
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27496-27502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10955]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0431; FRL-9909-80]
RIN 2070-ZA16


Mancozeb, Maneb, Metiram, and Thiram; Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking, modifying, and establishing specific 
tolerances for the fungicide mancozeb and revising the definition for 
total residue of dithiocarbamates permitted in or on the same raw 
agricultural commodity. These actions are in follow-up to the tolerance 
recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). In addition, EPA is removing expired tolerances 
for mancozeb and maneb. EPA is taking no further tolerance actions 
herein on metiram and thiram because proposed changes have since been 
completed for metiram and the Agency expects to propose tolerance 
actions for thiram in a future notice in the Federal Register.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 14, 2014. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 14, 2014, and 
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR 
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0431, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review

[[Page 27497]]

the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8037; email address: 
nevola.joseph@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. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR 
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 
408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect 
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. 
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in 
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0431 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All 
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be 
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before July 14, 2014. Addresses for 
mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided 
in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without 
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0431, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    In the Federal Register of September 16, 2009 (74 FR 47507) (FRL-
8431-4), EPA issued a proposed rule, in follow-up to reregistration and 
tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or 
additional uses of pesticides). EPA proposed to revoke, modify, and 
establish specific tolerances for mancozeb, maneb, metiram, and thiram. 
In addition, EPA proposed to revise the definition for total residue of 
dithiocarbamates permitted in or on the same raw agricultural commodity 
in 40 CFR 180.3(d)(5). Also, the proposed rule of September 16, 2009 
provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for 
consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA 
standards.
    In addition, in the Federal Register of September 16, 2009, EPA had 
proposed in 40 CFR 180.110 to revoke specific tolerances for maneb on 
apricot; bean, succulent; carrot, roots; celery; nectarine; and peach; 
and decrease tolerances on bean, dry, seed; broccoli; Brussels sprouts; 
cauliflower; cucumber; eggplant; kohlrabi; melon; bulb onion (revised 
from onion); pumpkin; summer squash; winter squash; and tomato; 
increase the tolerances on cabbage and beet, sugar, tops; establish 
tolerances on beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, dried pulp; fat of 
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; meat of cattle, goats, 
hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; meat byproducts of cattle, goats, 
hogs, horses, poultry, and sheep; egg; and milk, and revise certain 
commodity terminologies. However, in the intervening period EPA revoked 
all tolerances for maneb with expiration dates of December 31, 2012 in 
a final rule published in the Federal Register of July 12, 2011 (76 FR 
40811) (FRL-8878-6) after notice and comment (proposed rule published 
May 26, 2010 (75 FR 29475) (FRL-8826-2)). Because these tolerances have 
expired and therefore are no longer needed, EPA is removing 40 CFR 
180.110 in its entirety. EPA is removing that section herein without 
notice and opportunity to comment. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that notice and comment is 
not necessary ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates 
the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules 
issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, 
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' EPA finds good cause 
here because removing the section does not affect the already expired 
tolerances.
    Also, in the Federal Register of September 16, 2009, EPA had 
proposed in 40 CFR 180.217 to revise the section heading from its 
chemical name to metiram, revise the introductory text containing the 
tolerance expression for metiram, decrease tolerances for metiram on 
apple to 0.5 ppm and potato to 0.2 ppm, and establish a tolerance on 
wet apple pomace at 2 ppm. However, in the intervening period EPA 
finalized these tolerance actions in a final rule published in the 
Federal Register of April 29, 2011 (76 FR 23882) (FRL-8869-1) after 
notice and comment (proposed rule published September 16, 2009 (74 FR 
47507) (FRL-8431-4)). Therefore, no further changes are being made to 
40 CFR 180.217.
    In this final rule, EPA is also revoking, modifying, and 
establishing specific tolerances for mancozeb and revising the 
definition for total residue of dithiocarbamates permitted in or on the 
same raw agricultural commodity. However, EPA will not establish a 
tolerance for mancozeb on rice straw, which was proposed based on the 
2005 Mancozeb Registration Eligibility Decision (RED), because since 
that time EPA has determined that rice straw is no longer a significant 
feed item in the United States. (The document entitled ``OPPTS Test 
Guideline 860.1000 Supplement: Guidance on Constructing

[[Page 27498]]

Maximum Reasonably Balanced Diets (MRBD)'' is available at http://www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0155).
    In addition, EPA is also revising 40 CFR 180.176(b) for mancozeb by 
removing the listing of time-limited tolerances on ginseng and walnut 
because they have already expired, on December 31, 2010 and December 
31, 2013, respectively. Since no other tolerances would remain in that 
paragraph, the Agency is reserving that paragraph. EPA is making the 
revisions in 40 CFR 180.176(b) without notice and opportunity to 
comment. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA provides that notice and 
comment is not necessary ``when the agency for good cause finds (and 
incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in 
the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' EPA 
finds good cause here because removing the listing does not affect the 
legal status of the already expired tolerances.
    EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the 
tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance 
reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional 
uses of pesticides). As part of these processes, EPA is required to 
determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety 
standard of FFDCA. The safety finding determination of ``reasonable 
certainty of no harm'' is discussed in detail in each RED for the 
active ingredient. REDs recommend the implementation of certain 
tolerance actions, including modifications, to reflect current use 
patterns, to meet safety findings and change commodity names and 
groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of many 
REDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for 
Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 
45242-2419; telephone number: 1-800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-
8695; Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom and from the National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, 
VA 22161; telephone number: 1-800-553-6847 or (703) 605-6000; Internet 
at http://www.ntis.gov. Electronic copies of REDs are available on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
    In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and/or 
tolerance exemptions because either they are no longer needed or are 
associated with food uses that are no longer registered under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the 
United States. Those instances where registrations were canceled were 
because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/
or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more 
registered uses of the pesticide active ingredient. The tolerances 
revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of 
the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or 
commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is 
EPA's general practice to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances 
and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients 
on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, 
unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the 
tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported 
commodities or legally treated domestic commodities.
    EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances 
that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods 
may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances 
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following 
conditions applies:
     Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order 
requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or (e) 
order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the 
comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
     EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer 
needed.
     The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate 
that the tolerance meets the requirements under FFDCA.
    This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA 
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. 
Among the comments received by EPA, are the following:
    1. General comments.--i. Comments by the EBDC Task Force. The task 
force expressed support for the proposed change in the tolerance 
expression for ethylenebis dithiocarbamate (EBDC) fungicides from zineb 
equivalents to carbon disulfide equivalents. However, the task force 
proposed alternative language for the text proposed by EPA in 40 CFR 
180.3(d)(5), which adds carbon disulfide as part of the tolerance 
definition. In addition, the task force requested that EPA should 
clarify that thiram is not a member of the EBDC class of fungicides, 
and thiram does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with the EBDCs. 
The task force stated that the individual mancozeb, maneb, and metiram 
REDs document that the EBDCs do not have a common mode of action with 
any other dithiocarbamate. Therefore the aggregate exposures and risks 
referred to in Unit II.A.2. of the proposed rule are separate for the 
EBDC fungicides and for thiram.
    Agency response. EPA thanks the EBDC Task Force for its support of 
the proposed tolerance expression change to carbon disulfide 
equivalents for EBDC fungicides. The task force is correct regarding 
the text proposed in 40 CFR 180.3(d)(5) in that the comparison should 
be on a single basis, and not a combination of zineb and carbon 
disulfide values. However, instead of comparing the tolerances to the 
zineb values, as recommended by the task force, EPA is making the 
comparison to the new expression, carbon disulfide in 40 CFR 
180.3(d)(5) to read as set out in the regulatory text at the end of 
this document. The conversion from zineb to carbon disulfide 
equivalents allows harmonization of U.S. tolerances with Codex Maximum 
Residue Limits (MRLs).
    Regarding the task force's comment about EBDC fungicides and 
thiram, EPA presumes that the task force is referring to the following 
statement in the proposed rule: ``EPA has determined that the aggregate 
exposures and risks are not of concern for the above-mentioned 
pesticide active ingredients based upon the data identified in the RED 
or TRED which lists the submitted studies that the Agency found 
acceptable.'' This statement is a generic statement included in all 
tolerance actions based on recommendations in REDs and TREDs, referring 
to the safety standard in FFDCA. It is meant to imply that the 
aggregate risks for the individual chemicals are not of concern, which 
includes the aggregate exposure including food, drinking water, and 
residential sources. This statement does not refer to the aggregate 
risk of the metabolite that is common to the EBDCs, ethylene thiourea, 
nor does it imply that there is a common mode of action among all 
dithiocarbamates. The Agency has reviewed the dithiocarbamates and has 
determined that there is insufficient evidence to support grouping them 
in a common mechanism group (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/dithiocarb.pdf).
    ii. Comments by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC 
expressed concern about the effects of the EBDC fungicides on

[[Page 27499]]

women of child-bearing age, stating that for all the EBDCs and their 
degradate ethylene thiourea (ETU), the thyroid is the target organ. 
They have noted that a decrease in thyroxine in pregnant and lactating 
women, such as has been observed in laboratory animals exposed to the 
EBDC fungicides, can result in neuro-developmental problems in their 
children. NRDC specifically inquired whether the Agency considered the 
risks to the infants of low-iodide women, and has recommended that the 
Agency retain the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) factor of at least 
10X, and possibly more. Also, NRDC encouraged EPA to fully evaluate the 
endocrine disrupting activity of the EBDC fumigants, potentially at 
very low environmentally-relevant exposure levels, using appropriately 
designed tests such as from the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 
(EDSP). NRDC stated that EPA has the opportunity to obtain reliable 
data about the endocrine disrupting effects associated with the EBDC 
fumigants, given the most current understanding about endocrine 
disruptors. NRDC recommended that EPA require registrants to submit a 
study properly designed to detect endocrine disruption. Also, NRDC 
expressed concerns about the potential toxicity of inert ingredients in 
the end use products made with EBDC fumigants, Agency follow-up on the 
compliance rate with mitigation measures, or any follow-up on the 
effectiveness of the mitigation in protecting workers and exposed 
wildlife, and the availability of non-chemical and reduced-risk 
chemical alternatives in its benefits assessment for the EBDC 
fumigants. In addition, NRDC objected to the continued use of the EBDC 
fungicides, which they described as not reduced-risk pesticides, in 
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs for many foliar disease 
management programs.
    Agency response. On August 16, 2010, EPA sent a letter to NRDC 
which constituted a partial response by EPA to a letter dated November 
16, 2009, submitted to the docket on behalf of NRDC, commenting on the 
September 16, 2009 proposed tolerance rule. EPA's response of August 
16, 2010 addressed NRDC's concerns regarding the toxicity of inert 
ingredients in EBDC products, compliance with and effectiveness of 
mitigation measures, and consideration of non-chemical and reduced-risk 
alternatives in the benefits assessments for the EBDCs. The matters 
discussed in the August 16, 2010 response pertain to registration of 
EBDCs under FIFRA and are not relevant to setting of tolerances under 
FFDCA. That response is available in the docket of this final rule.
    In a document dated July 9, 2010, EPA revised its responses of 
earlier documents (March 30, 2010 and May 14, 2010) to address NRDC's 
comments on the FQPA safety factor and the risks to infants of low-
iodide women of child-bearing age and potential endocrine-disrupting 
activity of EBDCs. EPA believes that the tolerances are safe for the 
reasons identified in the July 9, 2010 response. In addition, that 
response discussed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program as it 
applies to EBDCs and how existing endocrine disruption data regarding 
EBDCs is already taken into account in the FFDCA safety finding for 
EBDCs. The three EPA response documents are available in the docket of 
this final rule.
    2. Specific chemical comments.--i. Mancozeb.--a. Comments by the 
Mancozeb Task Force (MTF). The MTF expressed support for the proposed 
change in the mancozeb tolerance expression from zineb equivalents to 
carbon disulfide equivalents. The MTF stated that because the tolerance 
for sweet corn (kernel plus cob removed) was proposed by EPA to be 
decreased to 0.1 ppm and EPA determined that data for sweet corn can be 
translated to popcorn grain, the tolerance for popcorn grain should not 
be decreased to 0.06 ppm as EPA proposed, but instead should also be 
set at 0.1 ppm. Also, the MTF stated that no member of the MTF is 
supporting the carrot use on a regional basis and the existing 
tolerance could be revoked. In addition, the MTF commented on the 
mancozeb RED recommendations for certain grain, bran, flour, and hay 
tolerances.
    b. Comment by Argentine Department of Agriculture. The Argentine 
Department of Agriculture expressed deep concern over the Agency's 
proposed decrease to 1.5 ppm for the mancozeb tolerance on grape, and 
requested a copy of the risk assessment.
    Agency response. EPA thanks the MTF for its support of the proposed 
tolerance expression change for mancozeb. EPA proposed to decrease the 
tolerance on sweet corn (kernel plus cob with husks removed) to 0.1 ppm 
in order to harmonize with a Codex MRL of 0.1 expressed as milligrams 
(mg) carbon disulfide/killigram (kg) for dithiocarbamates. Because EPA 
determined that the data for sweet corn can be translated to popcorn 
grain, EPA agrees with the MTF that the popcorn grain tolerance should 
be decreased to 0.1 ppm. Regarding the mancozeb tolerance for carrot 
roots, there is an existing FIFRA section 24(c) registration, and 
therefore EPA is redesignating that tolerance from 40 CFR 180.176(a) to 
(c) and decreasing it to 1 ppm. However, EPA is also revising the 
introductory text there to include a reference for the definition of a 
regional tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1(l). EPA is including that reference 
herein without notice and opportunity to comment. Section 553(b)(3)(B) 
of the APA provides that notice and comment is not necessary ``when the 
agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 
statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and 
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to 
the public interest.'' EPA finds good cause here because including a 
reference does not affect the legal status of the tolerance.
    As stated in the Federal Register of September 16, 2009, EPA did 
not propose certain tolerance actions (cottonseed; field corn grain; 
papaya; grain and straw of barley, oat, rye, and wheat; and milling 
feed fractions of barley, oat, and wheat) at that time because it had 
not verified that all mancozeb registrations for them had been revised 
or that required data had been received and approved. The Agency 
expects to address other mancozeb tolerance actions in a future 
publication in the Federal Register.
    Concerning the Argentine Department of Agriculture's request, EPA 
did send a risk assessment and would be happy to address any specific 
questions.
    ii. Thiram.--Comment by VJP Consulting, Inc. VJP Consulting 
commented on behalf of Taminco, Inc., a registrant of thiram, whose 
request for voluntary cancellation for thiram use on apples in the 
United States had been approved by EPA. VJP stated that the most recent 
dietary risk assessments for thiram in 2009 continued to include apple 
use and the acute and chronic dietary risks were acceptable. VJP noted 
that although EPA proposed to revoke the thiram tolerance on apple in 
the Federal Register of September 16. 2009, Taminco wanted the 
tolerance on apple maintained for importation purposes. In 
communication with the Agency in 2007, Taminco had declared such an 
interest and the Agency had notified Taminco that it must provide 
justification that the U.S. data is comparable to data that would have 
likely been gathered from trials in Canada and encouraged Taminco to 
submit at least some foreign data (at least 1 Canadian field trial). 
The Agency suggested that if thiram is being used in Canada, then some 
residue data should exist. The Agency noted that apples were removed at 
the time of the RED due to acute dietary concerns, and

[[Page 27500]]

therefore, Taminco should also submit percent crop treated information 
in Canada and the percentage of thiram treated apples being imported 
for additional consideration. Further, the registrant was told to 
contact the Agency if there were additional questions.
    Agency response. Because in a comment to the proposed rule, Taminco 
expressed a need for retention of the apple tolerance for import 
purposes and intends to support the tolerance with data, EPA will not 
revoke the tolerance for thiram in 40 CFR 180.132 on apple at this 
time. After the data have been reviewed, EPA will re-evaluate that 
tolerance under FFDCA. If data adequate to support a safety finding are 
lacking, EPA intends to revoke the tolerance on apple in 40 CFR 
180.132.
    Also, in the intervening period since the proposed rule published 
in the Federal Register of September 16, 2009, EPA has published 
several final rules which established tolerances for thiram expressed 
in residues of thiram (September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48386) (FRL-8431-9), 
February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8295) (FRL-9904-22), and April 4, 2014 (79 FR 
18818) (FRL-9909-02)). Recently, EPA determined how all the existing 
tolerance levels for thiram should be expressed as carbon disulfide 
equivalents. Therefore, EPA will not take any tolerance actions on 
thiram in this final rule. Instead, EPA expects to propose them in a 
future notice in the Federal Register.
    With the exception of the changes described in Unit II.A. and in 
the Agency responses to comments in this final rule, EPA is finalizing 
the amendments proposed concerning the pesticide active ingredient 
mancozeb in the Federal Register of September 16, 2009 and for good 
cause is removing expired maneb tolerances. For a detailed discussion 
of the Agency's rationale for the finalized tolerance actions, refer to 
the proposed rule of September 16, 2009.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a 
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is 
establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the 
tolerance recommendations made in the REDs for the active ingredients 
during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as 
follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides.

C. When do these actions become effective?

    As stated in the DATES section, this regulation is effective 180 
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. EPA is 
delaying the effective date of these finalized actions to allow a 
reasonable interval for producers in exporting members of the World 
Trade Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement to 
adapt to the requirements of a final rule. EPA believes that existing 
stocks of the canceled or amended pesticide products labeled for the 
uses associated with the revoked tolerances have been completely 
exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for 
passage through the channels of trade.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that 
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that 
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall 
be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under 
this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall 
not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the 
satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of 
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the 
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a 
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was 
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the 
pesticide was applied to such food.

III. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for total dithiocarbamates 
determined as carbon disulfide in or on celery, fennel, oat bran, flax 
seed, rice, and sorghum.
    The Codex has established MRLs for total dithiocarbamates 
determined as carbon disulfide in or on banana at 2 mg/kg, cranberry at 
5 mg/kg, peanut at 0.1 mg/kg, and sweet corn (corn-on-the-cob) at 0.1 
mg/kg. These MRLs will be the same as the tolerances modified herein 
for mancozeb in the United States.
    The Codex has established MRLs for total dithiocarbamates 
determined as carbon disulfide in or on bulb onions at 0.5 mg/kg, sugar 
beets at 0.5 mg/kg, and tomato at 2 mg/kg. These MRLs will remain 
covered by U.S. tolerances at higher levels for mancozeb. These MRLs 
are different than the tolerances established for mancozeb in the 
United States because of differences in use patterns and/or good 
agricultural practices.
    The Codex has established MRLs for total dithiocarbamates 
determined as carbon disulfide in or on various other commodities, 
including grapes at 5 mg/kg and pome fruits at 5 mg/kg. These MRLs are 
different than the tolerances modified herein for mancozeb in the 
United States because of differences in use patterns and/or good 
agricultural practices.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule, EPA establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 
408(e), and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established 
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification 
of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary 
circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, 
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993). Because this 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, entitled ``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

[[Page 27501]]

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed 
whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, 
raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations 
might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and 
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for 
tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and 
on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1), respectively, and were 
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. Taking into account this analysis and available 
information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency 
hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a 
memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions 
must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance 
exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small 
entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of 
all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any 
particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket 
of the proposed rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this 
final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that 
exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous 
analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will 
not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop 
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State 
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food 
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action 
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of 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 9, 
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.

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
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 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: May 7, 2014.
Jack Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  180.3, revise paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  180.3  Tolerances for related pesticide chemicals.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) Where tolerances are established for more than one member of 
the class of dithiocarbamates listed in paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section on the same raw agricultural commodity, the total residue of 
such pesticides shall not exceed that permitted by the highest 
tolerance established for any one member of the class, calculated both 
as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate and carbon disulfide. The tolerance 
based on zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate shall first be multiplied by 
0.6 to convert it to the equivalent carbon disulfide tolerance, and 
then the carbon disulfide tolerance levels will be compared to 
determine the highest tolerance level per raw agricultural commodity.
* * * * *


Sec.  180.110  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  180.110.

0
4. In Sec.  180.176, revise the table in paragraph (a) and revise 
paragraphs (b), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  180.176  Mancozeb; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond.....................................................         0.1
Almond, hulls..............................................         4
Apple......................................................         0.6
Asparagus..................................................         0.1
Atemoya....................................................         3.0
Banana.....................................................         2
Barley, bran...............................................        20
Barley, flour..............................................        20
Barley, grain..............................................         5

[[Page 27502]]

 
Barley, pearled barley.....................................        20
Barley, straw..............................................        25
Beet, sugar, dried pulp....................................         3.0
Beet, sugar, roots.........................................         1.2
Beet, sugar, tops..........................................        60
Broccoli...................................................         7
Cabbage....................................................         9
Canistel...................................................        15.0
Cattle, kidney.............................................         0.5
Cattle, liver..............................................         0.5
Cherimoya..................................................         3.0
Corn, field, forage........................................        40
Corn, field, grain.........................................         0.1
Corn, field, stover........................................        15
Corn, pop, grain...........................................         0.1
Corn, pop, stover..........................................        40
Corn, sweet, forage........................................        70
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed............         0.1
Corn, sweet, stover........................................        40
Cotton, undelinted seed....................................         0.5
Crabapple..................................................         0.6
Cranberry..................................................         5
Custard apple..............................................         3.0
Fennel.....................................................         2.5
Flax, seed.................................................         0.15
Ginseng....................................................         1.2
Goat, kidney...............................................         0.5
Goat, liver................................................         0.5
Grape......................................................         1.5
Hog, kidney................................................         0.5
Hog, liver.................................................         0.5
Horse, kidney..............................................         0.5
Horse, liver...............................................         0.5
Lettuce, head..............................................         3.5
Lettuce, leaf..............................................        18
Mango......................................................        15.0
Oat, flour.................................................        20
Oat, grain.................................................         5
Oat, groats/rolled oats....................................        20
Oat, straw.................................................        25
Onion, bulb................................................         1.5
Papaya.....................................................        10
Peanut.....................................................         0.1
Peanut, hay................................................        65
Pear.......................................................         0.6
Pepper.....................................................        12
Potato.....................................................         0.2
Poultry, kidney............................................         0.5
Poultry, liver.............................................         0.5
Quince.....................................................         0.6
Rice, grain................................................         0.06
Rye, bran..................................................        20
Rye, grain.................................................         5
Rye, straw.................................................        25
Sapodilla..................................................        15.0
Sapote, mamey..............................................        15.0
Sapote, white..............................................        15.0
Sheep, kidney..............................................         0.5
Sheep, liver...............................................         0.5
Sorghum, grain, forage.....................................         0.15
Sorghum, grain, grain......................................         0.25
Sorghum, grain, stover.....................................         0.15
Star apple.................................................        15.0
Sugar apple................................................         3.0
Tangerine \1\..............................................        10
Tomato.....................................................         2.5
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9...............................         2.0
Walnut.....................................................         0.70
Wheat, bran................................................        20
Wheat, flour...............................................        20
Wheat, germ................................................        20
Wheat, grain...............................................         5
Wheat, middlings...........................................        20
Wheat, shorts..............................................        20
Wheat, straw...............................................        25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for use of mancozeb on tangerine.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. A tolerance with 
regional registrations, as defined in Sec.  180.1(l), is established 
for residues of the fungicide mancozeb, (a coordination product of zinc 
ion and maneb (manganese ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)), including its 
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodity in the following 
table in this paragraph. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified 
in this paragraph is to be determined by measuring only those mancozeb 
residues convertible to and expressed in terms of the degradate carbon 
disulfide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrot, roots..............................................           1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *


Sec.  180.319  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  180.319, remove the entry for ``Coordination product of 
zinc ion and maneb'' from the table in paragraph (a).

[FR Doc. 2014-10955 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


