[Federal Register: August 21, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 162)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 54119-54124]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21au02-12]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-2002-0178; FRL-7192-2]

 
Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes for tolerances for residues of 
clomazone in or on peppermint tops and spearmint tops. Interregional 
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food 
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 21, 2002. Objections and 
requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0178, 
must be received on or before October 21, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by 
mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions 
for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and 
hearing requests must identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0178 in the 
subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Shaja R. Brothers, 
Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 
NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-3194; e-mail 
address: brothers.shaja@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural 
producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 
affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Examples of
           Categories                 NAICS Codes         Potentially
                                                       Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                          111                 Crop production
                                  112                 Animal production
                                  311                 Food manufacturing
                                  32532               Pesticide
                                                       manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations,'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the 
entry for this document under the ``Federal Register--Environmental 
Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings 
at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic 
version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently 
under development.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0178. The official record 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and 
other information related to this action, including any information 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official 
record includes the documents that are physically located in the 
docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for 
inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch 
(PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 
Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 17, 2002 (67 FR 46981) (FRL-7185-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 
346a, as amended by the FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the 
filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E6407) by IR-4, 681 U.S. Highway # 
1 South, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902-3390. This notice included a 
summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant. 
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.425 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide clomazone, 2-(2-
chlorophenyl)methyl-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on peppermint 
tops and spearmint tops at 0.05 part per million (ppm).
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the 
pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures 
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This 
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, 
but does not include

[[Page 54120]]

occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give 
special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the 
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure 
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to 
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of 
the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide 
Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 
408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of clomazone on peppermint tops 
and spearmint tops at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks 
associated with establishing these tolerances follow.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by clomazone is 
discussed in Unit III.A. of the Final Rule on Clomazone Pesticide 
Tolerance published in the Federal Register of Feburary 14, 2001 (66 FR 
10196) (FRL-6764-2).

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from 
the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk 
assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern 
(LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are 
identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no 
NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty 
factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the 
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the 
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well 
as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for 
interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
    For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the 
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or 
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the 
appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is 
retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is 
applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The 
acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a 
modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.
    For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used 
to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X 
to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies 
differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to 
exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and 
compared to the LOC.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method 
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* 
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree 
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which 
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases 
(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10-6 or one in a million). 
Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for 
the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non-linear approach, a 
``point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects 
are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on 
an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different 
value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio 
of the point of departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point of 
departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological 
endpoints for clomazone used for human risk assessment is discussed in 
Unit III.B. of the Final Rule on Clomazone Pesticide Tolerance 
published in the Federal Register of Feburary 14, 2001 (66 FR 10196).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been 
established (40 CFR 180.425) for the residues of clomazone, in or on a 
variety of raw agricultural commodities ranging from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm as 
follows: Snaps beans; cabbage; cottonseed; cucumber; succulent peas; 
peppers; pumpkins; rice grain; rice straw; soybeans; summer squash; 
winter squash; sugar cane; sweet potato; cucurbit vegetables; and 
tuberous and corm vegetables (except potato). Risk assessments were 
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from clomazone in food as 
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for 
a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the 
possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1 day or 
single exposure. The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 
analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by 
respondents in the USDA 1989-1992 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food 
Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical 
for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the acute 
exposure assessments: A Tier 1 acute analysis was performed for females 
13-50 years old using existing and recommended tolerance level 
residues, 100 percent of crop treated (% CT) information, and 
DEEM default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk 
assessment the DEEM analysis evaluated the individual food 
consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992 nationwide 
CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The 
following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: A 
Tier 1 chronic analysis was performed for the general U.S. population 
and all population subgroups using existing and recommended tolerance 
level residues, 100% CT information, and DEEM default 
processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency has classified clomazone as a ``not likely 
human carcinogen'' based on the lack of a carcinogenic response in rats 
and mice and the lack of mutagenic concern. Therefore, a cancer risk 
assessment was not performed for this action.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks 
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary 
exposure analysis and risk assessment for clomazone in drinking water. 
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, 
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on 
simulation or modeling taking into account data on

[[Page 54121]]

the physical characteristics of clomazone.
    The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration 
(GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System 
(PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and 
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW), which predicts 
pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will use 
GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a 
screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a 
subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff 
scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, 
while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of 
the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent 
crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent 
crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
    None of these models include consideration of the impact processing 
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as 
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the 
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this 
stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for 
which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would 
ever exceed human health levels of concern.
    Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the 
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated 
environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify 
drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking 
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point 
of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's 
concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a 
pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate 
exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since 
DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to clomazone, they are further 
discussed in Unit II.E.
    The EECs were based on the proposed uses of clomazone as specified 
on the CommandR 3 ME label (maximum application rate = 1.25 pound 
active ingredient per acre (lb ai/A)).
    i. Surface water. The maximum acute and chronic surface water EECs 
for both parent clomazone and FMC 65317 were estimated by the Tier 1 
screening models GENEEC and GENEECX. For surface water, the maximum 
acute EEC was 95 parts per billion (ppb) and the maximum chronic (56-
day) EEC was 68 ppb. EPA's interim policy allows the 56-day GENEEC 
value to be divided by an adjustment factor of 3 to obtain a value for 
chronic risk assessment calculations. Therefore, a surface water value 
of 23 ppb was used for chronic risk assessment.
    ii. Ground water. The predicted maximum ground water EEC for both 
parent clomazone and FMC 65317, using the Tier 1 screening model SCI-
GROW2, was 2.4 ppb which was considered as both an acute and chronic 
value for risk assessment purposes.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Clomazone is not registered for use on any sites that would result 
in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering 
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency 
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of 
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a 
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine 
whether clomazone has a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk 
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a 
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, 
clomazone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by 
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, 
EPA has not assumed that clomazone has a common mechanism of toxicity 
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to 
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to 
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule 
for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an 
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the 
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal 
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure 
unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe 
for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA 
risk assessments either directly through use of a margin of exposure 
(MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in 
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no quantitative or 
qualitative evidence of susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in 
utero exposure in the available developmental studies. In the 2-
generation reproduction study, no qualitative or quantitative evidence 
of increased susceptibility was observed.
    3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity database for clomazone 
and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that 
reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The FQPA factor was 
reduced to 1X because of the following reasons: There is no indication 
of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats or 
rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure; a developmental 
neurotoxicity study is not required; and the dietary (food and drinking 
water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential 
exposures for infants and children (there are currently no registered 
residential uses).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, 
drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs 
which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of 
a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not 
regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper 
limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of 
total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. 
In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the 
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through 
drinking water (e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = 
cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)). This allowable exposure 
through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
    A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water 
consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption 
values as used by EPA are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg (adult 
male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body 
weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual 
basis. This variation will be

[[Page 54122]]

taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative 
drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have 
different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of 
risk assessment used: acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, 
and cancer.
    When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the 
calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that 
exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along 
with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would 
not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at 
this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from 
multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels 
of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new 
uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts 
of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the 
aggregate risk assessment process.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this 
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to 
clomazone will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13 years and older at 
the 95th percentile. Thus, the acute dietary risk associated with the 
existing and proposed uses of clomazone does not exceed EPA's level of 
concern (>100% aPAD). However, there is potential for acute dietary 
exposure to clomazone in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and 
comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not 
expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in 
the following Table 1:

                       Table 1.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to Clomazone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Surface       Ground
              Population Subgroup                 aPAD (mg/      % aPAD     Water EEC    Water EEC   Acute DWLOC
                                                     kg)         (Food)       (ppb)        (ppb)        (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females 13-50 years old                                  1.0         <1.0           95          2.4       30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to clomazone 
from food will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the U.S. population, and all 
population subgroups. There are no residential uses for clomazone that 
result in chronic residential exposure to clomazone. However, there is 
potential for chronic dietary exposure to clomazone in drinking water. 
After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and 
ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% 
of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:

               Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non- Cancer) Exposure to Clomazone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Surface       Ground
              Population Subgroup                cPAD mg/kg/     % cPAD     Water EEC    Water EEC     Chronic
                                                     day         (Food)       (ppb)        (ppb)     DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population                                         0.84           <1           23          2.4       29,000
All infants (<1 year old)                               0.84           <1           23          2.4        8,400
Children (1-6 years old)                                0.84           <1           23          2.4        8,400
Females(13-50 years old)                                0.84           <1           23          2.4       25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Short and intermediate-term risk. Short and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic 
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure 
level). Clomazone is not registered for use on any sites that would 
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the 
sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's 
level of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has 
classified clomazone as a ``not likely human carcinogen'' based on the 
lack of a carcinogenic response in rats and mice and the lack of 
mutagenic concern. Therefore, no cancer risk is expected.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to clomazone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of 
the residues of clomazone in plants. Briefly, samples are acid 
hydrolyzed, hexane extracted, Na2CO3 washed, and 
cleaned-up with a Florisil column. The resulting samples are 
analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) using a nitrogen phosphorus 
detector (NPD) or mass spectrometer (MS). The limit of quantitation 
(LOQ) for this method is 0.05 ppm. A confirmatory procedure (GC/MS-SIM) 
is available (Method I, PAM II).
    Adequate enforcement methodology (example--gas chromotography) is 
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be 
requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: 
furlow.calvin@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    There is neither a Codex proposal, nor Canadian or Mexican maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for residues of clomazone in/on mint.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of clomazone, 2-
(2-chlorophenyl)methyl- 4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on 
peppermint tops and spearmint tops at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any 
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may 
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural 
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for 
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those

[[Page 54123]]

regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to 
the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those 
procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary 
modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially 
the same process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an 
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new 
section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. 
However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 
30 days.

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

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this 
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit 
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must 
identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0178 in the subject line on the 
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and 
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 
21, 2002.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific 
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for 
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the 
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a 
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a 
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). 
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing 
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that 
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except 
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the 
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be 
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office 
of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
    2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a 
hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or 
request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must 
mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office 
of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please 
identify the fee submission by labeling it ``Tolerance Petition Fees.''
    EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement ``when in the 
judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and 
not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional 
information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James 
Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, 
or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection 
fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, 
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or 
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you 
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion 
in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your 
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0178, to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and 
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB 
described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your 
request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file 
format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will 
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. 
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an 
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

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

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) 
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does 
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose 
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive 
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive 
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does 
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since 
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a 
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various

[[Page 54124]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled 
Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates 
growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. 
This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power 
and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption 
provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the 
Agency has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal 
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this rule.

VIII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 16, 2002.
Debra Edwards,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.

    2. Section 180.425 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities 
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 180.425  Clomazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a)   *  *  *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      *      *      *      *      *
Peppermint, tops.....................................               0.05
                      *      *      *      *      *
Spearmint, tops......................................               0.05
                      *      *      *      *      *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-21278 Filed 8-16-02; 4:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S