA to consider
exposure factors (see 59 FR 61440). The Agency believes that exposure
considerations are appropriate in making determinations (1) under
section 313(d)(2)(A), (2) under section 313(d)(2)(B) for chemicals that
exhibit low to moderately low toxicity based on a hazard assessment
(i.e., those chemicals for which the value of listing under EPCRA
section 313 on hazard alone is marginal), and (3) under section
313(d)(2)(C) for chemicals that are low or moderately ecotoxic or do
not induce well-documented serious adverse effects. The Agency believes
that exposure considerations are not appropriate in making
determinations (1) under section 313(d)(2)(B) for chemicals that
exhibit moderately high to high human toxicity based on a hazard
assessment and (2) under section 313(d)(2)(C) for chemicals that are
highly ecotoxic or induce well-established adverse environmental
effects. Based on its most recent
[[Page 57384]]
assessment, EPA has preliminarily determined that non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid exhibit low chronic human toxicity and moderate
environmental toxicity.
The principle pathways for the release of non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid to the environment include wastewater discharges,
underground injection of dilute solutions, and releases to land.
1. Releases to water. Under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-
1387), parameters such as pH may be subject to both technology-based
and water quality-based limitations. The technology-based limitations
are either derived from nationally applicable effluent guidelines or
pre-treatment standards (many of which limit pH to a range of 6.0 to
9.0) or are based on (1) The permit writer's ``Best Professional
Judgement'' if there is no applicable guideline for a direct discharge
or (2) local pretreatment requirements. Water quality-based limitations
generally are established to ensure that applicable water quality
standards are attained and maintained. Dischargers are typically
subject to monitoring provisions under which permittees are to report
discharges of controlled parameters.
2. Accidental releases to water. Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 42
U.S.C. 9601-9675), a release into the environment of hydrochloric acid
equaling or exceeding 5,000 pounds within a 24-hour period must be
reported to the National Response Center (see 40 CFR part 302). These
release reports are entered into the Emergency Response Notification
System (ERNS) computer data base maintained by EPA. The Agency believes
that although limited to non-coastal regions, the data in ERNS are
representative of spills of hydrochloric acid in the United States from
nontransportation sources. EPA analyzed all releases of hydrochloric
acid reported to ERNS during calendar year 1991 (this analysis is
described in Ref. 1). Of the releases reported to ERNS, only three may
have potentially resulted in adverse environmental effects, i.e. fish-
kills, due to a transient lowering of the pH of the receiving stream.
No data were available to confirm such an impact. As these releases of
hydrochloric acid resulted in only transient lowering of the pH in the
receiving stream, they cannot reasonably be anticipated to have caused
chronic ecotoxicity.
In addition to ERNS, EPA analyzed accidental release data from the
Accidental Release Information Program (ARIP) and the Acute Hazardous
Events Data Base (AHE/DB). Consistent with the ERNS data, the available
information present in ARIP and AHE/DB indicate that accidental
releases of non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid are isolated and
infrequent occurrences. Thus, releases of non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid are not expected to cause significant adverse
ecological effects (a complete discussion of this analysis is provided
in Ref. 1).
3. Underground injection. In the case of underground injection,
regulations promulgated under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j-26,
specify that deep industrial waste disposal must occur in either Class
I or Class V wells. The standards, requirements, and the permitting
process for the design, operation, monitoring, and closure of Class I
wells were designed to prevent contamination of underground sources of
drinking water (USDW).
In addition to controls under the SDWA, regulations issued under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k)
at 40 CFR part 148 allow underground injection into a Class I well of
aqueous wastes with a pH of 2 or less only if the waste is the subject
of a successful ``no migration'' petition. This petition must
demonstrate that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents
for as long as the waste remains hazardous. The petition must also show
that the injected fluid will not migrate within 10,000 years. There is
currently no evidence which indicates that underground injection of
hydrochloric acid into Class I wells would result in such migration.
Injection of hazardous waste into shallow injection wells is
prohibited under RCRA section 3020 and the UIC program of the SDWA (40
CFR 144.13). The disposal of nonhazardous industrial waste, such as
treated hydrochloric acid, into shallow injection wells is the subject
of the Agency's current Class V rulemaking proceedings (EPA published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register of August 28, 1995; 60 FR 44652).
In the interim, such wells are still subject to the prohibition in
section 1422 of the SDWA against any injection which may endanger a
drinking water source, as defined in section 1421(d)(2).
4. Releases to land. Total on-site land releases of hydrochloric
acid reported to the Toxics Release Inventory in 1993 were 359,506
pounds, or 0.16 percent of total on-site releases. Of the off-site
transfers of hydrochloric acid sent from facilities reporting greater
than 100,000 pounds sent off-site (which accounts for 90 percent of all
off-site transfers of hydrochloric acid), 2.3 percent was released to
land off-site. Regulations promulgated under RCRA at 40 CFR 261.22
provide that aqueous wastes that exhibit a pH of less than or equal to
2 are hazardous wastes. Land disposal of such wastes may take place
only after pH adjustment above 2 or a successful ``no migration''
petition. Hydrochloric acid at a pH above 2 is not considered a
hazardous waste under RCRA. Thus, land disposal of hydrochloric acid at
a pH above 2 is not regulated under RCRA at 40 CFR 261.22. There is no
available national information on releases of hydrochloric acid to land
at pHs greater than 2.
C. Summary of Technical Review
Non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid are acutely toxic to human
tissue, producing effects ranging from irritation to corrosion to risk
of early death. The extent of damage, however, is dependent upon
concentration and duration of exposure. EPA's analysis of releases of
non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid indicate that releases will not
result in levels of concern.
The effects produced by chronic exposure to non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid are highly dependent on concentration and duration of
exposure. Non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid cause adverse effects
only at relatively high dose levels. EPA's analysis of releases of non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid indicate that releases will not
result in concentrations of concern.
The data indicate that accidental releases of hydrochloric acid to
surface waters are infrequent and isolated occurrences. In only a few
circumstances could evidence of adverse environmental effects (e.g.,
fish kills) be found.
IV. Rationale for Proposed Modification of the Hydrochloric Acid
Listing
EPA's decision to propose deletion of non-aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid is based on the Agency's evaluation of the toxicity
of non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid and the levels of non-aerosol
forms of hydrochloric acid exposure to which humans and the environment
may be subject.
EPA believes that non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid do not
meet the statutory criteria of section 313(d)(2)(A) regarding acute
human health effects; specifically, that the ``chemical is known to
cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse
acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably
likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of
continuous, or
[[Page 57385]]
frequently recurring, releases.'' Hydrochloric acid's toxic properties
are dependent upon concentration (i.e., pH level) and duration of
exposure. Only under aberrant conditions of exposure (e.g., spills onto
the skin) do concentrated solutions of hydrochloric acid pose a
potentially serious acute health hazard. EPA's review of the toxicity
and exposure information indicates that although hydrochloric acid is
acutely toxic at low pH levels, it is unlikely that persons will be
exposed to acutely toxic concentration levels ``beyond facility site
boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring
releases.''
EPA also believes that non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid do
not meet the criteria of section 313(d)(2)(B) regarding chronic human
health effects; specifically, that the ``chemical is known to cause or
can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans'' certain chronic
health effects (see Unit III.B. of this proposal).
EPA believes that non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid do not
meet the section 313(d)(2)(C) criteria regarding adverse environmental
effects. Although accidental releases of concentrated hydrochloric acid
solutions to surface waters may result in acute ecotoxic effects, such
as fish-kills, the available information indicates that accidental
releases of hydrochloric acid to surface waters are isolated and
infrequent occurrences. As such, the Agency believes that the limited
number of accidental releases of non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid
do not result in significant acute adverse effects on the environment
of sufficient seriousness to warrant continued listing under EPCRA
section 313. In addition, EPA believes that accidental releases of non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid cannot reasonably be anticipated to
induce chronic ecotoxicity because pH excursions are expected to
dissipate rapidly due to the chemical's high solubility in water.
Therefore, the Agency believes that non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric
acid do not meet the listing criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C).
EPA proposes to modify the listing under EPCRA section 313 for
hydrochloric acid by deleting non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid.
EPA's proposal to delete non-aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from
the section 313 list is not meant to suggest that the Agency considers
non-aerosol hydrochloric acid to be a ``safe'' chemical. Rather, this
proposed action reflects the fact that non-aerosol forms of the
chemical do not meet the criteria set forth in EPCRA section 313(d)(2).
Currently, most facilities base their threshold determinations for
reporting under section 313 on the amounts of hydrochloric acid in
solution form manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. If this
proposal were adopted, for purposes of threshold determinations of
hydrochloric acid aerosols for reporting under section 313, a facility
would consider any generation of airborne hydrochloric acid (including
mists, vapors, gas, or fog) without regard to particle size as
manufacture. The quantity of airborne hydrochloric acid manufactured or
processed, not the amount released, would be compared with the 25,000
pound threshold. Any otherwise use of aerosol forms of hydrochloric
acid must also be applied towards the 10,000 pound threshold.
Generation of aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid is expected to occur
from, among other processes, the production or processing of solutions
of hydrochloric acid. However, generation of aerosol forms of
hydrochloric acid from other processes must also be considered.
Although not a factor in the delisting decision, deleting non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from the section 313 list will not
result in any significant reduction in the information now available to
the public concerning spills of hydrochloric acid. Since reporting of
spills under section 313 is only required to be submitted to EPA as
part of an overall annual release number, no direct and immediate
notice to the public of such an accidental release or spill of
hydrochloric acid is available through section 313 reports or through
the TRI data base, i.e., only annual release figures are available.
However, other statutory mechanisms exist by which information on
spills of hydrochloric acid are made available to the public. For
example, hydrochloric acid is listed as a hazardous substance under
CERCLA, 40 CFR 302.4. CERCLA section 103 requires that the person in
charge of a facility or vessel immediately report a release of 5,000
pounds or more of hydrochloric acid (other than a federally permitted
release) to the National Response Center. There is a reduced reporting
requirement for releases determined to be ``continuous and stable in
quantity and rate'' (40 CFR 302.8). Releases of 5,000 pounds or more
also must be reported to State and local authorities under EPCRA
section 304. EPCRA section 304 requires the owner or operator of a
facility to immediately report to the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC) and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
when there is a release of a CERCLA hazardous substance requiring a
report under CERCLA section 103(a) or when there is a release of 1
pound or more of a non-CERCLA Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS)
listed under EPCRA section 302(a). However, section 304 does not apply
``. . . to any release which results in exposure to persons solely
within the site or sites on which a facility is located'' (EPCRA
section 304(a)(4)).
In addition, data on the presence of hydrochloric acid for
emergency planning purposes are already being collected at the local
level. Under sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA, facilities are required to
submit lists and inventories of chemicals on-site to LEPCs to help them
plan for emergencies and inform the public about the types and amounts
of chemicals being handled in their communities.
V. Precedents for Modified Listings
A. Background
There are precedents for qualified chemical listings under EPCRA
section 313. The original list established by Congress contained a
number of qualified listings including: aluminum (fume or dust),
ammonium nitrate (solution), asbestos (friable), yellow or white
phosphorus, vanadium (fume or dust), and zinc (fume or dust). Also, EPA
recently qualified the aluminum oxide listing by exempting non-fibrous
forms of aluminum oxide from the reporting requirements so that only
fibrous aluminum oxide is subject to reporting (40 CFR part 372). EPA
found that there was no evidence that non-fibrous forms of aluminum
oxide cause adverse human health or environmental effects as specified
under section 313. The decision to retain fibrous forms of aluminum
oxide was based on evidence that exposure to fibrous forms of this
chemical can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans. In
addition, EPA recently added a category, water dissociable nitrate
compounds, to the EPCRA section 313 list (59 FR 61460) with a qualifier
that limits reporting to aqueous solutions. The Agency had originally
proposed (59 FR 1825) to list nitrate ion; however, many commenters
argued that what the Agency actually proposed was a category of nitrate
compounds that dissociate in water. EPA agreed with the commenters and
used the qualified category in the final listing. This category
indicates that only water dissociable nitrate compounds that are
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used as an aqueous solution at a
facility are subject to reporting.
[[Page 57386]]
B. Effect of Modifying Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting of
Hydrochloric Acid
If the hydrochloric acid listing is qualified to require reporting
for only hydrochloric acid aerosols, then facilities would determine
their reporting threshold based on how many pounds of hydrochloric acid
aerosols they manufactured, processed, or otherwise used during the
calendar year.
In 1992, 3,281 facilities reported a total of 77.1 million pounds
of hydrochloric acid released to air. EPA estimates that the total
number of reports (Form Rs and certification statements) submitted
after the modification will be between 333 and 1,514 and that the total
amount of releases to air will be between 73.6 and 76.8 million pounds
(Ref. 1). Therefore, modifying the list to cover only hydrochloric acid
aerosols is not expected to result in any appreciable loss of
information on releases of hydrochloric acid to air since, at a
minimum, it is estimated that 95.5 percent of the total air emissions
reported for 1992 would still be captured.
VI. Request for Public Comment
EPA requests general comments on this proposal to delete non-
aerosol forms of hydrochloric acid from the list of toxic chemicals
under EPCRA section 313. Comments should be submitted to the address
listed under the ADDRESSES unit at the front of this document. All
comments must be received by January 16, 1996.
VII. Rulemaking Record
A record, that includes the reference in Unit VIII. below, has been
established for this rulemaking under docket number OPPTS-400062
(including comments and data submitted electronically as described
below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper
versions of electronic comments, which does not include any information
claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 12 noon to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is
located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE-B607,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of any special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
VIII. References
USEPA. 1995. Technical Support Document for the Petition to Delist
Non-aerosol Forms of Hydrochloric Acid from EPCRA Section 313.
IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Pursuant to the
terms of this Executive Order, it has been determined that this
proposed rule is not ``significant'' and therefore not subject to OMB
review.
The cost savings to industry from the modification of the
hydrochloric acid listing is estimated to be between $4.9 and $7.6
million per year. The cost savings to EPA is estimated at $135,000 to
$201,000 per year. The lower bound estimate of the total annual savings
for industry and EPA from the partial delisting of hydrochloric acid is
$5,035,000. The upper bound estimate is $7,801,000 in savings annually.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Agency must
conduct a small business analysis to determine whether a substantial
number of small entities would be significantly affected by the
proposed rule. Because this proposed rule eliminates an existing
requirement, it would result in cost savings to facilities, including
small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not have any information collection
requirements subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA has assessed
the effects of this regulatory action on State, local or tribal
governments, and the private sector. This action does not result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local or tribal
governments, or by anyone in the private sector. The costs associated
with this action are described in the Executive Order 12866 unit above.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Community right-to-know,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.
Dated: November 3, 1995.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 372 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
Sec. 372.65 [Amended]
2. Sections 372.65(a) and (b) are amended by changing the entry for
hydrochloric acid to read ``Hydrochloric acid (acid aerosols including
mists, vapors, gas, fog, and other airborne forms of any particle
size)'' under paragraph (a) and under paragraph (b) for CAS number
entry 7647-01-0.
[FR Doc. 95-28183 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28182 1,2-Ethanediamine, Polymer With Oxirane and Methyloxirane; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57377-57379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28182]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300401; FRL-4985-4]
RIN 2070-AC18
1,2-Ethanediamine, Polymer With Oxirane and Methyloxirane;
Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,2-ethanediamine, polymer
with oxirane and methyloxirane (CAS Reg. No. 26316-40-5) when used as
an inert ingredient (surfactant and dispersing agent) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural
commodities after harvest and to animals, under 40 CFR 180.1001 (c) and
(e). The BASF Corp. requested this proposed regulation pursuant to the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number
[OPP-300401], must be received on or before December 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. All written comments
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [OPP-300401]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Bipin Gandhi, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8380; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BASF Corp., 3000 Continental Drive-
North, Mount Olive, NJ 07828-1234, has submitted a pesticide petition,
PP 5E04579, to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to
section 408(e) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)), propose to amend 40
CFR 180.1001 (c) and (e) by exempting 1,2-ethanediamine, polymer with
oxirane and methyloxirane (CAS Reg. No. 26316-40-5) when used as an
inert ingredient (surfactant and dispersing agent) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural
commodities after harvest and to animals, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and
(e). These inert ingredients meet the definition of polymers under 40
CFR 723.250(b) and the criteria listed in 40 CFR 723.250(e) that define
chemical substances that pose no unreasonable risks under section 5 of
the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA).
[[Page 57378]]
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
such data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for 1,2-ethanediamine,
polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane will need to be submitted. The
rationale for this decision is described below.
In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as
``polymers,'' the Agency has established a set of criteria which
identify categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria
(described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively
unreactive and stable compared to other chemical substances as well as
polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties
generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In
addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known.
The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will
present minimal or no risk.
1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane conforms
to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers:
1. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane is not
a cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a
cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane
contains as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.
3. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane does
not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as
impurities, any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane is not
designed, nor is it reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade,
decompose, or depolymerize.
5. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane is not
manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are
not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or
manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane is not
a water-absorbing polymer.
7. The minimum number-average molecular weight of 1,2-
ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane is 2,800.
Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not
absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights
greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through skin or GI
tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.
8. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane has a
number average molecular weight in the range of 2,800 to 10,000 daltons
and contains less than 10 percent oligomeric material below molecular
weights 500 and less than 25 percent oligomeric material below 1,000
molecular weight.
9. 1,2-Ethanediamine, polymer with oxirane and methyloxirane has a
combined (total) reactive group equivalent weight greater than or equal
to 1,000 for amines as functional groups.
Based on the information above and review of its uses, EPA has
found that, when used in accordance with good agricultural practice,
this ingredient is useful, and a tolerance is not necessary to protect
the public health. Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance be established for the polymer as set forth
below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains the ingredient
listed herein, may request within 30 days after the publication of this
document in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [OPP-300401]. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be available in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300401] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will be placed in the paper copies
of the official rulemaking record which also will include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 2 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance
[[Page 57379]]
requirements do not have an economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Processed foods,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 27, 1995,
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, 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 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.1001 paragraphs (c) and (e) are amended in the
tables therein by adding and alphabetically inserting the inert
ingredient, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
1,2 Ethanediamine, polymer .............. Surfactant, dispersing
with oxirane and agent.
methyloxirane (CAS Reg. No.
26316-40-5) minimum number
average molecular weight
2,800 and the range of
number average molecular
weight is 2,800 to 10,000
daltons.
* * * * * * *
(e) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
1,2 Ethanediamine, polymer .............. Surfactant, dispersing
with oxirane and agent.
methyloxirane (CAS Reg. No.
26316-40-5) minimum number
average molecular weight
2,800 and the range of
number average molecular
weight is 2,800 to 10,000
daltons.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-28182 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28152 RuleNet Communication Program; Fire Protection Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57370-57372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28152]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 15, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57370]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RuleNet Communication Program; Fire Protection Regulations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: RuleNet program: notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the
availability of a new pilot computer based program called ``RuleNet''
to maximize communication between the NRC and the public on rulemaking
issues. The RuleNet pilot will be used initially to gather information
on the safety issue of fire protection at nuclear power plants. RuleNet
will allow participants in an NRC rulemaking proceeding to communicate
both with the NRC and among themselves, with a view toward defining
issues, eliminating misunderstanding, and finding areas of common
ground. In addition to providing the NRC and the public with valuable
information, RuleNet will test the usefulness of computer-based
communications as a tool in the rulemaking process.
DATES: The public can access the RuleNet world wide site beginning
November 20, 1995. Participant registration will be conducted from
November 20, 1995 through January 2, 1996. RuleNet pilot will run from
January 2, 1996 through February 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The world wide web site will be linked to NRC's home page:
http://www.nrc.gov or it may be accessed directly by loading the
following URL:http:/nssc.llnl.gov/RuleNet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Cameron, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is undertaking a project of an
entirely novel kind, designed to use state-of-the-art computer
technology to maximize communication between the NRC and the public on
an important nuclear power plant safety issue, fire protection. This
project, called RuleNet, is intended to serve not only to provide the
NRC and the public with valuable information, but also to test the
usefulness of computer-based communications as a tool in the rulemaking
process.
The concept underlying RuleNet is that computer-based
communications technology makes it possible for participants in an NRC
proceeding to communicate both with the NRC and among themselves, with
a view toward defining issues, eliminating misunderstanding, and
finding areas of common ground.
The issue on which RuleNet will be gathering information is one
that has been of concern to the Commission for some time. The
Commission's overall approach to safety issues in recent years has been
to move in the direction of performance-based regulations and away from
prescriptive regulations. The Commission has already determined that
fire protection is one area in which a shift to performance-based
regulation is appropriate.1 Thus, although a petition was filed in
February 1995, by the Nuclear Energy Institute, asking the Commission
to add a performance-based alternative to the existing prescriptive
regulations, the Commission would be examining the issue of
performance-based fire protection rules even in the absence of such a
petition.2
\1\ On February 4, 1992, the Commission published notice in the
Federal Register, at 57 FR 4166, that it regarded the NRC's fire
protection rules, set forth in appendix R to 10 CFR part 50, as a
candidate for being made less prescriptive, with some requirements
relaxed or eliminated on the basis of cost-benefit considerations.
Later in the same year, the Commission announced its intention to
begin rulemaking to develop a performance-based fire protection
regulation, that would rely in part on risk analyses. 57 FR 55156
(November 24, 1992). Subsequently, the NRC staff published a general
framework for developing performance-based, ``risk-informed''
regulations. 58 FR 6196 (January 27, 1993). At a public workshop
held in April, 1993, the NRC staff invited discussions on this
general regulatory framework and on specific proposals for changing
the appendix R fire protection rules. (The proceedings of the
workshop, including comments from members of the public and the
regulated industry, were documented in NUREG/CP-0129, issued in
September, 1993.) At the workshop, industry representatives
presented their plans for submitting a rulemaking petition to the
NRC. (Such a petition was in fact filed on February 2, 1995.) On May
18, 1994, the Commission approved the policies and framework
proposed by the NRC staff in SECY-94-090 for revising its fire
protection regulations, including the initiation of a staff study to
support the effort. The NRC staff published the petition on June 6,
1994, at 60 FR 29784, received public comment on it, and is
currently reviewing it within the context of the policies and
framework approved by the Commission.
\2\ The RuleNet initiative does not supersede the NEI petition,
which will continue to be considered on its own merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC has already innovated in the area of rulemaking in two
significant ways: Through the concept of ``enhanced participatory
rulemaking,'' designed to promote Early public comment and interaction
on rulemaking issues before a proposed rule is developed; and through
electronic bulletin boards, which allow comments on a proposed rule to
be submitted electronically. RuleNet represents a step toward melding
these two approaches: early public comment and interaction, as in the
enhanced participatory rulemaking, together with communications
technology, developed specially for this purpose, to permit
participants to deal with one another and with the NRC by computer.
(Participants will not be restricted to communication by computer,
however; written comments may be submitted in place of or in addition
to electronic communications.3)
\3\ Written comments will be scanned and placed on the
electronic network for all participants to read. Clearly, therefore,
those who choose to take part through the electronic network will be
in a better position to respond to the views of other participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A comparison with traditional rulemaking, as conceived in the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), may help make clear why this fresh
approach to the rulemaking process has the potential to make the
participation of all interested parties--governmental units, industry,
and members of the public--significantly more effective and
influential.
In the classic model of APA rulemaking, the agency publishes either
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or, eliminating that step,
issues a proposed rule. In the former case, the process is generally
extremely time-consuming; in the latter, there is a
[[Page 57371]]
risk that the agency may be too wedded to the proposed approach to be
able to rethink the issue from the ground up if a wholly new proposal
is submitted by a commenter. In either case, the hub-and-spoke
structure of the process, in which all communication is directed to the
agency, does not tend to encourage interested parties to work among
themselves toward common ground.
The NRC has already made strides to improve on the traditional
rulemaking with innovative procedures, such as workshops in which
different participants interact with agency staff and with each other.
RuleNet represents a further development along those lines. Because
participants can take part from home, workplace, or public library,
this step opens up the process to persons who might otherwise have been
unable to take part. The NRC Headquarters Public Document Room will
also have a computer terminal from which access to RuleNet will be
available.
The capacity of computer technology to improve the current
rulemaking process can be readily illustrated. In a traditional
rulemaking, if a particular matter raises questions in the minds of
participants, they have no recourse other than to point out the issue
in their written comments. If the rulemaking is on a proposed rule, the
commenter may not learn the answer to the question until the final rule
is issued. The computer, however, allows the agency staff to analyze
the comments and questions received, ascertain which questions arise
most often, and then post electronically a list of ``Frequently Asked
Questions'' and their answers. In this way, doubtful points can be
clarified before, not after, comments are filed.
The dialogue through the RuleNet computer network is not intended
to supplant formal comments (submitted in writing or electronically).
Rather, RuleNet is intended to provide additional opportunities for
commenters to provide input to agency personnel before the agency has
developed text on which formal written comments are required to be
filed. This can mean better informed, focused, and influential
comments. Likewise, the ability of commenters to interact among
themselves before comments are filed means that misunderstandings and
miscommunications can be corrected in a timely way. However, because
the electronic communications will contribute to the information base
used by the agency in the rulemaking process, a copy of these
communications will be placed in the rulemaking record.
For facilitating exchanges of views, a central element in the
rulemaking is the ``caucus,'' designed to allow discussions among
subgroups of participants. These caucuses may be of two kinds. First,
participants of similar viewpoints can join together on an issue or
issues to maximize their effectiveness. Second, caucuses can be used to
allow a specific issue to be placed before all participants for highly
focused consideration. In this way, a particular topic can be
considered in detail, the strengths and weaknesses of conflicting
positions can be analyzed, and the possibilities of a compromise
resolution can be explored. Caucusing may take place either separate
from the rulemaking, by the private interaction of participants, or
through the rulemaking's electronic communications, and either with or
without facilitation provided by a contractor.
Such assistance will come from facilitators and/or moderators
supplied through the NRC contract with Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory for technical support on the development of RuleNet. Such
facilitators can serve a variety of functions: Helping to categorize
comments on fire protection issues; helping to maximize the usefulness
of the electronic communications process; and providing assistance to
facilitate on-line and off-line caucuses, including helping
participants to articulate and refine their positions on issues. The
facilitators/moderators themselves will have no stake in the outcome,
however; independent of any of the parties, their role will simply be
to contribute to the smooth and productive functioning of the process.
Computer-based technology can not hope to substitute altogether for
the actual reading of comments submitted by participants (except where
the computer identifies a comment as identical to one previously filed
and analyzed). Computer technology can, however, facilitate greatly the
process of analyzing and tabulating comments. For example, persons
participating electronically may be asked to indicate by clicking
screen icons whether they agree, disagree, agree with qualifications,
etc., with the proposition on which they are commenting. In this way,
rather than the agency characterizing the positions of the
participants, the participants can do so themselves. In addition,
computer technology, searching for specific words and phrases, can make
it easier to find where if at all a participant is addressing a
particular issue in his or her comment.
The electronic forum outlined here points to a potential greater
democratization of the rulemaking process. The individual person with
expertise and good ideas to offer has as much access to the forum as
any governmental unit, corporation, or law firm, and if his or her
thinking is sound, may be just as influential or more so. With
discussions held via computer, rather than in a meeting room in the
Washington, D.C. area, and with access to the forum already available
in millions of homes nationwide (and at terminals in public libraries,
for those who do not already have access elsewhere), there is the
potential to level the playing field to an unprecedented degree.
Phases of the RuleNet Process
As a preliminary step, necessary to allow meaningful participation
in the RuleNet process, the NRC is making relevant information on fire
protection available to all who can use it: that is, both potential
participants and those who want only to observe the process. Toward
this end, the agency has loaded some basic fire protection documents
onto the network in searchable full text form. Specific discussion
topics will be loaded at a later point.
The first phase of the process itself will begin with a ``virtual
kickoff'' in which all participants will be able to communicate in a
simultaneous discussion via computer. This will be followed by a period
of 5 days for any caucuses; for the posting of questions and requests
for clarification, directed either to the NRC or to other participants,
and for the posting of answers to those questions; and for the
identification of any further issues to be addressed, or challenges to
be met, in the rulemaking.
In the second phase of the process, which will comprise
approximately 10 days, the NRC will solicit proposed solutions to the
challenges and issues identified in the first phase. This will also be
the opportunity for participants to respond to comments and suggestions
made during the first phase.
After the second phase, the NRC technical staff, acting with the
assistance of staff supplied by the contractor, will consolidate and
synthesize the challenges and the proposed solutions, using them to
develop more concrete proposals, which will be posted electronically.
The participants will then respond to the proposals just identified. As
before, there will be the opportunity for participants to caucus either
within the electronic rulemaking or outside of it.
[[Page 57372]]
We do not need to decide at this time exactly how many rounds of
comment there will be. One of the advantages of RuleNet's interactive
approach is that the participants can offer their views as to
procedures as well as substance. Accordingly, the agency plans to take
a flexible approach, shaping its procedures as needed to meet the goals
of the process.
Terms of Participation
The electronic network will be available both to those who want to
participate directly in RuleNet and to those who want only to observe
the process. Participants must identify themselves (just as
participants in a written comment process identify themselves). The NRC
fully expects that all participants will recognize that certain norms
of civility will be observed. (In the event that a participant's
conduct was such as to warrant his or her severance from the electronic
dialogue, the option of submitting paper comments would remain, but it
seems unlikely that this issue would ever arise.)
Conclusion
The RuleNet project is one of a number of high performance
computing initiatives advanced by the NRC. It has no costs over and
above those already budgeted for these initiatives generally. Before
the type of electronic exchange being demonstrated in the RuleNet
project became a part of the agency's usual process for the development
of rules, it would have to be shown to be cost-effective.
It is worth emphasizing that in proceeding in this new direction,
using procedures that have not previously been tried by this or any
other federal agency, the NRC is focusing on potential benefits.
Whether those benefits will in fact be realized depends in large part
on the willingness of the affected public--which includes governmental
units, industry, organizations, and individuals--to take part in the
process and attempt to make it work. RuleNet can help establish whether
computer communications technology can make a significant contribution
to the interaction of citizens and a government agency regulating in a
technical field.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of November, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-28152 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28078 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57387-57396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28078]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD29
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed
Ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in cooperation
with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department), proposes to
introduce black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) into Aubrey Valley,
Arizona. This reintroduction is proposed to implement a primary
recovery action for this federally listed endangered species and to
evaluate release techniques. Provided conditions are acceptable,
captive-raised black-footed ferrets that are surplus to the captive
population will be released in 1995, or later, and surplus animals will
be released annually thereafter for several years or until a self-
sustaining population is established. Releases will utilize and refine
reintroduction techniques used at other reintroduction areas. If the
Aubrey Valley program is successful, it is expected that a wild
population will be established within about 5 years. The Aubrey Valley
ferret population is proposed to be designated as a nonessential
experimental population in accordance with section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This population will
be managed in accordance with the provisions of the accompanying
proposed special rule.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by:
January 2, 1996.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held from 7:00 P.M. to
10:00 P.M., on December 12, 1995, at Seligman, Arizona.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to the State Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103,
Phoenix, Arizona 85021. Comments and materials received will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Austin, at the above address,
or telephone 602/640-2720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
1. Legislative: Among the significant changes made in the
Endangered Species Act (Act) by the Amendments of 1982 (Public Law No.
97-304) was the creation of a new section 10(j), which provides for the
designation of specific populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations.'' Under previous authorities in the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) was authorized to reintroduce populations
into unoccupied portions of a listed species' historical range when it
would foster the conservation and recovery of the species. However,
opposition to reintroduction efforts by local citizens, concerned about
the restrictions and prohibitions on Federal and private activities
contained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, severely handicapped the
effectiveness of reintroductions as a management tool. Under section
10(j), reintroduced populations established outside the species'
current range but within its historical range may be designated, at the
discretion of the Service, as ``experimental.'' This designation
increases the Service's flexibility to manage reintroduced populations
of endangered species because experimental populations are treated as
threatened species under the Act, thereby permitting the Service
greater discretion in devising management programs and special
regulations. Per section 4(d) of the Act, such programs and regulations
may be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the
species. In addition, per section 4(d) of the Act, these regulations
may be less restrictive than those for endangered species, and more
compatible with current or planned human activities in the
reintroduction area. For example, for the purposes of the proposed
Aubrey Valley reintroduction, a person may take a ferret in the wild
within the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area provided such
take is incidental as defined under the Act, and if any resulting
injury or mortality was unintentional, and not due to negligent
conduct. The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful
activity. Such conduct will not be considered ``intentional take'' and
the Service will not take legal action for such conduct. However, the
knowing take of a black-footed ferret will result in the referral of
the incident to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
Experimental populations can be determined to be ``essential'' or
``nonessential.'' Nonessential populations are not essential to the
continued existence of the species. The proposed Aubrey Valley
population of black-footed ferrets, if reintroduction is undertaken,
will be designated as a nonessential experimental population according
to the provisions of section 10(j) of the Act.
Nonessential experimental populations located outside of the
National Wildlife Refuge System or National Park System lands are
treated, under section 7 of the Act, as if they were species proposed
for listing. Thus, only two provisions of section 7 would apply to an
experimental population outside of National Wildlife Refuge System and
National Park System lands: Section 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal
agencies to use their authority to conserve listed species; and section
7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on
actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
proposed
[[Page 57388]]
species throughout its range. Section 7 (a)(2) of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies to ensure that their activities are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, would
not apply except on National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park
System lands. Activities undertaken on private lands are not affected
by section 7 of the Act unless they are authorized, funded or carried
out by a Federal agency.
However, pursuant to section 7(a)(2), the individual animals
comprising the designated experimental population may be removed from
an existing source or donor population only after it has been
determined that such removal is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the species. Moreover, removal must be conducted in
accordance with the permitting requirements of 50 CFR 17.22.
2. Biological: The species addressed by this rulemaking is the
black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), an endangered carnivore with a
black face mask, black legs, and a black-tipped tail. Black-footed
ferrets are nearly 60 centimeters (2 feet) in length and weigh up to
1.1 kilogram (2.5 pounds). It is the only ferret species native to
North America.
Historically, the black-footed ferret was found over a wide area,
but it is difficult to make a conclusive statement on its historical
abundance due to its nocturnal and secretive habits. The historical
range of the species, based on specimen collections, includes 12 States
(Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) and the
Canadian Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is prehistoric
evidence of this ferret occurring from the Yukon Territory in Canada to
New Mexico and Texas (Anderson et al. 1986).
Black-footed ferrets primarily prey on prairie dogs and use their
burrows for shelter and denning and depend almost exclusively on
prairie dogs for food and shelter (Henderson et al. 1969, Forrest et
al. 1985). Ferret range is coincident with that of prairie dogs
(Anderson et al. 1986), with no documentation of black-footed ferrets
breeding outside of prairie dog colonies. There are specimen records of
black-footed ferrets from ranges of three species of prairie dogs: The
black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), white-tailed prairie
dog (Cynomys leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni)
(Anderson et al. 1986).
Widespread poisoning of prairie dogs and agricultural cultivation
of their habitat drastically reduced prairie dog abundance and
distribution in the last century. Sylvatic plague, which may have been
introduced to North America around the turn of the century, also
decimated prairie dog numbers, particularly in the southern portions of
their range. The severe decline of prairie dogs nearly resulted in the
extinction of black-footed ferrets. The ferret's decline may be
partially attributable to other factors such as secondary poisoning
from prairie dog toxicants and canine distemper. The black-footed
ferret was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967.
In 1964, a wild population of ferrets was discovered in South
Dakota and studied intensively. This population disappeared from the
wild in 1974, and its last member died in captivity in 1979. The
species was then thought to be extinct until a small population was
discovered in 1981, near Meeteetse, Wyoming. The Meeteetse population
underwent a severe decline in 1985-1986 due to canine distemper.
Eighteen survivors were taken into captivity in 1986-1987 to prevent
the species' extinction and to serve as founder animals for a captive
propagation program for reintroducing the species back into the wild.
Today, the captive population numbers 400 animals in 7 separately
maintained locations.
3. Recovery Efforts: The national recovery objective in the
recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1988) is to ensure immediate survival of the species by--(a)
Increasing the captive population of ferrets to 200 breeding adults by
1991, which has been achieved, (b) Establishing a prebreeding census
population of 1,500 free-ranging breeding adults in 10 or more
different populations, with no fewer than 30 breeding adults in each
population by the year 2010; and (c) Encouraging the widest possible
distribution of reintroduced animals throughout their historic range.
When this national objective is achieved, the black-footed ferret
will be downlisted to a threatened status, assuming that the extinction
rate of established populations remains at or below the rate at which
new populations are established for at least 5 years. Cooperative
efforts to rear black-footed ferrets in captivity have been successful.
In 5 years, the captive population has increased from 18 to over 400
animals. In 1988, this single captive population was divided into five
separate captive subpopulations to prevent the possibility of a single
catastrophic event eliminating the entire captive population. In 1991
and 1992, two additional captive subpopulations were established. Since
a captive population of 240 breeding adults has been achieved, recovery
efforts have advanced to the reintroduction phase of establishing
animals back into the wild.
4. Reintroduction Sites
a. Site Selection Process: The Service, in cooperation with 11
western State wildlife agencies has identified potential ferret
reintroduction sites within the historical range of the species. To
date, reintroductions have occurred in Wyoming, Montana, and South
Dakota. Utah and Colorado are currently identifying potential
reintroduction sites while other western States are in the process of
evaluating additional potential reintroduction sites. Sites are
selected for reintroduction by the Service in coordination with the
Black Footed Ferret Interstate Coordinating Committee.
b. Northwest Arizona/Aubrey Valley Site: The area selected for
reintroduction of the nonessential experimental population of black-
footed ferrets in Arizona is designated as the Aubrey Valley
Experimental Population Area (AVEPA). The AVEPA is located in Coconino
and Yavapai counties in northwestern Arizona. The AVEPA includes the
Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs, from Chino Point, north along
the crest of the Aubrey Cliffs to the southeast boundary of the
Hualapai Indian Reservation. The area's boundary continues southwest
along the Reservation boundary to U.S. Highway Route 66; then southeast
along Route 66 for approximately 5.2 km (3.5 miles) to mile post 116;
then along the 5,300-foot elevation contour east and north of the
Juniper Mountains and then back to the point of origin at Chino Point.
This area encompasses 25,598 hectares (ha) (63,253 acres) of deeded
land and 18,536 ha (45,802 acres) of State trust land for a total of
44,134 ha (109,055 acres). A detailed map showing the location and
delineating the boundaries of the AVEPA accompanies this special rule.
Surveys conducted in 1992 indicate that approximately 6,969 ha
(17,196 acres) of prairie dog towns exist within the AVEPA. Using an
index outlined in Biggins et al. (1989), this area has a current black-
footed ferret family rating of 35, which means that about 35 black-
footed ferrets could potentially be supported at the AVEPA site. The
ferret family rating is a numerical value derived from the acreage and
density of prairie dogs and is used to estimate ferret carrying
capacity of a prairie dog complex. Since 1990, 10 surveys have been
conducted in the Aubrey Valley by Federal agencies for activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
[[Page 57389]]
Federal agency that may affect prairie dog colonies deemed capable of
supporting black-footed ferrets. These surveys did not discover any
evidence of extant black-footed ferrets and it is unlikely that any
wild ferrets exist within the AVEPA. Consequently, the Service
concludes that the reintroduction of ferrets into the site will be
separate and distinct from other existing populations.
Current plans call for releasing ferrets into a subportion of the
AVEPA (within the area considered best for the release). If this
reintroduction is successful, black-footed ferrets will probably
disperse into other areas of the AVEPA. Other individuals will be
released into selected portions of the AVEPA at a later date. Black-
footed ferrets will be released only if biological conditions are
suitable and meet the management framework that has been developed. The
Service will reevaluate the reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA should
any of the following conditions occur:
(1) Failure to maintain black-footed ferret habitat sufficient to
support 30 breeding adults after five years.
(2) Failure to maintain at least 90 percent of prairie dog acreage
known in 1992.
(3) A wild black-footed ferret population is found within the AVEPA
prior to the first breeding season following the initial
reintroduction.
(4) Any active case of canine distemper or other disease is found
in any animal in or near the reintroduction area within six months
prior to the scheduled release.
(5) Fewer than 20 black-footed ferrets are available for the first
release.
(6) Funding is not available to implement the reintroduction plan
in Arizona.
(7) Land ownership changes or cooperators withdraw from the
project.
5. Reintroduction Protocol: The reintroduction protocol involves
releasing approximately 20 or more captive-raised black-footed ferrets
in the first year of the program, and up to 50 or more animals annually
for the next 2 to 4 years. Released animals should be excess to the
needs of the captive breeding program. Hence, the loss of released
animals would unlikely have any impact on the genetic diversity of the
species. Since captive breeding of ferrets will continue, any animal
loss in the reintroduction effort can be replaced. It may be necessary
to release ferrets from other sources, including established
reintroduced populations, to enhance the genetic diversity of the
population.
The Service has implemented several protocols for releasing
captive-reared ferrets back into the wild. There are many factors that
must be considered when determining which reintroduction methodology to
use. A ``hard'' release is when animals are released shortly after
arrival at the release site. A ``soft'' release is when the animals are
supplied with food, shelter, and protection from predators for a period
of time before being released. In either method, ferrets are released
from above ground cages with access to nest boxes underground.
Reintroduction also may be accomplished by releasing preconditioned or
nonconditioned young or adult animals into the wild.
``Preconditioning'' is where captive-bred ferrets are exposed to living
within prairie dog towns which mimic natural conditions. In addition,
it may be necessary to surround each above-ground cage with an electric
fence to prevent damage by livestock or large mammals. The Service will
determine and use the reintroduction method best suited for the
proposed ferret release at the AVEPA.
Released animals will be vaccinated against diseases, including
canine distemper, when a vaccine for distemper is developed for black-
footed ferret use. Measures to reduce predation by coyotes, badgers,
raptors, and other predators will be taken during the initial
reintroduction stage. Habitat conditions will also be monitored during
the reintroduction phase. All released ferrets will be marked and
monitored. Radiotelemetry, spotlight and snow surveys, and visual
sighting techniques will be employed to locate and track released
ferrets.
High mortality (up to 90 percent) is expected among animals during
the first year of release. Captive-bred animals are more susceptible to
predation, starvation, and environmental conditions than wild born
individuals. Mortality is highest during the first month of release. In
the first year of the program, a realistic goal is to have some ferrets
survive the first month in the wild with at least 10 percent of the
animals surviving winter.
From 1982 to 1986, intensive studies were conducted on the
Meeteetse population to establish baseline data to aid future
reintroduction efforts. This baseline data has been supplemented with
biological and behavioral data observed from the South Dakota
population in the 1960's and 1970's. The Wyoming, South Dakota, and
Montana reintroduction programs will also provide additional data for
future releases.
The goal of the Arizona reintroduction effort is the establishment
of a free-ranging population of at least 30 adult animals within the
AVEPA by the year 2000. The Service will monitor the progress of the
project on an annual basis, including all determinable sources of
mortality. The status of the population and the information gained at
this site will be evaluated annually for the first 5 years to determine
future ferret management needs. This 5-year evaluation will not include
an evaluation on whether the ``nonessential experimental'' designation
for the Aubrey Valley population should be changed. The nonessential
designation for this experimental population will remain unchanged
unless the experiment is deemed by the Service to be a failure and the
designation and the animals are withdrawn.
Status of Reintroduced Population
The Aubrey Valley proposed reintroduction is ``nonessential'' to
the continued existence of the black-footed ferret for the following
reasons:
1. The captive breeding population is the primary population and it
has been protected against the threat of extinction from a single
catastrophic event by dividing the population into seven widely
separated subpopulations. Hence, any loss of an experimental population
will not threaten the survival of the species as a whole.
2. Presently, the primary repository of genetic diversity for the
species is the 240 breeding adults in the captive breeding population.
Animals selected for reintroduction purposes should be excess to the
needs of the captive population. Hence, any loss of animals for an
experimental population will not impact the overall genetic diversity
of the species.
3. All animals lost during this reintroduction attempt will be
replaced through captive breeding. Based on current population
dynamics, juvenile ferrets are being produced in excess of the numbers
needed to maintain 240 breeding adults in captivity.
This will be the fourth experimental population of black-footed
ferrets released back into the wild. The other reintroduction efforts
are in Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, and north-central Montana.
Reintroduction of ferrets is important to help ensure the survival of
the species in the wild. Ferrets held in captivity are at risk of
losing behaviorial aspects critical to their survival in the wild.
Consequently, it is important to reintroduce captive-held ferrets as
soon as possible to
[[Page 57390]]
increase the likelihood of successful reintroductions.
Approximately 58 percent of the land in the AVEPA is deeded land
and State trust lands make up the other 42 percent. The nonessential
experimental population designation will facilitate reestablishment of
the species in the wild by alleviating landowner concerns about
possibly restrictive measures that could be taken under the Act. The
nonessential experimental designation is intended to relax regulations
that protect reintroduced populations of endangered species, while
promoting the conservation of this population. The nonessential
designation provides a more flexible management framework for
protecting and recovering black-footed ferrets so that private
landowners can continue their current daily activities.
Attempts to reintroduce ferrets into the wild (in Wyoming, South
Dakota, and Montana) have placed emphasis on developing and improving
reintroduction techniques. This research will lay the groundwork for
ferret reintroduction and management protocol at future release sites.
Thus, failure to establish an Arizona population in the first few years
of the program will not reduce the likelihood of the survival of the
species in the wild. The data obtained from this reintroduction effort
will be used to improve ferret reintroduction techniques in Gunnison's
prairie dog towns. All previous releases have occurred in black-tailed
or white-tailed prairie dog towns.
Location of Reintroduced Population
Under section 10(j) of the Act, an experimental population must be
geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations of the
same species. Since 1987, when the last members of the Meeteetse
population were captured for inclusion in the captive population, no
ferrets have been reported from the wild. There is still the
possibility that ferrets exist in the wild today. Extensive surveys for
black-footed ferrets in the AVEPA were conducted. In addition to these
surveys, many hours were spent surveying prairie dog colonies at the
proposed relocation site; no ferrets or sign have been observed.
Therefore, the Service believes that the reintroduced population will
not overlap with any wild ferrets.
The AVEPA is located in northwestern Arizona and includes the
Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs. The area has geographic
features that may hinder, but not prevent black-footed ferrets from
moving outside of the AVEPA. However, it is unlikely that ferrets would
migrate outside the designated area.
The AVEPA will serve as one of the core recovery areas described in
the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. Following the first release and
prior to the first breeding season, all marked ferrets in the
reintroduction site, but still within the designated experimental
population area, will be considered as the nonessential experimental
population. During and following the first breeding season, all ferrets
located in the AVEPA, including offspring of released ferrets, will be
considered as the nonessential experimental population. It is expected
that all animals will remain in the AVEPA because of prime prairie dog
habitat, their limited home range, and surrounding geographic barriers.
Should any animal leave the AVEPA, the Service and its cooperators may
capture the stray and either return it to the management area,
translocate it to another reintroduction site, or place it in
captivity. If a ferret is found on private lands outside the
reintroduction area (but still within the experimental population
site), the landowner will be contacted and the animal will be removed
at the request of the landowner. If the landowner has no objection to
the ferret remaining on his/her property, the animal will not be
removed. Black-footed ferrets dispersing into areas outside of the
experimental area will receive full protection under the Act.
All ferrets released in the AVEPA will be marked. If any unmarked
animals are found following the first release and prior to the first
breeding season, a concerted effort will be made to determine the
source of such ferrets. A search will be undertaken to determine
whether a wild population exists in the area. Any ferret occurring
outside the AVEPA would be considered as endangered, but it could be
captured for genetic testing. If the animal is determined to be from
the experimental population, it will either be returned to the AVEPA,
held in captivity, or released at another reintroduction site. If the
captured animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to ferrets
from the experimental population (possibly a wild animal), it can be
captured for use in the captive breeding program. Under the existing
contingency plan, up to nine such ferrets can be captured for the
captive population. If a landowner outside the experimental population
area wishes to retain the black-footed ferret(s) on his or her
property, a conservation agreement or easement will be arranged.
Management
The AVEPA reintroduction will be undertaken by the Service in
cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Navajo
Nation, and the Arizona State Land Department (in accordance with the
Cooperative Reintroduction Plan For Black-footed Ferrets--Aubrey
Valley, Arizona (Belitsky et al. 1994)). Additional considerations
pertinent to reintroduction are discussed below.
1. Monitoring: Various monitoring efforts are planned during the
first 5 years of the program. Prairie dog numbers and their
distribution and monitoring for sylvatic plague will be conducted on an
annual basis. Monitoring for canine distemper will be conducted before
and during the reintroduction. Reintroduced ferrets and their offspring
will be monitored each year, using spotlight surveys and/or
snowtracking surveys. Assuming a few ferrets survive the first winter,
surveys will be conducted to monitor breeding success and the
recruitment of surviving animals . All behaviorial aspects will also be
investigated during the reintroduction phase.
The Service has requested that the Arizona Game and Fish Department
serve as the primary contact for governmental agencies, private
landowners, and the public within the area affected by the black-footed
ferret reintroduction. The Department will also serve as the primary
contact for any reports on injured or dead ferrets. All reports of any
injured or dead animals should be referred to the State Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona,
telephone (602) 640-2720. The State Supervisor also will notify the
Service's Division of Law Enforcement concerning any dead or injured
ferret.
Ferret populations and their habitat will be monitored annually by
the Service and/or its authorized cooperators to document any hazards
or ongoing activities which would impact black-footed ferrets. When
appropriate, strategies and contingencies to minimize harm to ferrets
will be included in the management plan and implemented by the Service.
The Service and its cooperators will keep other agencies and the
public informed about the presence of black-footed ferrets in the AVEPA
through public outreach programs. Such educational programs will
address the handling of sick or injured ferrets. When dead black-footed
ferrets are found, the carcass should be preserved. The Service
requests that any individual finding a dead ferret not disturb
[[Page 57391]]
potential evidence that may be used to determine cause of death.
Any person locating a dead, injured, or sick black-footed ferret,
or witnessing anyone causing harm or death to a ferret, should
immediately notify the State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Phoenix, Arizona, telephone (602) 640-
2720.
2. Disease Considerations: If an active case of canine distemper is
documented in any wild mammal found in proximity to or within the
reintroduction site (within 6 months prior to the reintroduction), the
reintroduction program will be reevaluated. At least 10 coyotes, and
possibly badgers, will be tested for canine distemper before ferrets
are released at the AVEPA. All persons will be discouraged from
bringing dogs into the AVEPA. Residents and hunters will be encouraged
to vaccinate pets and to report any unusual behavior witnessed in wild
animals or any dead animals that are found within the area. Efforts are
underway to develop an effective canine distemper vaccine for black-
footed ferrets. Routine sampling for sylvatic plague within prairie dog
towns will occur before and during the release.
3. Genetic Considerations: Ferrets selected for the initial
reintroduction will be animals excess to the needs of the captive
populations in order to preserve the genetic diversity of the captive
populations. The genetic diversity found within experimental ferret
reintroductions is usually less than that of the captive populations.
This disparity can be corrected by selecting and reestablishing
breeding ferrets that compensate for any genetic biases in earlier
releases. The ultimate goal is to establish wild ferret populations
that represent the maximum level of genetic diversity.
4. Prairie Dog Management: The Service will work cooperatively with
landowners and land management agencies in the AVEPA to maintain
sufficient prairie dog habitat to support 30 breeding adult
black-footed ferrets, as well as to maintain at least 90 percent of the
prairie dog habitat known in 1992. In areas where prairie dogs are a
nuisance, control programs compatible with ferret recovery objectives
will be implemented. The Service will work cooperatively with the
affected landowners and land management agencies to resolve any prairie
dog management conflicts.
5. Mortality: Only animals surplus to the needs of the captive
breeding program will be used in this reintroduction attempt.
Significant mortality is expected to occur since captive-reared animals
must adapt to the wild. Natural mortality, resulting from predation, a
fluctuating food supply, disease, and the lack of any hunting
experience on the part of the released animals, will be compensated for
through predator and prairie dog management, vaccination, supplemental
feeding, and improved release methods. Human-related mortality may be
reduced through public education efforts. A low level of mortality from
incidental take is expected as a result of designing the reintroduction
program to coincide with traditional land use practices in the
reintroduction site. The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that
is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an
otherwise lawful activity.
A person may take a ferret in the wild within the AVEPA provided
such take is incidental as defined under the Act, and if any resulting
injury or mortality was unintentional, and not due to negligent
conduct. Such conduct will not be considered ``intentional take'' and
the Service will not take legal action for such conduct. However, the
knowing take of a black-footed ferret will result in the referral of
the incident to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. Any take
of black-footed ferrets must be reported immediately to the Service's
State Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
The draft biological opinion prepared for the reintroduction
anticipates an incidental take level of about 12 percent of all
reintroduced ferrets and their offspring. If this level of incidental
take is reached at any time within a given year, the Service in
cooperation with landowners and land managing agencies will conduct an
evaluation of the incidental take and will implement the necessary
measures to reduce the level of incidental take.
6. Special Handling: Under the proposed special rule, Service
employees and their acting agents will be authorized to handle black-
footed ferrets for various reasons: scientific purposes, relocation to
avoid conflict with human activities, recovery efforts, relocation to
future reintroduction sites, aiding sick, injured, or orphaned animals,
and salvaging of dead animals. If a ferret is deemed not fit to remain
in the wild, it will be placed in captivity. The Service will also
determine the placement of all sick, injured, orphaned, and dead
animals.
7. Coordination with Landowners and Land Management: An effort to
identify issues and concerns associated with this proposed ferret
reintroduction was conducted prior to the development of the proposed
rule. The proposed reintroduction has also been discussed with those
potentially affected State agencies and landowners located within the
proposed release site. These affected State agencies and landowners/
managers indicate that they will support the reintroduction if the
released animals are considered to be a nonessential experimental
population.
8. Potential for Conflict with Grazing and Recreational Activities:
Under the current management scheme developed for the AVEPA, conflicts
between grazing and black-footed ferret management are not anticipated.
There will be no additional grazing restrictions other than those
contained in the ``Cooperative Reintroduction Plan for Black-footed
Ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona'' placed on landowners. The
reintroduction plan states that all lands in the management area are
subject to livestock grazing and, to date, no grazing practices have
been observed that will adversely affect ferret habitat. However, the
reintroduction plan does call for working cooperatively with landowners
in the experimental area to maintain at least 90 percent of the prairie
dog habitat known to exist in 1992. No restrictions will be placed on
landowners regarding prairie dog control on private lands within the
experimental population area. In the event that prairie dog control
efforts proposed for private or State trust lands might eliminate the
prey base for established black-footed ferrets in a specific problem
area, State and Federal biologists will determine whether black-footed
ferrets are negatively impacted. Any agent of the Service or the
appropriate State wildlife agency may translocate animals from a
problem area to other areas with less conflict. Big game hunting,
prairie dog shooting, and trapping of furbearers or predators in the
AVEPA are not likely to impact ferrets.
9. Protection of Black-footed Ferrets: Released black-footed
ferrets will need to be protected from natural mortality (predators,
disease, lack of prey base) and from human-related sources of
mortality. Natural mortality will be reduced through improved release
methods, vaccination, predator control, and the management of prairie
dog populations. Human causes of mortality will be minimized by
releasing ferrets in areas with low human population densities and with
little development.
A draft biological opinion was prepared on this proposal for the
reintroduction of black-footed ferrets into the AVEPA. It concluded
that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the species. A final biological opinion will be prepared for the final
rulemaking.
[[Page 57392]]
10. Public Awareness and Cooperation: An extensive educational
effort will be undertaken to inform the public in the region and
nationally about the importance of this reintroduction in the recovery
of the black-footed ferret. This should enhance public awareness of the
significance of the project and gain its support.
11. Overall: The designation of the AVEPA population as a
nonessential experimental population will encourage local cooperation
since this designation will allow for greater flexibility while
conducting normal activities within the release site. The Service
considers the nonessential experimental population designation to be
necessary in order to receive full cooperation from landowners,
agencies, and recreational interests in the affected area. Based on the
above information, and utilizing the best scientific and commercial
data available, (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), the Service finds
that releasing black-footed ferrets into the AVEPA will further the
conservation and recovery of the species.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any action resulting from this proposed
rulemaking to designate the AVEPA population as a nonessential
experimental population be as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or recommendations concerning any aspect of this proposed rule
are hereby invited (see ADDRESSES section) from State, public, and
government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party. Comments should be as specific as possible. Final
promulgation of a rule to implement this proposed action will take into
consideration all comments and any additional information received by
the Service. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs
from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,
if requested within 45 days from date of publication of the proposal.
The Service has arranged for a public hearing to be held on December
12, 1995, from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. with registration beginning at
6:00 P.M. at the Cafetorium, Seligman High School, 500 N. Main Street,
Seligman, Arizona.
National Environmental Policy Act
A draft environmental assessment as defined under the authority of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been prepared and is
available from the Service office identified in the ADDRESSES section.
Required Determinations
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Based on the information discussed in this rule concerning public
projects and private activities within the experimental population
area, significant economic impacts will not result from this action.
Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or
recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this
action, and the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as defined
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
References Cited
Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986.
Paleobiology, biogeography, and systematics of the black-footed
ferret (Mustela nigripes) (Audubon and Bachman), 1851. Great Basin
Naturalist Memoirs 8:11-62.
Anderson, S. 1972. Mammals of Chihuahua--taxonomy and distribution.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 148(2):280-281.
Belitsky, D.W., W.E. Van Pelt, and J.D. Hanna. 1994. A cooperative
reintroduction plan for black-footed ferrets, Aubrey Valley,
Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 33 pp.
Biggins, D., B. Miller, L. Hanebury, B. Oakleaf, A. Farmer, R.
Crete, and A. Dood. 1989. A system for evaluating black-footed
ferret habitat. Unpubl. Rept. for the Black-footed Ferret Interstate
Coordinating Committee. USFWS, Fort Collins, Colorado. 25 pp.
Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell III.
1985. Black-footed ferret habitat: some management and
reintroduction considerations. Wyoming Bureau of Land Management,
Wildlife Technical Bulletin, No. 2. 49 pp.
Henderson, F.R., P.F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. The black-
footed ferret in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks, Tech. Bull. 4:1-36.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Black-footed ferret recovery
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp.
Author
The primary author of this rule is Lorena L.L. Wada (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulations Promulgation
PART 17--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, it is hereby proposed to amend Part 17, Subchapter B
of Chapter I, Title 50 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. It is proposed that Sec. 17.11(h) be amended by revising the
existing entries for the ``Ferret, black-footed'' under ``MAMMALS'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------- population
Historic range where Status When listed Critical habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name endangered or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Ferret, black-footed......... Mustela Western U.S.A., Entire, except E 1, 3, 433, 545, NA.............. NA
nigripes. Western Canada. where listed 546, ______.
as an
experimental
population
below.
[[Page 57393]]
Do....................... ......do....... ......do....... U.S.A. XN 433, 545, 546, NA.............. 17.84(g)
(specified ______.
portions of
WY, MT, SD,
and AZ).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is proposed that 50 CFR 17.84 be amended by revising the text
of paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(g) Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes).
(1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs
(g)(9)(i), (g)(9)(ii), (g)(9)(iii), and (g)(9)(iv) of this section are
nonessential experimental populations. Each of these populations will
be managed in accordance with their respective management plans.
(2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental
population areas except as provided in paragraphs (g)(3), (4), (5), and
(10) of this section.
(3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take black-footed
ferrets in the wild in the experimental population areas.
(4) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate State
wildlife agency, who is designated for such purposes, when acting in
the course of official duties, may take a black-footed ferret in the
wild in the experimental population areas if such action is necessary:
(i) For scientific purposes;
(ii) To relocate a ferret to avoid conflict with human activities;
(iii) To relocate a ferret that has moved outside the
Reintroduction Area when removal is necessary to protect the ferret, or
is requested by an affected landowner or land manager, or whose removal
is requested pursuant to paragraph (g)(13) of this section;
(iv) To relocate ferrets within the experimental population areas
to improve ferret survival and recovery prospects;
(v) To relocate ferrets from the experimental population areas into
other ferret reintroduction areas or captivity;
(vi) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned animal; or
(vii) To salvage a dead specimen for scientific purposes.
(5) A person may take a ferret in the wild within the experimental
population areas, provided such take is incidental to and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity and if
such ferret injury or mortality was unavoidable, unintentional, and did
not result from negligent conduct. Such conduct will not be considered
``knowing take'' for the purposes of this regulation, and the Service
will not take legal action for such conduct. However, knowing take will
be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(6) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (g)(3), (4)(vi) and (vii),
and (5) of this section must be reported immediately to the appropriate
Service Field or State Supervisor, who will determine the disposition
of any live or dead specimens.
(i) Such taking in the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming (telephone: 307/
772-2374).
(ii) Such taking in the Conata Basin/Badlands experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota (telephone:
605/224-8693).
(iii) Such taking in the north-central Montana experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana (telephone: 406/
449-5225).
(iv) Such taking in the Aubrey Valley experimental population area
must be reported to the State Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona (telephone: 602/640-2730).
(7) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any ferret or part thereof
from the experimental population taken in violation of these
regulations or in violation of applicable State fish and wildlife laws
or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
(8) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in
paragraphs (g)(2) and (7) of this section.
(9) The sites for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets are within
the historical range of the species.
(i) The Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area is shown on the
attached map of Wyoming and will be considered the core recovery area
for this species in southeastern Wyoming. The boundaries of the
nonessential experimental population will be that part of Wyoming south
and east of the North Platte River within Natrona, Carbon, and Albany
Counties (see Wyoming map). All marked ferrets found in the wild within
these boundaries prior to the first breeding season following the first
year of releases will constitute the nonessential experimental
population during this period. All ferrets found in the wild within
these boundaries during and after the first breeding season following
the first year of releases will comprise the nonessential experimental
population thereafter.
(ii) The Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area is shown on the
attached map for South Dakota and will be considered the core recovery
area for this species in southwestern South Dakota. The boundaries of
the nonessential experimental population area will be north of State
Highway 44 and BIA Highway 2 east of the Cheyenne River and BIA Highway
41, south of I-90, and west of State Highway 73 within Pennington,
Shannon, and Jackson Counties, South Dakota. Any black-footed ferret
found in the wild within these boundaries will be considered part of
the nonessential experimental population after the first breeding
season following the first year of releases of black-footed ferrets in
the Reintroduction Area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the
experimental population area in South Dakota would initially be
considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic testing.
Disposition of the captured animal may take the following actions if
necessary:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the
[[Page 57394]]
experimental population, it may be returned to the Reintroduction Area
or to a captive facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
nine black-footed ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding
program. If a landowner outside the experimental population area wishes
to retain black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation
agreement or easement may be arranged with the landowner.
(iii) The North-central Montana Reintroduction Area is shown on the
attached map for Montana and will be considered the core recovery area
for this species in north-central Montana. The boundaries of the
nonessential experimental population will be those parts of Phillips
and Blaine Counties, Montana, described as the area bounded on the
north beginning at the northwest corner of the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation on the Milk River; east following the Milk River to the
east Phillips County line; then south along said line to the Missouri
River; then west along the Missouri River to the west boundary of
Phillips County; then north along said county line to the west boundary
of Fort Belknap Indian Reservation; then further north along said
boundary to the point of origin at the Milk River. All marked ferrets
found in the wild within these boundaries prior to the first breeding
season following the first year of releases will constitute the
nonessential experimental population during this period. All ferrets
found in the wild within these boundaries during and after the first
breeding season following the first year of releases will thereafter
comprise the nonessential experimental population. A black-footed
ferret occurring outside the experimental area in Montana would
initially be considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic
testing. Disposition of the captured animal may be done in the
following manner if necessary.
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the experimental population, it would be returned to the Reintroduction
Area or to a captive facility.
(B) If an animal is determined not to be genetically related to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive breeding program.
(iv) The Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area (see Arizona
map) will be considered the core recovery area for this species in
northwestern Arizona. The boundary of the nonessential experimental
population area will be those parts of Coconino and Yavapai Counties
that include the Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs, starting from
Chino Point, north along the crest of the Aubrey Cliffs to the
southeast boundary of the Hualapai Indian Reservation. The area's
boundary continues southwest along the Reservation boundary to U.S.
Highway Route 66; then southeast along Route 66 for approximately 5.2
km (3.5 miles) to mile post 116; then along the 5,300-foot elevation
contour east and north of the Juniper Mountains and then back to the
point of origin at Chino Point. Any black-footed ferrets found in the
wild within these boundaries will be considered part of the
nonessential experimental population after the first breeding season
following the first year of releases of ferrets into the reintroduction
area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the experimental area in
Arizona would initially be considered as endangered but may be captured
for genetic testing. Disposition of the captured animal may take the
following action if necessary:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the experimental population, it may be returned to the reintroduction
area or to a captive facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding program. If a
landowner outside the experimental population area wishes to retain
black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation agreement or
easement may be arranged with the landowner.
(10) The reintroduced populations will be continually monitored
during the life of the project, including the use of radio telemetry
and other remote sensing devices as appropriate. All released animals
will be vaccinated against disease prevalent in mustelids, as
appropriate, prior to release. Any animal that is sick, injured, or
otherwise in need of special care may be captured by authorized
personnel of the Service or appropriate State wildlife agency or their
agents, and given appropriate care. Such an animal may be released back
to the appropriate reintroduction area or another authorized site as
soon as possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it
necessary to return the animal to captivity.
(11) The status of each experimental population will be reevaluated
within the first 5 years after the first year of releases of black-
footed ferrets to determine future management needs. This review will
take into account the reproductive success and movement patterns of the
individuals released into the area, as well as the overall health of
the experimental population and the prairie dog ecosystem in the above
described areas. Once recovery goals are met for delisting the species,
a rule will be proposed to address delisting.
(12) This 5-year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the
``nonessential experimental'' designation for these populations. The
Service does not foresee any likely situation which would call for
altering the nonessential experimental status of any population. Should
any such alteration prove necessary and it results in a substantial
modification to black-footed ferret management on non-Federal lands,
any private landowner who consented to the introduction of black-footed
ferrets on their lands will be permitted to terminate their consent,
and at their request, the ferrets will be relocated pursuant to
paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 17.84 [Amended]
4. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.84 by adding a map to follow the
existing map at the end of paragraph (g).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 57395]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP15NO95.000
[[Page 57396]]
Dated: October 20, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-28078 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28070 3,5-Dichloro-N-(1,1-Dimethyl-2- Propynyl)Benzamide; Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57379-57382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28070]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300402; FRL-4985-6]
RIN 2070-AC18
3,5-Dichloro-N-(1,1-Dimethyl-2- Propynyl)Benzamide; Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA has completed the reregistration process and issued a
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for the pesticide
3,5-dichloro-N- (1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide, also known as
pronamide. In the reregistration process, all information to support a
pesticide's continued registration is reviewed for adequacy and, when
needed, supplemented with new scientific studies. Based on the RED
tolerance assessments for the pesticide chemical subject to this
proposed rule, EPA is proposing the following tolerance actions: to
delete individual tolerances and establish crop-grouping tolerances,
raise some tolerances and lower others, amend an incorrectly listed
tolerance, and modify the statement under 40 CFR 180.317 for the
pesticide pronamide.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the OPP document control number
[OPP-300402], must be received on or before January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments to Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
deliver comments to Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [OPP-300402]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The contact for the chemical listed
above is: Philip Poli, (703)-308-8038; e-mail:
[email protected]. By mail: Special Review and Reregistration
Division (7508W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location: Special Review Branch, Crystal
Station #1, 3rd Floor, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Legal Authorization
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq.)
[[Page 57380]]
authorizes the establishment of tolerances (maximum legal residue
levels) and exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities pursuant
to section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without such tolerances or
exemptions, a food containing pesticide residues is considered to be
``adulterated'' under section 402 of the FFDCA, and hence may not
legally be moved in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). To establish a
tolerance or an exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, EPA must make
a finding that the promulgation of the rule would ``protect the public
health'' (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)). For a pesticide to be sold and
distributed the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances
under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.).
In 1988, Congress amended FIFRA and required EPA to review and
reassess the potential hazards arising from currently registered uses
of pesticides registered prior to November 1, 1984. As part of this
process, the Agency must determine whether a pesticide is eligible for
reregistration and if any subsequent actions are required to fully
attain reregistration status. EPA has chosen to include in the
reregistration process a reassessment of existing tolerances or
exemptions from the need for a tolerance. Through this reassessment
process, EPA can determine whether a tolerance must be amended,
revoked, or established, or whether an exemption from the requirement
of one or more tolerances must be amended or is necessary.
The procedure for establishing, amending, or repealing tolerances
or exemptions from the requirement of tolerances is set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR parts 177 through 180. The
Administrator of EPA or any person may initiate an action proposing to
establish, amend, revoke, or exempt a tolerance for a pesticide
registered for food uses. The proposal must explain the grounds for
such a proposed action and must be published as a public notice. Each
petition or request for a new tolerance, an amendment to an existing
tolerance, or a new exemption from the requirement of a tolerance must
be accompanied by a fee or a request for a waiver of such fee. Current
Agency policy on tolerance actions identified during the reregistration
process is to administratively process without requiring payment of a
fee tolerance actions for revision or revocation of an established
tolerance. Comments submitted in response to the Agency's published
proposals are reviewed; the Agency then publishes its final
determination regarding the specific tolerance actions.
II. Chemical-Specific Information and Proposed Actions
Pronamide: Amendment to 40 CFR 180.317
1. Regulatory background. Pronamide was registered in the United
States in 1972 for use as a herbicide to control grassy and broadleaf
weeds on field, vegetable, and orchard crops, forage and fodder, fallow
land, woody ornamentals, nursery stock, and Christmas tree plantations.
A Registration Standard for pronamide was issued in April 1986.
Under this standard, registrants were required to generate data, supply
missing data, and replace unacceptable data. A Data Call-In was issued
in 1990 for pronamide requiring additional data. The Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) document of May 1994 reflects a reassessment
of all data which were submitted in response to the Registration
Standard and the Data Call-In.
2. Proposed action--Modification of tolerance expression. The
Agency is proposing to modify the 40 CFR 180.317(a) and (b) tolerance
expressions to state that tolerances ``* * * are established for the
combined residues of the herbicide 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1- dimethyl-2-
propynyl)benzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5-
dichlorobenzoyl moiety and calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-
2-propynyl)benzamide) * * *'' to clarify which metabolites of pronamide
are determined by the enforcement methods and are included in the
tolerance expression.
Tolerances Under 40 CFR 180.317(a)
It is the Agency's policy to set a crop group tolerance when there
is an established or proposed tolerance for all of the representative
commodities for a specific group or related commodities. This reduces
the number of tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 and allows the pesticide to
be used on all the commodities in the crop group. The procedures and
data requirements for establishing a group tolerance are described in
40 CFR 180.34(f).
A crop group tolerance of 10 parts per million (ppm) is proposed
for residues of pronamide in/on the forage and hay of the nongrass
animal feeds group. The available data satisfy the requirements for
crop group tolerance establishment. Concomitant with this tolerance
proposal, the established tolerances for ``alfalfa, fresh'', ``alfalfa,
forage'', ``alfalfa, hay'', ``clover'', ``crown vetch'', ``sainfoin'',
and ``trefoil'' will be deleted.
A crop group tolerance of 0.1 ppm is proposed for residues of
pronamide in/on the stone fruits group. Adequate data are available to
support the established tolerances for the representative commodities
cherries, nectarines, peaches, and plums/fresh prunes, all at 0.1 ppm.
Concomitant with this tolerance proposal, the established tolerances
for ``cherries'', ``nectarines'', ``peaches'', and ``plums'' will be
deleted.
The available residue data support a proposal to reduce the
tolerance for residues in/on endive from 2.0 ppm to 1.0 ppm.
As a result of the improvement in the enforcement method for animal
commodities, the Agency is proposing to amend the tolerances for the
kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep from 0.2 ppm
to 0.4 ppm. The improved enforcement method measured a higher
percentage of the residues of concern in the kidney and liver, plus the
residue data reflected an inadequate established tolerance. The Agency
has examined the added dietary exposure as a result of this tolerance
increase. Since exposure to kidney and liver amounts to approximately 5
percent of the total dietary intake, the additional risk is
insignificant. In addition, the tolerance for sheep meat was
incorrectly listed in 40 CFR 180.317(a) as 0.2 ppm and will be changed
to the correct tolerance of 0.02 ppm.
Confirmatory residue data are required for alfalfa seed; once these
data are received the Agency will reassess the tolerance for this
commodity. In the interim, the existing tolerance for alfalfa forage
will support the alfalfa seed use.
Tolerances Under 40 CFR 180.317(b)
Confirmatory residue data are required for dried winter peas; once
these data are received the Agency will reassess the tolerance for this
commodity. In the interim, alternate data from Europe are available to
support the present tolerance on dried winter peas.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments,
information, or data in response to this proposed rule. Comments must
be submitted by January 16, 1996. Comments must bear a notation
indicating the document control number. Three copies of the comments
should be submitted to either
[[Page 57381]]
location listed under ADDRESSES above in this document. Information
submitted as a comment concerning this document may be claimed
confidential by marking any or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI).
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of a comment 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.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 60 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Documents considered and relied upon by EPA pertaining to this
action, and all written comments filed pursuant to this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, between 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. Any person who has
registered, or who has submitted an application for registration under
FIFRA of any of the pesticide chemicals listed in this proposed rule,
may request that this proposal be referred to an advisory committee.
Such a request must be made within 60 days of the publication of this
proposal. To satisfy requirements for analysis specified by Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has considered the
impacts of this proposal.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300402] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule: (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order,
it has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action,'' because it does not meet any of the regulatory-significance
criteria listed above.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), and EPA has determined that it will not have a significant
economic impact on any small businesses, governments, or organizations.
Accordingly, I certify that this proposed rule does not require a
separate regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed regulatory action does not contain any information
collection requirements subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, for State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector because it would not
impose enforceable duties on them.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 1, 1995.
Jack E. Housenger,
Chief, Special Review Branch, Special Review and Reregistration
Division, 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 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. By revising Sec. 180.317 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.317 3,5-Dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide;
tolerances for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
herbicide 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide and its
metabolites (containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl moiety and calculated
as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide) in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apples..................................................... 0.1
Artichokes................................................. 0.1
Blackberries............................................... 0.05
Blueberries................................................ 0.05
Boysenberries.............................................. 0.05
Cattle, fat................................................ 0.02
Cattle, kidney............................................. 0.4
Cattle, liver.............................................. 0.4
Cattle, mbyp (except kidney, liver)........................ 0.02
Cattle, meat............................................... 0.02
[[Page 57382]]
Eggs....................................................... 0.02
Endive (escarole).......................................... 1.0
Goats, fat................................................. 0.02
Goats, kidney.............................................. 0.4
Goats, liver............................................... 0.4
Goats, mbyp (except kidney, liver)......................... 0.02
Goats, meat................................................ 0.02
Grapes..................................................... 0.1
Hogs, fat.................................................. 0.02
Hogs, kidney............................................... 0.4
Hogs, liver................................................ 0.4
Hogs, mbyp (except kidney, liver).......................... 0.02
Hogs, meat................................................. 0.02
Horses, fat................................................ 0.02
Horses, kidney............................................. 0.4
Horses, liver.............................................. 0.4
Horses, mbyp (except kidney, liver)........................ 0.02
Horses, meat............................................... 0.02
Lettuce.................................................... 1.0
Milk....................................................... 0.02
Nongrass animal feeds...................................... 10.0
Pears...................................................... 0.1
Poultry, fat............................................... 0.02
Poultry, kidney............................................ 0.2
Poultry, liver............................................. 0.2
Poultry, mbyp (except kidney, liver)....................... 0.02
Poultry, meat.............................................. 0.02
Raspberries................................................ 0.05
Sheep, fat................................................. 0.02
Sheep, kidney.............................................. 0.4
Sheep, liver............................................... 0.4
Sheep, mbyp (except kidney, liver)......................... 0.02
Sheep, meat................................................ 0.02
Stone fruits............................................... 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Tolerances with regional registrations are established for the
combined residues of the herbicide 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2
propynyl)benzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5
dichlorobenzoyl moiety and calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-
2- propynyl)benzamide) in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peas, dried (winter)....................................... 0.05
Rhubarb.................................................... 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-28070 Filed 11-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.