7097
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
29
/
Wednesday,
February
12,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
your
comments
and
material
by
only
one
means.
If
you
submit
them
by
mail
or
hand
delivery,
submit
them
in
an
unbound
format,
no
larger
than
81 
2
by
11
inches,
suitable
for
copying
and
electronic
filing.
If
you
submit
them
by
mail
and
would
like
to
know
that
they
reached
the
Facility,
please
enclose
a
stamped,
self­
addressed
postcard
or
envelope.
We
will
consider
all
comments
and
material
received
during
the
comment
period.
We
may
change
this
proposed
rule
in
view
of
them.

Background
and
Purpose
Section
610
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.)
requires
the
Coast
Guard
and
other
rulemaking
agencies
to
review
existing
rules
for
their
economic
impact
on
small
entities.
The
Coast
Guard
reviews
the
small
entities
impact
of
its
existing
rules
pursuant
to
a
plan
adopted
by
the
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
and
described
in
Appendix
D
of
DOT's
semiannual
regulatory
agenda
(
see
67
FR
74799,
December
9,
2002
for
the
latest
publication
of
the
agenda).
Where
our
610
Analysis
Year
shows
that
a
rule
has
a
``
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities''
(
SEIOSNOSE),
we
begin
a
610
Review
Year.
During
the
610
Review
Year,
we
determine
whether
and
how
the
SEIOSNOSE
can
be
lessened.
In
making
that
determination,
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
requires
us
to
consider
the:
 
Continued
need
for
the
rule.
 
Nature
of
public
complaints
or
comments
received
concerning
the
rule.
 
Rule's
complexity.
 
Extent
to
which
the
rule
overlaps,
duplicates,
or
conflicts
with
other
Federal
rules
and,
to
the
extent
feasible,
with
State
and
local
governmental
rules.
 
Length
of
time
since
the
rule
has
been
evaluated
or
the
degree
to
which
technology,
economic
conditions,
or
other
factors
have
changed
in
the
area
affected
by
the
rule.
In
the
fall
2002
agenda,
we
concluded
the
610
Analysis
Year
for
several
rules
and
determined
that
33
CFR
parts
179,
181,
and
183
significantly
affect
enough
small
entities
to
warrant
a
610
Review
Year
for
the
three
parts.
Section
610
requires
us
to
notify
you
that
the
Review
Year
is
underway
and
to
solicit
your
input,
which
we
will
consider
in
conducting
our
review.
In
the
fall
2003
agenda,
we
will
announce
the
results
of
that
review.
We
may
determine
that
no
further
action
seems
possible
or
advisable
at
this
time,
in
which
case
we
will
explain
the
basis
for
that
determination.
Or,
we
may
determine
that
a
rulemaking
project
is
needed,
to
delete
or
amend
the
existing
rule
in
a
way
that
will
lessen
its
smallentity
impact.
We
will
indicate
whether
a
rulemaking
project
will
begin
promptly
or
be
scheduled
at
a
later
date.

Dated:
February
4,
2003.
Harvey
E.
Johnson,
Rear
Admiral,
Coast
Guard,
Director
of
Operations
Policy.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
3461
Filed
2
 
11
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4910
 
15
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
180
[
OPP
 
2002
 
0274;
FRL
 
7288
 
7]

Methoprene,
Watermelon
Mosaic
Virus­
2
Coat
Protein,
and
Zucchini
Yellow
Mosaic
Virus
Coat
Protein;
Proposed
Tolerance
Actions
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
In
this
document,
EPA
is
proposing
to
amend
the
exemption
expression
for
methoprene
from
the
requirements
of
a
tolerance
when
used
on
food
commodities
as
an
insect
larvicide,
and
to
revoke
all
the
tolerances
for
methoprene
because
a
recent
EPA
review
finds
that
no
harm
is
expected
to
the
public
from
exposure
to
residues
of
methoprene.
Therefore,
these
tolerances
are
no
longer
needed
and
their
associated
uses
are
proposed
to
be
covered
by
tolerance
exemptions.
Also,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
exemptions
for
watermelon
mosaic
virus­
2
coat
protein,
and
zucchini
yellow
mosaic
virus
coat
protein
and
specific
portions
of
the
viral
genetic
material
when
used
as
plantincorporated
protectants
in
squash,
because
these
exemptions
are
covered
in
other
sections
of
40
CFR
part
180.
Because
methoprene's
37
tolerances
were
previously
reassessed,
the
regulatory
actions
proposed
in
this
document
do
not
contribute
toward
the
Agency's
tolerance
reassessment
requirements
of
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA)
section
408(
q),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
of
1996.
By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274,
must
be
received
on
or
before
April
14,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Unit
I.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Barbara
Mandula,
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
Division
(
7511C),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
703)
308
 
7378;
e­
mail
address:
mandula.
barbara@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
You
may
be
potentially
affected
by
this
action
if
you
are
an
agricultural
producer,
food
manufacturer,
or
pesticide
manufacturer.
Potentially
affected
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
 
Crop
production
(
NAICS
111)
 
Animal
production
(
NAICS
112)
 
Food
manufacturing
(
NAICS
311)
 
Pesticide
manufacturing
(
NAICS
32532)
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
this
action
might
apply
to
certain
entities.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
identification
(
ID)
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA.
This
docket
facility
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
docket
telephone
number
is
(
703)
305
 
5805.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
17
Feb
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12FEP1.
SGM
12FEP1
7098
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
29
/
Wednesday,
February
12,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
A
frequently
updated
electronic
version
of
40
CFR
part
180
is
available
at
http://
www.
access.
gpo.
gov/
nara/
cfr/
cfrhtml_
00/
Title_
40/
40cfr180_
00.
html,
a
beta
site
currently
under
development.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

C.
How
and
to
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
in
this
unit,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
email
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
e­
mail
to
opp­
docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention:
Docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
7502C),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
Attention:
Docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
3.
By
hand
delivery
or
courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Public
Information
and
Records
Integrity
Branch
(
PIRIB),
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Rm.
119,
Crystal
Mall
#
2,
1921
Jefferson
Davis
Hwy.,
Arlington,
VA,
Attention:
Docket
ID
number
OPP
 
2002
 
0274.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
17
Feb
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12FEP1.
SGM
12FEP1
7099
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
29
/
Wednesday,
February
12,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
copies
of
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate
that
you
provide.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternative
ways
to
improve
the
proposed
rule
or
collection
activity.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
deadline
in
this
document.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
be
sure
to
identify
the
docket
ID
number
assigned
to
this
action
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
You
may
also
provide
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation.

F.
What
Can
I
Do
if
I
Wish
the
Agency
to
Maintain
a
Tolerance
that
the
Agency
Proposes
to
Revoke?

This
proposed
rule
provides
a
comment
period
of
60
days
for
any
person
to
state
an
interest
in
retaining
a
tolerance
proposed
for
revocation.
If
EPA
receives
a
comment
within
the
60
 
day
period
to
that
effect,
EPA
will
not
proceed
to
revoke
the
tolerance
immediately.
However,
EPA
will
take
steps
to
ensure
the
submission
of
any
needed
supporting
data
and
will
issue
an
order
in
the
Federal
Register
under
FFDCA
section
408(
f)
if
needed.
The
order
would
specify
data
needed
and
the
time
frames
for
its
submission,
and
would
require
that
within
90
days
some
person
or
persons
notify
EPA
that
they
will
submit
the
data.
If
the
data
are
not
submitted
as
required
in
the
order,
EPA
will
take
appropriate
action
under
FFDCA.
EPA
issues
a
final
rule
after
considering
comments
that
are
submitted
in
response
to
this
proposed
rule.
In
addition
to
submitting
comments
in
response
to
this
proposal,
you
may
also
submit
an
objection
at
the
time
of
the
final
rule.
If
you
fail
to
file
an
objection
to
the
final
rule
within
the
time
period
specified,
you
will
have
waived
the
right
to
raise
any
issues
resolved
in
the
final
rule.
After
the
specified
time,
issues
resolved
in
the
final
rule
cannot
be
raised
again
in
any
subsequent
proceedings.

II.
Background
A.
What
Action
is
the
Agency
Taking?

EPA
is
proposing
to
exempt
methoprene
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance,
and
therefore
to
revoke
the
existing
tolerances
for
methoprene.
The
other
actions
involve
maintaining
exemptions
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
for
specific
pesticides,
while
removing
redundant
portions
of
40
CFR
part
180
relating
to
those
tolerance
exemptions.
1.
Methoprene.
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.359
for
residues
in
or
on
specific
food
commodities
for
control
of
hornflies
because
review
of
methoprene
toxicity
data
indicate
that
these
tolerances
are
not
necessary
to
protect
human
health
or
the
environment.
An
EPA
Decision
Document
on
Tolerance
Reassessment
for
Methoprene,
prepared
by
EPA's
Inert
Ingredient
Focus
Group
(
IIFG)
and
finalized
in
August
2002,
finds
that
methoprene
is
of
low
toxicity.
More
specifically,
the
document
finds
that
methoprene
is
not
acutely
toxic,
and
is
neither
irritating
to
skin
or
eyes,
nor
is
it
a
dermal
sensitizer.
Developmental
toxicity
was
not
observed
in
studies
with
rabbits
and
mice.
Methoprene
is
not
carcinogenic
in
studies
in
rats
and
mice,
and
is
not
mutagenic
in
the
Ames
assay
or
in
the
dominant
lethal
assay.
No
adverse
effects
were
seen
in
rats
in
a
2
 
year
study.
Metabolism
studies
in
rats,
mice,
guinea
pigs,
and
cows
indicate
rapid
biodegradation
of
methoprene
and
its
metabolites
in
mammals
and
that
its
metabolites
are
incorporated
into
natural
body
constituents
(
primarily
fatty
acids).
The
decision
document
concludes:
i.
Determination
of
safety.
Based
on
its
review
and
evaluation
of
the
available
information,
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
residues
of
methoprene.
ii.
IIFG
inert
ingredient
focus
group
recommendation/
deferral
to
BPPD
management.
At
this
time,
40
CFR
180.1033
specifies
that
methoprene
is
exempt
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
in
or
on
all
raw
agricultural
commodities
when
used
to
control
mosquito
larvae.
There
are
also
numerical
tolerances
for
specific
commodities
in
40
CFR
180.359.
The
methoprene
risk
assessment
in
the
IIFG
decision
document
used
conservative
assumptions
that
assumed
the
existence
of
a
broad­
based
tolerance
exemption.
A
broad­
based
tolerance
exemption
assumes
that
methoprene
can
be
used
on
all
crop
commodities
and
that
these
crop
commodities
can
be
used
as
feed.
The
safety
finding
supports
the
tolerance
exemption
approach.
Based
on
the
IIFG
report,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerances
in
40
CFR
180.359
by
removing
that
section
from
the
CFR.
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
exempt
methoprene
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
in
or
on
all
food
commodities
when
methoprene
is
used
as
an
insect
larvicide.
(
A
copy
of
the
IIFG
report
will
be
made
available
in
the
docket
for
this
proposed
rule.)
2.
Two
virus
coat
proteins
and
the
genetic
material
necessary
to
produce
the
coat
proteins
in
squash.
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
the
tolerance
exemptions
in
40
CFR
180.1132
for
watermelon
mosaic
virus­
2
coat
protein,
and
zucchini
yellow
mosaic
virus
coat
protein
and
specific
portions
of
the
viral
genetic
material
when
used
as
plantincorporated
protectants
in
squash
because
the
tolerance
exemptions
are
duplicated
in
the
more
recent,
broader
40
CFR
180.1184.
The
exemption
in
40
CFR
180.1184
includes
all
food
commodities,
rather
than
being
limited
to
squash.
Therefore,
40
CFR
180.1132
is
not
needed
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

B.
What
is
the
Agency's
Authority
for
Taking
these
Actions
A
``
tolerance''
represents
the
maximum
level
for
residues
of
pesticide
chemicals
legally
allowed
in
or
on
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
processed
foods.
Section
408
of
FFDCA,
21
U.
S.
C.
301
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
FQPA
of
1996,
Public
Law
104
 
170,
authorizes
the
establishment
of
tolerances,
exemptions
from
tolerance
requirements,
modifications
in
tolerances,
and
revocation
of
tolerances
for
residues
of
pesticide
chemicals
in
or
on
raw
agricultural
commodities
and
processed
foods
(
21
U.
S.
C.
346(
a)).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
17
Feb
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12FEP1.
SGM
12FEP1
7100
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
29
/
Wednesday,
February
12,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
C.
When
Do
These
Actions
Become
Effective?

The
Agency
is
proposing
that
these
actions
become
effective
upon
publication
of
a
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
only
effect
of
the
rule
will
be
to
remove
redundancies
and
inconsistencies
40
CFR
part
180.
No
person
or
entity
is
expected
to
be
adversely
affected.

D.
What
Is
the
Contribution
to
Tolerance
Reassessment?

By
law,
EPA
is
required
by
August
2006
to
reassess
the
tolerances
in
existence
on
August
2,
1996.
As
of
November
20,
2002,
EPA
had
reassessed
over
6,490
tolerances.
All
of
the
tolerances
and
tolerance
exemptions
in
this
proposed
rule
have
already
been
reassessed
and
counted
towards
the
total
number
of
tolerances
that
EPA
must
reassess
by
August
2006.
Therefore,
this
rule
will
add
zero
tolerances
to
the
required
total.

III.
Are
the
Proposed
Actions
Consistent
with
International
Obligations?

The
tolerance
revocations
in
this
proposal
are
not
discriminatory
and
are
designed
to
ensure
that
both
domestically
produced
and
imported
foods
meet
the
food
safety
standards
established
by
the
FFDCA.
The
same
food
safety
standards
apply
to
domestically
produced
and
imported
foods.
EPA
is
working
to
ensure
that
the
U.
S.
tolerance
reassessment
program
under
FQPA
does
not
disrupt
international
trade.
EPA
considers
Codex
Maximum
Residue
Limits
(
MRLs)
in
setting
U.
S.
tolerances
and
in
reassessing
them.
MRLs
are
established
by
the
Codex
Committee
on
Pesticide
Residues,
a
committee
within
the
Codex
Alimentarius
Commission,
an
international
organization
formed
to
promote
the
coordination
of
international
food
standards.
It
is
EPA's
policy
to
harmonize
U.
S.
tolerances
with
Codex
MRLs
to
the
extent
possible,
provided
that
the
MRLs
achieve
the
level
of
protection
required
under
FFDCA.
EPA's
effort
to
harmonize
with
Codex
MRLs
is
summarized
in
the
tolerance
reassessment
section
of
individual
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
documents.
EPA
has
developed
guidance
concerning
submissions
for
import
tolerance
support
(
65
FR
35069,
June
1,
2000)
(
FRL
 
6559
 
3).
This
guidance
will
be
made
available
to
interested
persons.
Electronic
copies
are
available
on
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/.
On
the
Home
Page
select
``
Laws,
Regulations,
and
Dockets,''
then
select
``
Regulations
and
Proposed
Rules''
and
then
look
up
the
entry
for
this
document
under
``
Federal
Register
 
Environmental
Documents.''
You
can
also
go
directly
to
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
In
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
revoke
specific
tolerances
established
under
FFDCA
section
408.
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
exempted
this
type
of
action
(
i.
e.,
a
tolerance
revocation
for
which
extraordinary
circumstances
do
not
exist)
from
review
under
Executive
Order
12866,
entitled
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993).
Because
this
proposed
rule
has
been
exempted
from
review
under
Executive
Order
12866
due
to
its
lack
of
significance,
this
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
This
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collections
subject
to
OMB
approval
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
or
impose
any
enforceable
duty
or
contain
any
unfunded
mandate
as
described
under
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA)
(
Public
Law
104
 
4).
Nor
does
it
require
any
special
considerations
as
required
by
Executive
Order
12898,
entitled
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
(
59
FR
7629,
February
16,
1994);
or
OMB
review
or
any
other
Agency
action
under
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997).
This
action
does
not
involve
any
technical
standards
that
would
require
Agency
consideration
of
voluntary
consensus
standards
pursuant
to
section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note).
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.),
the
Agency
previously
assessed
whether
revocations
of
tolerances
might
significantly
impact
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
and
concluded
that,
as
a
general
matter,
these
actions
do
not
impose
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
analysis
was
published
on
December
17,
1997
(
62
FR
66020),
and
was
provided
to
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration.
Revocation
of
the
tolerance
exemptions
discussed
in
this
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
would
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
because
the
pesticides
remain
subject
to
existing
tolerance
exemptions.
Any
comments
about
the
Agency's
determination
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
along
with
comments
on
the
proposal,
and
will
be
addressed
prior
to
issuing
a
final
rule.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
Federalism
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999).
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
proposed
rule
directly
regulates
growers,
food
processors,
food
handlers
and
food
retailers,
not
States.
This
action
does
not
alter
the
relationships
or
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
established
by
Congress
in
the
preemption
provisions
of
section
408(
n)(
4)
of
the
FFDCA.
For
these
same
reasons,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
have
any
``
tribal
implications''
as
described
in
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000).
Executive
Order
13175,
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implication.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
17
Feb
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12FEP1.
SGM
12FEP1
7101
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
29
/
Wednesday,
February
12,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
Government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
180
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Agricultural
commodities,
Pesticides
and
pests,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
January
31,
2003.
Janet
L.
Andersen,
Director,
Biopesticides
and
Pollution
Prevention
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.
321(
q),
346(
a)
and
371.

§
180.359
[
Removed]

2.
Section
180.359
is
removed.
3.
Section
180.1033
is
revised
to
read
as
follows:

§
180.1033
Methoprene;
exemption
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance.
Methoprene
is
exempt
from
the
requirement
of
a
tolerance
in
or
on
all
food
commodities
when
used
to
control
insect
larvae.

§
180.1132
[
Removed]

4.
Section
180.1132
is
removed.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
3236
Filed
2
 
11
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
National
Highway
Traffic
Safety
Administration
49
CFR
Part
571
[
Docket
No.
NHTSA
 
02
 
13957;
Notice
01]

RIN
2127
 
AI97
Glare
from
Headlamps
and
Other
Front­
Mounted
Lamps:
Adaptive
Frontal­
lighting
Systems
Federal
Motor
Vehicle
Safety
Standard
No.
108;
Lamps,
Reflective
Devices,
and
Associated
Equipment
AGENCY:
National
Highway
Traffic
Safety
Administration
(
NHTSA),
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT).
ACTION:
Request
for
comments.
SUMMARY:
This
document
requests
comments
on
Adaptive
Frontal­
lighting
Systems
(
AFS).
The
automotive
industry
is
introducing
Adaptive
Frontal­
lighting
Systems
that
can
actively
change
the
intensity
and
direction
of
headlamp
illumination
in
response
to
changes
in
vehicle
speed
or
roadway
geometry,
such
as
providing
more
light
to
the
left
in
a
left­
hand
curve.
The
agency
is
concerned
that
such
headlighting
systems
may
cause
additional
glare
to
oncoming
drivers,
change
the
easily
recognizable
and
consistent
appearance
of
oncoming
vehicles,
and
have
failure
modes
that
may
cause
glare
for
long
periods
of
time.
The
agency
is
also
interested
in
learning
whether
these
adaptive
systems
can
provide
any
demonstrated
reduction
in
crash
risk
during
nighttime
driving.
Thus,
the
Agency
is
seeking
information
on
these
systems
to
assess
their
potential
for
a
net
increase
or
decrease
in
the
risk
of
a
crash.
Of
special
interest
to
us
are
the
human
factors
and
fleet
study
research
that
may
have
been
completed
to
assure
these
systems
do
not
increase
the
safety
risk
for
oncoming
and
preceding
drivers.
DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
April
14,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
must
refer
to
the
docket
and
notice
number
cited
at
the
beginning
of
this
notice
and
be
submitted
to:
Docket
Management,
Room
PL
 
401,
400
Seventh
Street
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20590.
It
is
requested,
but
not
required,
that
two
copies
of
the
comments
be
provided.
The
Docket
Section
is
open
on
weekdays
from
10
a.
m.
to
5
p.
m.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically
by
logging
onto
the
Dockets
Management
System
Web
site
at
http://
dms.
dot.
gov.
Click
on
``
Help''
to
obtain
instructions
for
filing
the
document
electronically.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
technical
issues,
please
contact
Mr.
Richard
L.
Van
Iderstine
,
Office
of
Rulemaking,
NHTSA,
400
Seventh
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20590.
Mr.
Van
Iderstine's
telephone
number
is
(
202)
366
 
2720
and
his
facsimile
number
is
(
202)
366
 
4329.
For
legal
issues
please
contact
Mr.
Taylor
Vinson,
Office
of
Chief
Counsel,
at
the
same
address.
Mr.
Vinson's
telephone
number
is
(
202)
366
 
5263.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
development
of
Adaptive
Frontallighting
Systems
(
AFS)
has
been
ongoing
for
about
a
decade.
However,
there
are
much
earlier
versions
of
such
situation­
adaptive
headlighting
that
have
been
sold
to
the
public.
In
the
United
States,
the
Tucker
automobile
was
equipped
with
one,
and
in
Europe,
Citron
manufactured
automobiles
with
them,
too.
These
had
headlamps
that
would
swivel
with
the
steering
system.
In
1993,
funded
by
the
European
Union's
Eureka
Project
EU
1403,
member
countries
and
their
manufacturers
(
BMW,
Bosch,
Daimler­
Benz,
Fiat,
Ford,
Hella,
Magneti­
Marelli,
Opel,
Osram,
Philips,
PSA,
Renault,
Valeo,
Volkswagen,
Volvo,
and
ZKW)
began
defining
requirements
for
AFS.
Additionally,
Japanese
and
North
American
manufacturers
have
been
developing
these
systems.
The
goal
of
these
AFS
is
to
actively
control
headlamp
beam
pattern
performance
to
meet
the
dynamic
illumination
needs
of
changing
roadway
geometries
and
visibility
conditions.
Today,
this
goal
has
been
partially
realized
by
several
lighting
manufacturers
who
have
developed
systems
incorporating
various
aspects
of
AFS
functionality.
An
initial
application,
called
``
bending
light,''
automatically
reaims
the
lower
beam
headlamps
to
the
left
or
right
depending
on
the
steering
angle
of
the
vehicle,
with
the
intent
to
better
illuminate
curves
in
the
roadway.
Also,
it
is
likely
that
these
initial
bending
light
offerings
will
have
part
of
the
light
emitted
from
the
headlamp
move
within
the
beam
to
the
left
or
right
to
increase
the
amount
of
light
shining
into
the
curve.
There
are
other
ideas
being
explored
that,
for
example,
would
reduce
the
intensity
of
illumination
in
well­
lit
urban
driving
situations,
reduce
the
intensity
of
lower
beam
foreground
light
in
wet
weather
to
lessen
the
light
that
reflects
off
the
roadway
into
other
drivers'
eyes,
and
various
other
performance
changes.
Prototype
systems
have
been
demonstrated
by
motor
vehicle
lighting
companies
to
motor
vehicle
manufacturers,
and
recently
to
government
lighting
experts
from
numerous
countries
around
the
world.
This
was
last
done
in
Geneva,
Switzerland
in
the
Spring
of
2000,
during
the
Forty­
Fourth
Session
of
the
Meeting
of
Experts
on
Lighting
and
Light
Signalling
(
GRE)
where
ten
different
AFS
prototypes
were
available
on
cars
for
driving.
The
GRE
is
a
subgroup
of
the
United
Nations'
(
UN)
World
Forum
for
Harmonization
of
Vehicle
Regulations
(
WP.
29).
In
order
to
introduce
this
new
headlighting
technology
in
Europe,
regulations
have
to
be
modified
within
the
UN
Economic
Commission
for
Europe,
under
its
1958
Agreement
titled:
``
Agreement
concerning
the
Adoption
of
Uniform
Technical
Prescriptions
(
Rev.
2).''
The
first
amendment
to
accommodate
swiveling
(
or
bending)
of
the
low
beam
function
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
17
Feb
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12FEP1.
SGM
12FEP1
