96-7026. Revocation of Pesticide Food Additive Regulations  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 57 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 11994-12009]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-7026]
    
    
    
          
    
    [[Page 11993]]
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part V
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    40 CFR Part 185
    
    
    
    Revocation of Pesticide Food Additive Regulations; Final Rule
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 / Rules 
    and Regulations
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    [[Page 11994]]
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 185
    
    [OPP-300335A; FRL-5357-7]
    
    
    Revocation of Pesticide Food Additive Regulations
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA has made a final determination regarding 26 food additive 
    regulations (FARs) for 7 pesticides that were previously proposed for 
    revocation on the grounds that the FARs violated the Delaney clause in 
    section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Today, 
    EPA is revoking 13 FARs because they violate the Delaney clause and the 
    remaining 13 FARs because they are not needed to prevent adulterated 
    food.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective May 21, 1996.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written objections, requests for a hearing, and/or requests 
    for stays identified by the document control number OPP-300335A (FRL-
    5357-7), must be submitted by April 22, 1996, to the Hearing Clerk, 
    EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the OPP 
    docket. Comments on objections, requests for a hearing, and/or requests 
    for stays must be submitted by May 6, 1996 to the OPP docket: Public 
    Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
    (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
    401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliver to: Rm. 1132, CM 2, 
    1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
        Information submitted as a filing concerning this document may be 
    claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as 
    ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will 
    not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 
    CFR part 2. A copy of the filings that does not contain CBI must be 
    submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked 
    confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All 
    written (non-CBI) filings will be available for public inspection in 
    Rm. 1132 at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
    through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Niloufar Nazmi, Special 
    Review Branch (7508W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
    Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Crystal 
    Mall #2, Room 1113, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA (703) 
    308-8028; e-mail: nazmi.niloufar@epamail.epa.gov.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Introduction
        A. Statutory Background
        B. Regulatory Background
        C. Actions Since Proposed Rule
        D. Today's Action
    II. EPA's Policy Changes Since the Proposal
        A. Concentration and Ready-to-Eat Policies
        B. Updated Residue Chemistry Guidelines
        C. RAC Interpretation
    III. Decision Framework
    IV. Analysis of the FARs
        A. Is a FAR needed?
        B. Induce Cancer Determination
    V. EPA's Decisions
        A. FARs That are Not Needed
        B. Food Additive Regulations That Violate the Delaney Clause
    VI. Consideration of Comments
    VII. Procedural Matters
        A. Filing of Objections and Requests for Hearings
        B. Effective Date
        C. Request for Stays of Effective Date
    VIII. Regulatory Requirements
        A. Executive Order 12866
        B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875
    
    I. Introduction
    
    A. Statutory Background
    
        The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et 
    seq., authorizes the establishment by regulation of maximum permissible 
    levels of pesticides in foods. Such regulations are commonly referred 
    to as ``tolerances.'' Without such a tolerance or an exemption from the 
    requirement of a tolerance, a food containing a pesticide residue is 
    ``adulterated'' under section 402 of the FFDCA and may not be legally 
    moved in interstate commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331, 342. EPA was authorized to 
    establish pesticide tolerances under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970. 
    5 U.S.C. App. at 1343 (1988). Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide 
    tolerances are carried out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 
    (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). EPA can establish 
    a tolerance in response to a petition (FFDCA section 408(d)(1), 
    409(b)(1)), or on its own initiative (FFDCA sections 408(e), 409(d)).
        The FFDCA has separate provisions for tolerances for pesticide 
    residues on raw agricultural commodities (RACs) and tolerances on 
    processed food. For pesticide residues in or on RACs, EPA establishes 
    tolerances, or exemptions from tolerances when appropriate, under 
    section 408. 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA regulates pesticide residues in 
    processed foods under section 409, which pertains to ``food 
    additives.'' 21 U.S.C. 348. Maximum residue regulations established 
    under section 409 are commonly referred to as food additive regulations 
    (hereafter referred to as ``FARs''). Section 409 FARs are needed, 
    however, only for certain pesticide residues in processed food. Under 
    section 402(a)(2) of the FFDCA, a pesticide residue in processed food 
    generally will not render the food adulterated if the residue results 
    from application of the pesticide to a RAC and the residue in the 
    processed food when ready to eat is below the RAC tolerance. This 
    exemption in section 402(a)(2) is commonly referred to as the ``flow-
    through'' provision because it allows the section 408 raw food 
    tolerance to flow through to the processed food forms. Thus, a section 
    409 FAR is only necessary to prevent foods from being deemed 
    adulterated when the level of the pesticide residue in a processed food 
    when ready to eat is greater than the tolerance prescribed for the RAC, 
    or if the processed food itself is treated or comes in contact with a 
    pesticide.
        If a food additive regulation must be established, section 409 of 
    the FFDCA requires that the use of the pesticide will be ``safe'' (21 
    U.S.C. 348(c)(3)). Relevant factors in this safety determination 
    include (1) the probable consumption of the pesticide or its 
    metabolites; (2) the cumulative effect of the pesticide in the diet of 
    man or animals, taking into account any related substances in the diet; 
    and (3) appropriate safety factors to relate the animal data to the 
    human risk evaluation. Section 409 also contains the Delaney clause, 
    which specifically provides that ``no additive shall be demed safe if 
    it has been found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation 
    of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer when ingested by man 
    or animal.''
    
    B. Regulatory Background
    
    1. Les v. Reilly
        On May 25, 1989, the State of California, the Natural Resources 
    Defense Council, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and several individuals 
    filed a petition requesting that EPA revoke several FARs. The 
    petitioners argued that these FARs should be revoked because they 
    violated the Delaney clause.
    
    [[Page 11995]]
    
        EPA responded to the petition by revoking certain FARs, but 
    retained several others on the grounds that the Delaney clause provides 
    an exception for pesticide residues posing de minimis risk; EPA denied 
    the petition with respect to the FARs determined to fall under this 
    exception. EPA's response was challenged by the petitioners in the U.S. 
    Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. On July 8, 1992, the court ruled in 
    Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361 
    (1993), that the Delaney clause barred the establishment of a FAR for 
    pesticides which ``induce cancer'' no matter how infinitesimal the 
    risk.
        In response to the court's decision in Les v. Reilly, EPA has taken 
    steps to identify and revoke all section 409 FARs for pesticides which 
    ``induce cancer.'' On March 30, 1994, EPA issued a list of pesticide 
    uses which potentially could be affected by the court's decision (59 FR 
    14980). (Note that, for the purpose of today's document, this list has 
    been superseded by appendices to the court-approved settlement in 
    California v. Browner, discussed below.)
        After revoking certain FARs of six pesticides that were the subject 
    of the original NRDC petition, EPA decided to evaluate the remaining 
    pesticide uses in phases. The first phase of proposed revocations was 
    announced on July 1, 1994, and involved 26 FARs for seven pesticides 
    (59 FR 33941; July 1, 1994). In today's notice, EPA is making final 
    determinations regarding these 26 FARs.
    2. California v. Browner
        In a court-approved settlement, entered on February 9, 1995, in the 
    case of California v. Browner, EPA agreed to make decisions regarding 
    pesticides that may be affected by the Delaney clause. This settlement 
    agreement includes a timetable for making the decisions. This document 
    is consistent with the timeframes in that settlement.
    
    C. Actions Since Proposed Rule
    
        The National Food Processors' Association (NFPA) filed a petition 
    with the EPA in September 1993. This petition challenged a number of 
    policies under which EPA administers its tolerance-setting program. In 
    the Federal Register of June 14, 1995 (60 FR 31300), EPA issued a 
    partial response to the NFPA petition. In that document, EPA concluded 
    that some changes were warranted to its policies concerning application 
    of the Delaney clause, in particular the concentration and ``ready-to-
    eat'' (RTE) policies. On January 25, 1996, EPA completed its response 
    to the NFPA petition by announcing its coordination policy and its 
    interpretation of what constitutes a RAC (61 FR 2378). Section II of 
    this preamble contains a summary of these policy changes.
    
    D. Today's Action
    
        The FAR revocations being made final in this notice were proposed 
    on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 33941), before EPA had responded to the NFPA 
    petition and adopted its new policies. In addition, EPA has received 
    many petitions from the registrants of these pesticides requesting 
    revocation of many of the FARs, on the basis that they are not needed. 
    For each of these petitions, EPA has published a ``Notice of 
    Availability and Request for Comments'', in the Federal Register. 
    Today's final rule is consistent with EPA's new policies and, where 
    appropriate, the decisions are based on the petitions rather than the 
    proposed rule of July 1, 1994.
    
    II. EPA's Policy Changes Since the Proposal
    
    A. Concentration and Ready-to-Eat Policies
    
        To determine whether the use of a pesticide on a growing crop needs 
    a section 409 FAR in addition to a section 408 tolerance, EPA looks at 
    the likelihood that the residue levels in the processed food when ready 
    to eat will exceed the section 408 tolerance level. In the past, EPA 
    applied this policy focusing almost exclusively on the results of 
    processing studies using treated crops. In response to the NFPA 
    petition, EPA announced new policies on how it would determine whether 
    a pesticide needs a section 409 FAR (60 FR 31300, July 1, 1994). EPA 
    stated that it would consider a greater range of information in 
    determining the likelihood of residues in processed food exceeding the 
    section 408 tolerance. EPA also adopted a definition of RTE as it 
    applies to human food and animal feed. Whether a food is RTE or not is 
    critical to application of the concentration policy. If a food is not 
    RTE, EPA considers the degree of dilution that occurs in producing a 
    RTE food from the not-RTE food in determining the likelihood that 
    residues in RTE food will exceed the section 408 tolerance.
        Perhaps the most significant new information that EPA stated it 
    would consider is information bearing on the average residue value from 
    crop field trials. The data from field residue trials show that it is 
    possible to obtain significantly different residue values from multiple 
    field trials. EPA's old policy was to use the highest field trial 
    sample value to calculate expected residues in the processed food. 
    However, in response to the NFPA petition, EPA concluded that where a 
    crop is mixed or blended during processing, it is appropriate to use an 
    average of the residue levels from field trials, rather than the 
    highest sample value in estimating the potential level of residue in 
    processed food. As EPA noted, EPA believes that generally the most 
    appropriate average value to use is the ``highest average field trial'' 
    (HAFT) value, or the average of the highest values found in each of the 
    field trials. Consequently, EPA revised its procedures and is now using 
    the HAFT as the basis for determining whether a section 409 FAR is 
    needed. Use of the HAFT for food commodities that are likely to be 
    mixed or blended decreases the likelihood that residues in processed 
    food will exceed the section 408 tolerance.
        In addition EPA has revised its policies for the use of multiple 
    processing studies. EPA may receive several processing studies for a 
    crop, with each showing a different concentration factor. When 
    different concentration factors result from multiple processing 
    studies, EPA will now use the average concentration factor to determine 
    the expected level of concentration. In addition, EPA is examining 
    processing studies to ensure that they reflect typical commercial 
    practices. If a study does not include a step (e.g., washing) that is 
    considered typical practice in processing a RAC, EPA may decide not to 
    include that study in the calculation of the average concentration 
    factor.
        In response to the NFPA petition, EPA stated it would interpret the 
    phrase RTE food as meaning food ready for consumption ``as is'' without 
    further preparation. For instance, EPA has determined that cottonseed 
    oil is not RTE, while oat bran is.
    
    B. Updated Residue Chemistry Guidelines
    
        In a notice issued September 21, 1995 (60 FR 49150), EPA announced 
    the availability of its updated table II of the Pesticide Assessment 
    Guidelines, Subdivision O, Residue Chemistry. This table, commonly 
    referred to ``Residue Chemistry Table II'' provides a listing of all 
    significant food and feed commodities, both raw and processed, for 
    which residue data are collected and tolerances or FARs are 
    established. In the latest update of this table, criteria were 
    established for inclusion of feed items, and, based on those criteria, 
    a number of feed items were eliminated as significant animal feeds. If 
    a commodity is not listed in table II as a significant
    
    [[Page 11996]]
    food or feed, a tolerance is not necessary for pesticide residues in 
    that commodity.
    
    C. RAC Interpretation
    
        On January 25, 1996 (61 FR 2386), EPA published its interpretation 
    of the term RAC as applied to dried commodities under the FFDCA. This 
    notice explained EPA's interpretation of which dried commodities 
    qualify as RACs. EPA based its interpretation on the purpose of drying, 
    such that commodities dried for the purpose of creating a new 
    marketable commodity are treated as processed food, while those dried 
    for storage or transportation needs are treated as raw foods. This 
    interpretation is consistent with EPA's current practice and therefore 
    no commodities were reclassified as either RAC or processed as a result 
    of the interpretation.
    
    III. Decision Framework
    
        In analyzing whether the 26 FARs addressed in this document should 
    be revoked, EPA has used the following decision framework. First, EPA 
    determined whether a section 409 FAR was necessary to prevent 
    adulteration, given the revisions to the concentration, RTE, and RAC 
    policies as well as to table II. If application of new policies showed 
    no FAR was needed, this document revokes the FAR on that ground. 
    However, if the analysis showed that a FAR is still needed, then the 
    FAR's consistency with the Delaney clause was analyzed. Contrary to the 
    opinion expressed in some comments on the proposed rule (see comments 
    of American Crop Protection Association, and EPA's response in Unit VI 
    of this preamble), EPA does not believe that this approach is legally 
    required under the FFDCA. EPA has chosen this approach in its 
    discretion.
        In examining whether a FAR was needed, EPA followed a stepwise 
    process involving a series of questions. In brief, the questions are:
        1. Do processing data show that there is actual concentration of 
    residues during processing? If processing studies demonstrate that the 
    level of residues in the processed food is less than or equal to the 
    level of residues in the precursor crop (i.e., no ``concentration in 
    fact''), residues in the processed food would not be expected to exceed 
    the section 408 tolerance.
        2. Does use of the average of concentration factors from multiple 
    processing studies show that there is concentration of residues during 
    processing?
        3. Is the commodity mixed or blended during processing, such that 
    use of the HAFT value is appropriate?
        4. Using the HAFT, do residues in processed food exceed the section 
    408 tolerance?
        5. If a processed food item is not eaten ``as is,'' is the dilution 
    that occurs during preparation of RTE food sufficient to reduce 
    pesticide residues below the section 408 tolerance? EPA will evaluate 
    the expected residue level in RTE food containing the processed food 
    item. If the dilution of residues resulting from RTE food preparation 
    is greater than the concentration of residues resulting from processing 
    (the dilution factor is greater than the concentration factor), it is 
    likely that the residues in the finished RTE food will be less than the 
    section 408 tolerance. In this case, no FAR would be necessary for the 
    RTE food.
        If, after consideration of the above factors, a FAR was determined 
    to be necessary, EPA then examined whether the existing FAR for the 
    pesticide chemical violates the Delaney clause.
    
    IV. Analysis of the FARs
    
        EPA originally proposed to revoke all 26 FARs on the basis that 
    they violate the Delaney clause. EPA has since determined that under 
    its revised concentration and RTE policies, 13 FARs are not needed to 
    prevent adulterated food. For the 13 FARs that are needed, EPA next 
    examined their consistency with the ``induce cancer'' standard of the 
    Delaney clause in section IV.B. of this preamble.
    
    A. Is a FAR needed?
    
        Under current policy, a FAR is needed when the appropriate field 
    trial residue value multiplied by the appropriate concentration factor 
    significantly exceeds the section 408 tolerance in the ready to eat 
    commodity. The extent to which EPA will allow residues in the processed 
    food to exceed the section 408 tolerance is determined on a case by 
    case basis, taking into account the sensitivity of the analytical 
    method used to detect the residues. In analyzing the need for section 
    409 FARs, EPA has taken into account not only existing section 408 
    tolerances but also available residue data bearing on whether the 
    current section 408 tolerance should be revised under existing 
    tolerance-setting policies. EPA has received large amounts of residue 
    data as part of the pesticide reregistration program of section 4 of 
    the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Review 
    of these data in several instances shows that the existing section 408 
    tolerance is set either too high or too low. Tolerance adjustments 
    would normally be accomplished through the reregistration program.
        EPA, however, sees no reason to wait until these tolerances are 
    formally revised to determine whether the pesticide concentrates for 
    the purpose of applying the coordination policy. EPA has decided that 
    it should base its concentration decision upon the most recent data on 
    residues in raw crops. If those data indicate that section 408 
    tolerances should be adjusted, EPA has used the adjusted section 408 
    tolerance level as the basis for its determination of whether a section 
    409 FAR is needed because the pesticide concentrates. The basis for 
    EPA's determination that a section 408 tolerance should be adjusted is 
    in the docket for this rulemaking.
        Captan on raisins. EPA proposed to revoke FARs for captan both from 
    pre-harvest use on grapes and direct treatment to raisins.
        On January 31, 1996, EPA published notice in the Federal Register 
    (61 FR 3401) of a petition filed by the Captan Task Force requesting 
    revocation of the section 409 FAR for raisins. The petition claims that 
    good manufacturing practice for producing raisins requires that the 
    raisins are washed before they are ready-to-eat and that washing 
    raisins substantially eliminates remaining captan residues. The 
    petition claims that because captan residues do not concentrate in 
    washed raisins above the established residue levels on treated grapes, 
    the FAR should be revoked.
        EPA has reviewed the public comments and reconsidered the available 
    grape/raisin processing studies. EPA agrees that washing is standard 
    practice in raisin production, Accordingly, EPA has determined that 
    only those studies which involve washing the raisins reflect current 
    processing practices. When only those data which include a washing step 
    are used to evaluate the need for a section 409 FAR for raisins, the 
    average concentration factor for residues of captan per se on washed 
    raisins is less than one. Therefore, no section 409 FAR is needed for 
    residues from pre-harvest treatment.
        In regard to direct post-harvest application to grapes (drying 
    raisins), the petition claims that the section 409 FAR is not needed 
    because there are no registered products containing captan which 
    include label directions for post-harvest use on raisins. EPA has 
    reviewed all labels of products containing captan, and agrees with the 
    petitioner that there are no labels which allow postharvest use of 
    captan on drying grapes/raisins. Therefore, the
    
    [[Page 11997]]
    section 409 FAR is not needed for residues resulting from post-harvest 
    treatment of the fruit.
        Ethylene oxide on ground spices. Since ethylene oxide is directly 
    applied to processed ground spices, the existing section 409 FAR is 
    necessary to prevent adulterated food. EPA policies on concentration 
    and dilution in RTE foods are not relevant to a processed commodity 
    treated directly with a pesticide.
        Mancozeb on brans of oats, barley and rye; flours of oats, barley, 
    rye and wheat. On May 19, 1993, EPA published notice in the Federal 
    Register (58 FR 29318) of a petition filed by the Mancozeb Task Force. 
    This petition sought the revocation of the section 409 FAR for the 
    flours and brans of barley, oats, rye and wheat. The petitioner argued 
    that residues do not concentrate in the brans and flours of these 
    grains over the section 408 RAC tolerances. EPA has reviewed the 
    available data in accordance with the new Agency policies and made the 
    following determinations in regard to the residues of Mancozeb on brans 
    of oats, barley and rye, and flours of oats, barley, rye and wheat.
        Oat bran. The current section 408 tolerance for mancozeb on oat 
    grain is 5 ppm (40 CFR 180.176). Evaluation of new residue data 
    indicates that the tolerance should be reduced to 1 ppm. Based on the 
    HAFT of 0.98 ppm for oat grain and an average concentration factor of 
    2.0 in oat bran, the expected residue in oat bran is calculated as 2.0 
    ppm. The HAFT multiplied by the concentration factor is 0.98 X 2.0=2.0 
    ppm. (This calculation is used throughout the document to calculate 
    expected residue levels.) EPA believes that it is likely that some oat 
    bran will contain residues exceeding the adjusted RAC tolerance level 
    of 1 ppm. Oat bran is a RTE processed food and needs a section 409 FAR.
        Barley and rye bran. The current section 408 tolerance for mancozeb 
    on barley and rye grains are 5 ppm (40 CFR 180.176). Evaluation of new 
    residue data indicate that this tolerance should be reduced to 1 ppm. 
    Based on the HAFT of 0.98 ppm for barley and rye grain and an average 
    concentration factor of 2.0 in the brans, the expected residues in 
    barley and rye brans are calculated as 2.0 ppm. EPA has determined that 
    both rye and barley bran are not RTE foods and that once they are 
    prepared to their RTE forms, mancozeb residues are unlikely to exceed 
    the adjusted section 408 tolerances of 1 ppm for rye and barley grains. 
    Therefore, the section 409 FARs for mancozeb on brans of barley and rye 
    are not needed and will be revoked on these grounds. EPA will propose 
    to establish a Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) under section 701 of FFDCA 
    in or on barley bran. Moreover, EPA has determined that rye bran is not 
    a significant human food and does not require pesticide residue 
    tolerances. A memo to this effect is in OPP docket 300415.
        Flours of oat, barley, rye and wheat. The current FAR for flours of 
    oat, barley, rye and wheat is 1 ppm (40 CFR 185.6300). EPA has 
    determined that the average concentration factor for wheat flour is 
    less than one, and has used it for other grains. Residues in processed 
    flours are not expected to exceed the adjusted RAC tolerance of 1 ppm 
    for the grains. Therefore, no section 409 FAR is needed for the flours 
    of oat, barely, rye and wheat.
        Oxyfluorfen on spearmint, peppermint, soybean and cottonseed oils. 
    On December 14, 1994, EPA published notice in the Federal Register (59 
    FR 64405) of a petition filed by the Rohm and Haas Company which sought 
    to revoke these section 409 FARs because they are not needed. The 
    petitioner claimed that all processed oil data from processing studies 
    show that residue levels in oils are below the section 408 tolerance 
    levels. The petitioner also argued that these oils are not RTE 
    commodities.
        Spearmint and peppermint oils. The current section 408 tolerance 
    for oxyfluorfen on mint hay is 0.1 ppm (40 CFR 180.381). Evaluation of 
    new residue data indicates that the tolerance should be reduced to 0.05 
    ppm. Based on the HAFT of 0.03 ppm for mint hay, and an average 
    concentration factor of 2.4, the expected residues in mint oils are 
    calculated as 0.072 ppm. The residue level for mint oils is not 
    appreciably higher than the adjusted mint RAC tolerance of 0.05 ppm, 
    taking into account the sensitivity of the analytical method used to 
    detect oxyfluorfen residues. In addition, peppermint and spearmint oils 
    are not RTE commodities, and the Agency has determined that they are 
    diluted by a factor of 120 and 160 respectively in RTE foods. 
    Therefore, a section 409 FAR is not needed. EPA will propose to 
    establish Maximum Residue Limits under section 701 of FFDCA for 
    oxyfluorfen in or on mint oils.
        Soybean oil. Dry soybean seeds treated at 5 times the maximum 
    application rate did not have quantifiable oxyfluorfen residues, thus 
    processing data are not able to show the degree of concentration in 
    soybean oil. The maximum theoretical concentration factor for soybean 
    oil is 5. Since this is the same as the application exaggeration in the 
    residue study, oxyfluorfen residues in soybean oil, are not expected to 
    exceed the section 408 tolerance of .05 ppm. Therefore, a section 409 
    FAR is not needed.
        Cottonseed oil. The current section 408 tolerance for oxyfluorfen 
    on cottonseed is 0.05 ppm (40 CFR 180.381). Evaluation of new residue 
    data indicates that the tolerance should be reduced to .02 ppm. Based 
    on the HAFT of 0.01 ppm for cottonseed and a concentration factor of 
    3.3, the expected residue in cottonseed oil is .04 ppm. Cottonseed oil 
    is not a RTE processed food and once diluted by a factor of 11, which 
    accounts for the minimum level of dilution of cottonseed oil in 
    preparing RTE food, the residues in the RTE food items are not expected 
    to exceed the adjusted section 408 RAC tolerance of .02 ppm. Therefore 
    a section 409 FAR is not needed. EPA will propose to establish Maximum 
    Residue Limits under section 701 of FFDCA for oxyfluorfen in or on 
    cottonseed oil.
        Propargite on raisins, dried figs, and tea. On September 7, 1994, 
    EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (59 FR 46250) of a 
    petition filed by Uniroyal Chemical Company which sought to revoke the 
    section 409 FAR on raisins because it is not needed. The petitioner 
    claimed that propargite residues are susceptible to release through 
    mechanical or washing processes and therefore do not concentrate in 
    raisins.
        Raisins. Based on the HAFT of 4.7 ppm for grapes and an average 
    concentration factor of 1.7, the expected residue in raisins is 
    calculated at 8.0 ppm, which is less than the established section 408 
    RAC tolerance of 10 ppm for grapes. Therefore, a section 409 FAR is not 
    needed for raisins.
        Dried figs. Based on a HAFT of 1.8 ppm for figs and an average 
    concentration factor of 2.7 for dried figs, the expected residue level 
    in dried figs is 4.9 ppm. EPA believes that it is likely that some 
    dried figs will contain propargite residues exceeding the established 
    RAC tolerance level of 3 ppm. Since dried figs are RTE, a section 409 
    FAR is needed.
        Dried tea. Tea is a processed food item even though it is not 
    considered a RTE food. EPA has determined that the degree of dilution 
    from dried tea to brewed RTE tea will exceed any concentration from 
    fresh green tea to dried tea.
        Under the circumstances where: (1) There is a section 408 tolerance 
    for the RAC; and (2) residues in the RTE food are below the section 408 
    tolerance, EPA normally would determine that the
    
    [[Page 11998]]
    section 409 FAR is not necessary. Residues would be covered by the 
    section 408 tolerance under the flow-through provision of section 402, 
    and EPA would revoke the FAR on that ground.
        Tea presents a unique situation, because the FAR is established 
    primarily for import purposes. However, because only the dried tea is 
    imported into the United States, there is no section 408 tolerance for 
    fresh tea. Without a section 408 tolerance, the flow-through provision 
    does not apply. Revocation of the section 409 FAR would leave no 
    tolerance to cover residues in tea, potentially resulting in 
    adulterated tea. Therefore, the section 409 FAR for dried tea is 
    necessary.
        Propylene oxide on glace fruit, cocoa, gums, dried prunes, 
    processed nutmeats (except peanuts), starch and processed spices. Since 
    propylene oxide is directly applied to these commodities, the ``flow 
    through'' provision of section 402 does not apply and the existing 
    section 409 FAR is necessary to prevent adulterated food.
        Simazine on Sugarcane molasses and syrup. Molasses is a RTE food 
    item. The average concentration factor in the processing of molasses is 
    10. A determination of the HAFT has not been made since the 
    concentration factor is so large that the HAFT multiplied by that 
    number is certain to appreciably exceed the section 408 tolerance (.25 
    ppm). EPA expects that in most cases the HAFT will not be lower than 
    the tolerance by a factor of two. This conclusion is based on EPA's 
    experience with setting 408 tolerances (i.e., how they are derived 
    based on the highest residue values) and with the relationships between 
    average residues in field trials and either tolerances or maximum field 
    trial residues, which are usually close to the tolerance. In most cases 
    average residues across all field trials for a given crop are 2-6 times 
    less than a tolerance or maximum field trial value. The highest average 
    field trial (HAFT) will be higher than the average residue across all 
    trials. Therefore, in this particular case the Agency is confident that 
    ten times the HAFT will be appreciably higher than the 408 tolerance. 
    Examples of the relationships between average residues and tolerances 
    or maximum field trial residues are available in the docket for this 
    notice. EPA's conclusion regarding the level of simazine residues in 
    sugarcane molasses is confirmed by a processing study in which 
    sugarcane treated at the maximum application rate showed total residues 
    of 0.63 ppm in molasses, well above the 0.25 ppm sugarcane tolerance. 
    Therefore, EPA believes that it is likely that some molasses will 
    contain residues exceeding the tolerance.
        According to Residue Chemistry Table II, sugarcane syrup is not 
    considered a significant human food item. The Agency has determined 
    that no section 409 FAR is required.
        Simazine in potable water. Even though EPA no longer sets section 
    409 FARs under the FFDCA for residues in potable water, this FAR for 
    simazine exists. Therefore, EPA will apply the same analysis to it as 
    to the other section 409 FARs addressed in this notice.
    
    B. Induce Cancer Determination
    
        If a FAR is necessary to prevent adulterated food, as in the case 
    of the 13 FARs of the five chemicals discussed above, EPA must 
    determine whether the pesticide induces cancer within the meaning of 
    the Delaney clause. In the proposal for this final rule (59 FR 33941; 
    July 1, 1994), EPA determined that all of the following five chemicals 
    ``induce cancer'' within the meaning of the Delaney clause: Ethylene 
    oxide, mancozeb, propargite, propylene oxide and simazine. (OPP docket 
    300335.)
        In construing the ``induce cancer'' standard as to animals, EPA 
    follows a weight-of-the-evidence approach. In regard to animal 
    carcinogenicity, EPA, in general, interprets ``induces cancer'' to 
    mean:
        The carcinogenicity of a substance in animals is established when 
    administration in an adequately designed and conducted study or studies 
    results in an increase in the incidence of one or more types of 
    malignant (or, where appropriate, benign or a combination of benign and 
    malignant) neoplasms in treated animals compared to untreated animals 
    maintained under identical conditions except for exposure to the test 
    compound. Determination that the incidence of neoplasms increases as 
    the result of exposure to the test compound requires a full biological, 
    pathological, and statistical evaluation. Statistics assist in 
    evaluating the biological significance of the observed responses, but a 
    conclusion on carcinogenicity is not determined on the basis of 
    statistics alone. Under this approach, a substance may be found to 
    ``induce cancer'' in animals despite the fact that increased tumor 
    incidence occurs only at high doses, or that only benign tumors occur, 
    and despite negative results in other animal feeding studies. (See 58 
    FR 37863, July 14, 1993; 53 FR 41108, October 19, 1988; and 52 FR 
    49577, December 31, 1987.)
        EPA has considered the comments submitted on the proposed rule, and 
    has applied this interpretation to the 5 chemicals addressed above. 
    Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that ethylene oxide, mancozeb, 
    propargite, propylene oxide and simazine induce cancer within the 
    meaning of the Delaney clause. Because EPA has determined that the 
    section 409 FARs for captan and oxyfluorfen should be revoked on 
    grounds other than the Delaney clause, the Agency is not issuing a 
    final finding in this action that these chemicals induce cancer within 
    the meaning of the Delaney clause. Full copies of EPA's reviews of each 
    chemical and other references in this document are available in the OPP 
    docket 300335, the location of which is given in the ``ADDRESSES'' 
    section of this preamble.
    
    V. EPA's Decisions
    
    A. FARs That Are Not Needed
    
        Captan. EPA is revoking the FAR for the fungicide captan in or on 
    raisins (50 ppm). This FAR is codified at 40 CFR 185.500. EPA is 
    revoking this regulation because the Agency has determined that this 
    FAR is not needed to prevent adulterated food. This final rule is based 
    on the grounds discussed in the petition of January 31, 1996, discussed 
    in Unit IV of this preamble.
        Mancozeb. EPA is revoking the FARs for mancozeb (expressed as the 
    zinc ion and maneb coordination product) for residues in the brans of 
    barley and rye (20 ppm) and in the flours of barley, oats, rye and 
    wheat (1 ppm). These FARs are codified at 40 CFR 185.6300. EPA is 
    revoking these FARs because they are not needed to prevent adulterated 
    food. This final rule is based on the grounds discussed in the petition 
    of May 19, 1993, discussed in Unit IV of this preamble.
        Oxyfluorfen. EPA is revoking the FARs for residues of oxyfluorfen 
    on cottonseed oil, peppermint oil, spearmint oil and soybean oil (.25 
    ppm). These FARs are codified at 40 CFR 185.4600. EPA is revoking these 
    FARs because the Agency has determined that these FARs are not needed 
    to prevent adulterated foods. This final rule is based on the grounds 
    discussed in the petition of December 14, 1994, discussed in Unit IV of 
    this preamble.
        Propargite. EPA is revoking the FAR for residues of propargite on 
    raisins (25 ppm). This FAR is codified at 40 CFR 185.5000. EPA is 
    revoking this FAR because the Agency has determined that it is not 
    needed to prevent adulterated food. This final rule is based on the 
    grounds discussed in the petition of September 7, 1994, discussed in 
    Unit IV of this preamble.
    
    [[Page 11999]]
    
        Simazine. EPA is revoking the FAR for residues of simazine in 
    sugarcane syrup (1 ppm). This FAR is codified at 40 CFR 185.5350. EPA 
    is revoking this FAR because EPA has determined that it is not needed 
    to prevent adulterated food. This final rule is based on updated Agency 
    guidelines which dictate when a FAR is needed.
    
                                          Table 1.--13 FARs That Are Not Needed                                     
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Food additive   
                   Pesticide                      CFR citation               Commodity            regulation level  
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Captan                                          185.500          raisins                          50.0 ppm      
                                                                                                                    
    Mancozeb                                        185.6300         bran of barley, rye               20 ppm       
                                                                                                                    
                                                                     flours of oats, barley,            1 ppm       
                                                                      rye, wheat                                    
                                                                                                                    
    Oxyfluorfen                                     185.4600         peppermint, spearmint,           0.25 ppm      
                                                                      soybean, and cottonseed                       
                                                                      oils                                          
                                                                                                                    
    Propargite                                      185.5000         raisins                           25 ppm       
                                                                                                                    
    Simazine                                        185.5350         sugarcane syrup                    1 ppm       
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    B. Food Additive Regulations That Violate the Delaney Clause
    
        Ethylene oxide. EPA is revoking the FAR for residues resulting from 
    the direct application of ethylene oxide to ground spices (50 ppm). 
    This FAR is codified at 40 CFR 185.2850. Ethylene oxide has been found 
    to induce cancer in animals based on tests which are appropriate for 
    the evaluation of the safety of food additives. Thus, this regulation 
    violates the Delaney clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
        Mancozeb. EPA is revoking the FAR for mancozeb (expressed as the 
    zinc ion and maneb coordination product) for residues in oat bran (20 
    ppm). This FAR is codified at 40 CFR 185.6300. Since mancozeb induces 
    cancer when ingested by animals, this regulation violates the Delaney 
    clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
        Propargite. EPA is revoking the FARs for residues of propargite on 
    dried figs (9 ppm) and dried tea (10 ppm). These FARs are codified at 
    40 CFR 185.5000. Since propargite induces cancer when ingested by 
    animals, these regulations violate the Delaney clause in section 409 of 
    the FFDCA.
        Propylene oxide. EPA is revoking the FARs for residues of propylene 
    oxide on cocoa (300 ppm), glace fruit (700 ppm), gums (300 ppm), 
    processed nutmeats (except peanuts) (300 ppm), dried prunes (700 ppm), 
    processed spices (300 ppm), and starch (300 ppm). These FARs are 
    codified at 40 CFR 185.5150. Since propylene oxide induces cancer in 
    animals in tests appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food 
    additives, these regulations violate the Delaney clause in section 409 
    of the FFDCA.
        Simazine. EPA is revoking the FARs for residues of simazine on 
    sugarcane molasses (1 ppm) and in potable water (.01 ppm). These FARs 
    are codified at 40 CFR 185.5350. Since simazine induces cancer when 
    ingested by animals, these FARs violate the Delaney clause in section 
    409 of the FFDCA.
    
                                    Table 2.--13 FARs That Violate The Delaney Clause                               
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Food additive     
                   Pesticide                     CFR citation              Commodity             regulation level   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ethylene oxide                                 185.2850         ground spices                     50 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
    Mancozeb                                       185.6300         bran of oats                      20 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
    Propargite                                     185.5000         dried figs                        9 ppm         
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    dried tea                         10 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
    Propylene oxide                                185.5150         glace fruit                      700 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    cocoa                            300 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    gums                             300 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    processed nutmeats               300 ppm        
                                                                     (except peanuts)                               
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    dried prunes                     700 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    starch                           300 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    processed spices                 300 ppm        
                                                                                                                    
    Simazine                                       185.5350         sugarcane molasses                1 ppm         
                                                                                                                    
                                                                    potable water                    .01 ppm        
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    VI. Consideration of Comments
    
        EPA's proposed revocation of these FARs was published prior to 
    EPA's response to the NFPA petition. Many comments that were submitted 
    in response to the proposed rule urged EPA to reconsider many of its 
    tolerance setting policies, including the coordination, concentration, 
    RTE and RAC policies. As explained in the earlier units of this notice, 
    EPA has adopted new policies and used them in making the determinations 
    for this final rule. Because of these new policies, only 13 of the 26 
    FARs which EPA proposed to revoke on July 1, 1994, are being revoked 
    because they violate the Delaney clause. In addition, most commenters 
    also raised chemical specific issues, primarily concerning whether the 
    chemical induces cancer within the meaning of the Delaney clause. EPA's 
    response to chemical specific comments is summarized below. Full 
    responses to comments are in the docket.
    
    American Crop Protection Association (ACPA)
    
        Comments: ACPA submitted extensive comments on the proposal.
    
    [[Page 12000]]
    Many of ACPA's comments seem to suggest that EPA has incorrectly 
    applied the legal standard ``induce cancer'' because EPA failed to 
    duplicate prior FDA practice. ACPA admits that EPA announced it would 
    use FDA's ``induce cancer'' standard and would follow the weight of the 
    evidence approach used by FDA but ACPA contends that EPA's application 
    of the standard was not sufficiently thorough and that EPA has failed 
    to consider various categories of relevant evidence. ACPA alleges that 
    one particular type of evidence ignored by EPA is biologic and 
    mechanistic data. Further, ACPA argues that EPA has wrongly interpreted 
    the Delaney clause because EPA has failed to take into account the 
    relevance of the results of animal studies to humans. ACPA also asserts 
    that EPA failed to take account of the fact that an ``induce cancer'' 
    finding is appropriate only where the evidence is ``conclusive.'' 
    Finally, ACPA argues that EPA is legally required to determine whether 
    a section 409 FAR is legally necessary to prevent the adulteration of 
    food before revoking it on Delaney clause grounds.
        EPA's response: EPA believes its application of the ``induce 
    cancer'' standard and the weight of the evidence approach has 
    sufficiently addressed all relevant evidence. Where ACPA or other 
    commenters have raised questions concerning how specific data were 
    considered for specific chemicals, EPA has in this notice or in the 
    docket responded to those comments. ACPA's comments regarding the role 
    of the relevance of animal studies to humans under the Delaney clause, 
    the relevance of biologic and mechanistic data, the degree of certainty 
    required for a Delaney clause finding, and the need for a determination 
    as to the necessity of a FAR are addressed below.
        Relevance to humans. ACPA asserts that a substance does not induce 
    cancer within the meaning of the Delaney clause even if it produces 
    cancer when fed to experimental animals if the results of the 
    experiment are not relevant to human carcinogenicity. To support this 
    conclusion, ACPA first notes that the Delaney clause contains two 
    clauses separated by the conjunction ``or.''
    
        [N]o additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to 
    induce cancer when ingested by man or animal or if it is found, 
    after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety 
    of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal       * * *.
    
    21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). According to ACPA, the first 
    clause is limited to evidence gathered through epidemiological studies 
    on humans or animals and the second clause addresses evidence gathered 
    from experiments. ACPA bases this conclusion on the inclusion of the 
    word ``tests'' in the second clause but not in the first. Further, ACPA 
    argues that the requirement that the tests be ``appropriate for the 
    evaluation of the safety of food additives'' mandates that EPA must 
    consider the relevance of both the test design and the test results to 
    human carcinogenicity. For example, ACPA asserts that if the test 
    produces cancer in the animals but that cancer would not be produced in 
    humans then the substance does not induce cancer in animals under the 
    Delaney clause because the test was inappropriate for an evaluation of 
    human carcinogenicity. A failure to consider the relevance of test 
    results to humans, ACPA contends, would make the focus of the Delaney 
    clause protection of the health of experimental animals, not humans.
        EPA disagrees with each step of ACPA's analysis. First, EPA 
    believes that the feeding studies with experimental animals fall within 
    the first clause of the Delaney clause. It is a difficult stretch to 
    suggest that a substance that has produced cancer in an animal feeding 
    study has not been ``found to induce cancer when ingested by * * * 
    animal[s].'' This is especially the case when the alternative 
    interpretation is that this phrase refers to a type of study--an 
    epidemiological study of animals--which is rarely if ever used to 
    evaluate carcinogenicity.
        Moreover, the legislative history refutes ACPA's proposed 
    interpretation. The second half of the Delaney clause concerning 
    appropriate tests was included in the anti-cancer provision because of 
    a concern that tests other than feeding studies might be deemed 
    controlling under the Delaney clause. At the same time the 
    ``appropriate'' tests clause was added, the original clause was amended 
    to add a reference to ingestion, thus signaling a special status for 
    ingestion studies.
        Congressman Delaney's anti-cancer clause as initially drafted 
    stated: ``The Secretary shall not approve for use in food any chemical 
    additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to 
    induce cancer in animals.'' H.R. 7798, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., section 
    409 (d), reprinted in XIV A Legislative History of the Federal Food, 
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act at 97 [hereinafter cited as Leg. Hist.]. At 
    first, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) objected 
    to a specific mention of cancer in the Food Additive Amendments but 
    relented and proposed the anti-cancer language which was enacted. HEW 
    explained in detail the reason for revising the initial anti-cancer 
    clause:
    
        It would be important, also to use language that would provide 
    the intended safeguards without creating unintended and unnecessary 
    complications. For example, the language suggested by some to bar 
    carcinogenic additives would, if read literally, forbid the approval 
    for use in food of any substance that causes any type of cancer in 
    any test animal by any route of administration. This could lead to 
    undesirable results which obviously were not intended by those who 
    suggested the language. Concentrated sugar solution, lard, certain 
    edible vegetable oils, and even cold water have been reported to 
    cause a type of cancer at the site of injection when injected 
    repeatedly by hypodermic needle into the same spot in a test animal. 
    But scientists have not suggested that these same substances cause 
    cancer when swallowed by mouth.
    
        The enactment of a law which would seem to bar such common 
    materials from the diet would place the agency that administered it 
    in an untenable position. The agency would either have to try to 
    enforce the law literally so as to keep these items out of the 
    diet--evidently an impossible task--or it would have to read between 
    the lines of the law an intent which would make the law workable, 
    without a clear guide from Congress as to what was meant.
    
        This difficulty could readily be avoided, if there is still a 
    desire to make specific mention of cancer in the bill, by providing 
    that ``no additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to 
    induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, 
    after tests which are appropriate to the evaluation of the safety of 
    food additives, to induce cancer in animals.''
    
    104 Cong. Rec. 17415 (1958), XIV Leg. Hist. at 869 (reprinting a letter 
    from Elliot L. Richardson, Assistant Secretary, Department of HEW). If 
    HEW had intended that HEW be granted discretion to decide whether any 
    test was appropriate for evaluating the safety of food additives, even 
    ingestion studies, the word ``appropriate'' could have simply been 
    inserted before ``tests'' in Congressman Delaney's draft. However, the 
    proposed revision not only added language modifying the word ``test'' 
    but rewrote the opening language of the anticancer provision by 
    inserting a reference to ingestion and animals. This creates the clear 
    inference that the appropriateness of ingestion studies was not open to 
    question.
        This was certainly the contemporaneous interpretation of the 
    Delaney clause. In 1960, when the addition of a Delaney clause to the 
    Color Additive Amendments was fully debated in Congress, the House 
    Report on the Amendments described the Delaney clause as follows:
    
        This clause provides that a color additive shall be deemed 
    unsafe and shall not be
    
    [[Page 12001]]
    listed for any use which will or may result in ingestion of any part 
    of such additive, if the additive is found to induce cancer when 
    ingested by man or animal, or if it is found to induce cancer in man 
    or animal by other tests, not involving ingestion, which are 
    considered to be appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of 
    additives for use in food.
    
    H. Rep. No. 1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1960), XVI Leg. Hist. at 
    680. Similarly, the Secretary of HEW indicated at hearings on the Color 
    Additive Amendments that HEW interpreted the ``ingestion'' part of the 
    Delaney clause as requiring the use of scientific tests:
    
        The conclusion that an additive ``is found to induce cancer when 
    ingested by man or animal'' is a scientific one. The conclusion is 
    reached by competent scientists using widely accepted scientific 
    testing methods and critical judgment.
    
    Color Additives: Hearings on H.R. 7624 and S. 2197 Before the Comm. on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 62 (1960), XVI 
    Leg. Hist. at 67 (statement of HEW Secretary Flemming). Finally, that 
    the ``ingestion'' half of the Delaney clause was interpreted as 
    covering feeding studies and thus as being the principal operative 
    phrase in the Delaney clause is confirmed by HEW's reaction to a 
    proposal to delete the first half of the Delaney clause. HEW objected 
    arguing that this change ``is obviously designed to weaken the 
    anticancer clause and to allow room for the contention that our 
    Department should establish tolerances to permit chemicals in food even 
    though they had been found to induce cancer when fed.'' H. Rep. No. 
    1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 83 (1960), XVI Leg. Hist. at 752 (reprinting 
    letter to the Committee from HEW Secretary Flemming) (emphasis added). 
    Following HEW's objections, this amendment was not further pursued.\1\
    
        \1\ To the extent any statement in the notice published at 58 FR 
    37862 (July 14, 1993) implies that ingestion studies fall within the 
    ``appropriate tests'' half of the Delaney clause, that implication 
    was inadvertent and is inconsistent with the statute and with prior 
    EPA precedent (50 FR 20373, May 15, 1985).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Second, even assuming for the sake of argument that feeding studies 
    only fall within the second half of the Delaney clause, EPA still does 
    not accept ACPA's suggestion that the ``appropriate'' tests language 
    allows or requires EPA to consider the relevance to humans of the 
    results of an animal study in determining whether a pesticide induces 
    cancer in animals. Just as in the first half of the Delaney clause, the 
    second half requires a finding of whether a substance induces cancer 
    ``in man or animal.'' The appropriate tests language does not override 
    the clear intent of the statutory ``or'' but merely insures that the 
    tests relate to the safety of food additives. As the legislative 
    history quoted above shows, the appropriate tests language was designed 
    to give the government the discretion to take into account the ``route 
    of administration'' in determining whether the substance would cause 
    cancer when ``swallowed by mouth.'' Accordingly, EPA believes an 
    ``appropriate'' test for the evaluation of the safety of food additives 
    is one that yields information bearing on whether the substance will 
    induce cancer in humans or animals when ingested. Clearly, an animal 
    feeding study meets this criterion in all regards as to animals. 
    Indeed, it would be strange to suggest otherwise. The very stimulus for 
    the Delaney clause was that ``[l]aboratory experiments have shown that 
    a number of substances when added to the diet of test animals have 
    produced cancer.'' H. Rep. No. 1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1960), 
    XVI Leg. Hist. at 680.
        Contrary to ACPA's contention, a focus on the potential of a 
    substance to cause cancer in animals without considering the relevance 
    of this cancer to humans does not make the goal of the Delaney clause 
    the protection of laboratory animals. The underlying rationale of the 
    Delaney clause is that science cannot establish for humans a safe dose 
    of a substance that induces cancer in animals. As explained by HEW:
    
        [The Delaney clause] allows the Department and its scientific 
    people full discretion and judgment in deciding whether a substance 
    has been shown to produce cancer when added to the diet of test 
    animals. But once this decision is made, the limits of judgment have 
    been reached and there is no reliable basis on which discretion 
    could be exercised in determining a safe threshold dose for the 
    established carcinogen.
    
    H. Rep. No. 1761, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. 14 (1960), XVI Leg. Hist. at 683 
    (the Committee report adopted the statement of HEW Secretary Flemming). 
    Thus, by enacting the Delaney clause, Congress concluded that barring 
    substances based on findings in animals alone was the most practicable 
    way to protect humans. ACPA may find this approach misguided but that 
    does not make it not the law.
        At bottom, ACPA's argument seeks to give EPA the discretion to set 
    safe doses for substances found to induce cancer when fed to animals. 
    That discretion, however, was removed by the Delaney clause. Les v. 
    Reilly, 968 F.2d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361 
    (1993). Once a finding of animal carcinogenicity is made, the operation 
    of the Delaney clause is ``automatic.'' Public Citizen v. Young, 831 
    F.2d 1108, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1006 (1988). 
    The D.C. Circuit has previously concluded that the Delaney clause 
    indicates that ``Congress did not intend the FDA to be able to take a 
    finding that a substance causes only trivial risk in humans and work 
    back from that to a finding that the substance does not `induce cancer 
    in * * * animals.''' Id. Similarly, EPA may not work back from a 
    conclusion that the results of an animal study are irrelevant to humans 
    to a finding that the substance does not induce cancer in animals. 
    ``[T]he agency may not, once a color [or food] additive is found to 
    induce cancer in test animals in the conventional sense of the term, 
    undercut the statutory consequence.'' Id. at 1122.
        Mechanistic and biologic information. EPA believes that mechanistic 
    and biologic information is relevant to the Delaney clause 
    determination on animal carcinogenicity to the extent such information 
    bears on the question of whether a substance induces cancer in the test 
    animal. Mechanistic and biologic information may have particular 
    relevance to the issue of causation. However, having said that, EPA 
    recognizes that proper evaluation under the Delaney clause of 
    mechanistic and biologic information poses difficult questions. For 
    example, ACPA contends that if a substance induces cancer through a 
    secondary mechanism (e.g., the substance causes the growth of urinary 
    tract stones and the stones irritate the urinary tract causing cancer), 
    then the substance does not induce cancer within the meaning of the 
    Delaney clause.
        EPA does not believe that EPA or FDA has ever squarely decided this 
    legal question in taking final action on a substance under the Delaney 
    clause. Nor does EPA believe that question needs to be addressed in 
    this notice. Although secondary mechanism arguments have been raised as 
    to several of the pesticides at issue in this notice, as discussed 
    elsewhere in this notice, EPA has decided either as a factual matter 
    that those arguments are not adequately supported or that there exists 
    other evidence showing cancer induction independent from any cancer 
    produced through a secondary mechanism.
        ``Conclusive'' evidence of carcinogenicity. Citing a prior FDA 
    decision involving cyclamates and the Delaney clause, ACPA has 
    contended that findings of carcinogenicity under
    
    [[Page 12002]]
    the Delaney clause must meet some unusually high level of certainty. 
    Other commenters also made this argument. EPA disagrees. Neither the 
    statute, nor FDA precedent for that matter, support using any other 
    than the general administrative standard of proof which is generally 
    described as a preponderance of the evidence. The relevant words of the 
    statute bar the establishment of a regulation for a food additive 
    ``found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal * * *.'' The 
    straightforward requirement to make a finding certainly does not impose 
    some extraordinary level of proof.
        Further, EPA does not believe the FDA decision on cyclamates 
    requires a higher standard of proof. That decision does use the word 
    ``conclusive'' in connection with the Delaney clause, but that is a 
    factor of FDA having classified the studies involved in that case into 
    one of three categories: (1) Conclusive or positive; (2) inconclusive 
    but suggestive; or (3) negative (45 FR 61474, 61481-61482, September 
    16, 1980). This breakdown was made so as to explicate whether the 
    proper showing of safety could be made under the section 409 safety 
    standard excluding the requirements of the Delaney clause. FDA 
    concluded that inconclusive but suggestive studies would have to be 
    addressed by a petitioner attempting to show a compound was ``safe'' 
    (45 FR 61477). FDA described a positive study as a study which 
    ``contains results that establish that a test substance causes cancer'' 
    (45 FR 61481). EPA has found nothing in this precedent to suggest that 
    any standard other than a preponderance of the evidence applies to the 
    Delaney clause finding.
        Determination on the need for section 409 FARs. ACPA as well as 
    several other commenters argued that EPA is legally required to 
    determine if a section 409 FAR is necessary to prevent the adulteration 
    of food prior to revoking such a FAR on Delaney clause grounds. Where 
    there are grounds for revocation of a section 409 FAR unconnected to 
    safety, EPA generally would, as a policy matter, rely on those grounds 
    to revoke the FAR prior to revoking finally under the Delaney clause. 
    However, as EPA has recently explained in the Coordination Policy 
    statement (61 FR 2377, January 31, 1996), EPA is under no legal 
    obligation to subordinate the Delaney clause to other grounds in a 
    revocation proceeding.
    
    EtO
    
        Comment: The American Spice Trade Association (ASTA) submitted a 
    panel report which concluded that EtO is not likely to induce cancer in 
    animals or humans when ingested as a residue on spices. The panel 
    contends that it is inappropriate to conclude that EtO causes cancer 
    through ingestion based on inhalation data. Therefore the revocation of 
    the section 409 FAR because of the Delaney clause is inappropriate.
        EPA's response: EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to use 
    inhalation data to evaluate the safety of EtO as a food additive. This 
    conclusion is based on the finding of multiple benign and malignant 
    tumors distant from the site of exposure, which suggests that EtO has 
    tumor inducing potential independent of route of administration. 
    Inhalation exposure to EtO was associated with multiple benign and 
    malignant tumors in F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice. EtO was also associated 
    with tumor formation following oral gavage administration to Fischer 
    rats and subcutaneous administration to NMRI mice. In addition, EtO is 
    a genotoxic agent in vivo and in vitro. The large in vivo genetic 
    toxicity database shows that EtO produces effects distant from the site 
    of exposure. Genetic effects noted in vivo include micronuclei, sister 
    chromatid exchange, germ cell effects (dominant lethal), and heritable 
    translocations; these effects were associated with intravenous or 
    intraperitoneal injection and inhalation exposure (Dellarco et al. 
    1990). These genetic toxicity data provide further support for the 
    conclusion that EtO induces cancer.
        Comment: ASTA had a number of comments regarding exposure. These 
    comments claim that:
        (1) EtO is unstable in the acid pH of the stomach based on in vitro 
    hydrolysis data.
        (2) Ingested EtO is likely to be detoxified by glutathione present 
    in the gastric mucosa and epithelial cells.
        (3) EtO exposure via ingestion of treated spices is expected to be 
    significantly lower than levels associated with tumors in rodents.
        (4) Consumers are unlikely to be exposed to EtO via consumption of 
    treated spices based on residue persistence studies submitted to EPA.
    The study allegedly showed EtO levels in spices at or below the limit 
    of quantification within 60 days.
        EPA's response: The issue central to the Delaney clause is whether 
    EtO induces cancer in man or animals when ingested or in a study which 
    is appropriate to evaluate the safety of a food additive. EtO is 
    associated with cancer in animals following inhalation, oral, and 
    subcutaneous administration. As explained above, EPA has determined 
    that these studies are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of 
    EtO as a food additive. No data have been submitted which would 
    establish affirmatively that all EtO residues in food would break down 
    or be ``detoxified'' in the stomach. Therefore, EPA does not believe 
    that it should reconsider the determination that inhalation data are 
    appropriate for evaluating EtO as a food additive on these grounds. 
    Further, as explained above, EtO is associated with genetic toxicity, 
    including heritable mutation, in vivo following oral, inhalation, 
    intraperitoneal, and intravenous administration.
        The level of human exposure to EtO residues in treated spices is 
    not relevant to the Delaney clause. As stated above, the critical issue 
    is that EtO has been found to induce cancer in animals. The Delaney 
    clause does not allow EPA to consider exposure levels. Although residue 
    chemistry data submitted to the Agency show that EtO residues in spices 
    dissipate over time, the data also show that sufficient residues remain 
    so that a tolerance is needed for spices treated with EtO.
        Comment: ASTA commented that the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs 
    (OPP) should conduct a peer review of the carcinogenicity of EtO, and 
    should not rely on a Health Assessment Document developed by the EPA 
    Office of Research and Development (ORD) to establish the 
    carcinogenicity of EtO.
        EPA's response: The ORD Health Assessment Document cited in the 
    proposal for this rule is an EPA document which reflects the position 
    of the Agency on the carcinogenicity of EtO. This document was 
    subjected to peer review, both internal and external, prior to 
    publication. In addition, the content of the document was independently 
    peer-reviewed in a public session by the Environmental Health Committee 
    of EPA's Science Advisory Board. Therefore, the Agency does not believe 
    that additional peer review of this finding is needed at this time.
        Comment: ASTA stated its position that revocation of the FAR for 
    EtO is a de facto cancellation of EtO's registration under FIFRA, and 
    that therefore due process requires that FIFRA section 6 procedures be 
    followed in this action. ASTA also suggested that EPA refer the matter 
    of whether EtO induces cancer to the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP).
        EPA's response: EPA has clearly stated its policy on coordination 
    between FFDCA and FIFRA. Congress has charged EPA with administering 
    two statutes with different procedural schemes. As discussed in EPA's
    
    [[Page 12003]]
    Coordination Policy, EPA has taken an approach which harmonizes the two 
    statutory standards to the extent possible. FIFRA does not require EPA 
    to take action under FIFRA before acting under the FFDCA. EPA does not 
    believe that the rulemaking procedures in the FFDCA violate 
    Constitutional due process. With respect to ASTA's suggestion that EPA 
    consult the SAP, there is no requirement that EPA refer FFDCA tolerance 
    revocations to the SAP prior to taking action. The Agency has reviewed 
    all the available information on EtO and has made its determination 
    that EtO induces cancer within the meaning of the Delaney Clause. In 
    addition, as noted above, the EPA Health Assessment Document for EtO, 
    which included an evaluation of the chemical's carcinogenicity, was 
    peer-reviewed in a public session by the Environmental Health Committee 
    of EPA's Science Advisory Board.
        Comment: The National Food Processors' Association (NFPA) and 
    Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) commented that EPA should 
    withdraw the proposed section 409 revocation of EtO pending a detailed 
    reexamination of the data.
        EPA's response: EPA has made the findings in this notice with 
    respect to EtO after reviewing all available information, and sees no 
    reason to withdraw the proposal based on the speculation that other 
    information might become available someday which would disprove this 
    finding. If interested persons submit new information on the 
    carcinogenicity of EtO in the future, EPA will review it and consider 
    then whether additional regulatory action is warranted.
    
    Mancozeb
    
        Comment: The Mancozeb Task Force (MTF) objected to EPA's 
    conclusions that exposure to mancozeb causes an increased incidence of 
    benign and malignant thyroid tumors in rats and an increasing trend of 
    tumors at the highest dose tested (HDT). The MTF believes that these 
    tumors resulted from exposure to ETU formed metabolically from 
    mancozeb.
        EPA's response: The Agency is aware that ETU is a contaminant and 
    degradation product present in mancozeb, and that ETU is a plant and 
    animal metabolite of mancozeb which is present in food treated with 
    mancozeb. Exposure to either mancozeb or ETU results in induction of 
    the same tumor type (thyroid tumors) in rats (ETU also induced thyroid 
    and liver tumors in mice). Consistent with prior FDA decisions, EPA 
    believes that the Delaney clause applies to metabolites of a food 
    additive as well as the parent compound. (See, e.g., 56 FR 41902, 
    41909, August 23, 1991.)
        Comment: The MTF also argued that the rat thyroid lesions resulted 
    from overstimulation of the thyroid and the development of 
    proliferative lesions when the threshold for thyroid-pituitary feedback 
    is exceeded on a chronic basis.
        EPA's response: This may be a plausible mechanism for the thyroid 
    tumors in rats. However, EPA has not received sufficient evidence to 
    show the mechanism through which mancozeb induces cancer. Moreover, as 
    noted in EPA's response to ACPA's comments, EPA has not determined the 
    legal relevance of secondary mechanism claims to the Delaney clause 
    finding.
        In the Agency's Draft Policy Document on Thyroid Follicular 
    Carcinogenesis: Mechanistic and Science Policy Considerations, SAB 
    Review Draft, May 1988, EPA explained a mechanism through which a 
    substance could cause thyroid cancer:
    
        Studies over the last several decades in multiple laboratories 
    and using a number of different treatment regimens (e.g., iodine 
    deficiency) have demonstrated the significance of long-term thyroid-
    pituitary hormonal imbalance in thyroid carcinogenesis. A consistent 
    progression of events is noted: reduction in thyroid hormone 
    concentrations, elevation in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) 
    levels, cellular hypertrophy and hyperplasia, nodular hyperplasia, 
    and neoplasia. Hyperplasia and sometimes neoplasia of the pituitary 
    may also be seen * * *. A block in any of the early steps act as a 
    block for subsequent steps including tumor development, and 
    cessation of treatment at an early stage in the progression results 
    in regression toward normal thyroid structure and function.
    
        Two basic questions must be addressed before this draft policy is 
    applied. The MTF has not submitted data establishing that the neoplasms 
    found in the mancozeb studies are due to thyroid-pituitary imbalance, 
    or that other carcinogenic mechanisms can be discounted. Specifically, 
    the MTF has not submitted data to demonstrate any of the following six 
    points:
        (a) Goitrogenic activity in vivo;
        (b) Clinical chemistry changes (e.g., reduced thyroid hormone and 
    increased TSH serum concentrations);
        (c) Specific evidence of reduced hormone synthesis (e.g., inhibited 
    iodine uptake) or increased thyroid hormone clearance (e.g., enhanced 
    biliary excretion);
        (d) Evidence of progression (e.g., hypertrophy/hyperplasia, nodular 
    hyperplasia-neoplasia);
        (e) Reversibility of effects after exposure is terminated; and
        (f) Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) to other thyroid 
    tumorigens.
        Comment: The MTF also commented that the FAR for mancozeb in or on 
    brans and flours is not necessary because residues do not concentrate 
    in RTE foods above the level of the RAC tolerance, and that EPA should 
    complete action on the Task Force's petition to revoke the FAR for 
    brans and flours on that basis.
        EPA's response: As discussed above in EPA's coordination policy, 
    EPA does not have any obligation to determine whether or not a FAR is 
    necessary before proceeding to revoke it. However, EPA has reviewed the 
    Task Force's petition, and, as discussed in Unit V.A. of this preamble, 
    where EPA agrees with the petition, EPA is revoking the FAR on grounds 
    that the residues do not concentrate above the level of the RAC 
    tolerance. The FARs for mancozeb in or on flours of oat, barley, rye 
    and wheat, and for brans of barley and rye are not needed, and are 
    being revoked on that basis. EPA did not agree with the petition with 
    respect to oat bran, which is a RTE food. Therefore, the FAR for oat 
    bran is being revoked because it violates the Delaney clause.
    
    Propargite
    
        Comment: Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. commented that the Agency has 
    not performed a weight of the evidence review of all available data and 
    information on propargite, including mechanistic considerations. 
    Uniroyal also asserted that EPA's ``induces cancer'' determination does 
    not reflect that one mutagenic study was negative and ignores all other 
    mutagenicity studies. Based on one negative mutagenicity study and 
    strong evidence for a secondary mechanism for tumors in rats, Uniroyal 
    argued that propargite cannot be said to induce cancer.
        EPA's response: After a full evaluation of all the data and 
    supporting information regarding animal carcinogenicity, EPA concludes 
    that exposure to propargite results in an increased incidence of 
    undifferentiated sarcoma of the jejunum in both sexes of Sprague-Dawley 
    rats. This rare (unusual site) and malignant tumor was produced with a 
    high incidence and is fatal. The mutagenicity data support the 
    carcinogenicity of propargite.
        The commenter argues that the jejunal tumors were caused by a 
    secondary mechanism involving cell proliferation. In support, the 
    commenter submitted a study purporting to show that propargite only 
    causes cell proliferation at high doses. The theory that cancer can be 
    caused by cell proliferation, and that proliferation is subject to a
    
    [[Page 12004]]
    threshold, is just that--a theory. The Agency has yet to validate the 
    cell proliferation model as it tentatively has done with regard to the 
    mechanism involving thyroid-pituitary hormonal imbalance in thyroid 
    carcinogenicity (see EPA's response to secondary mechanism comment on 
    mancozeb, above). Important basic science data are needed, like those 
    developed for the thyroid, before EPA can even consider this model.
        With respect to the comment regarding mutagenicity data, propargite 
    was demonstrated to be mutagenic in a Chinese hamster ovary cell gene 
    mutation study in the absence, but not presence of metabolic 
    activation; this indicates that propargite is a direct-acting mutagen. 
    Propargite produced positive and negative results in two replicate 
    experiments for micronuclei in mouse bone marrow. Propargite was 
    negative in an older, unclassified Salmonella gene mutation assay and 
    for unscheduled DNA synthesis. Overall, these data provide evidence for 
    mutagenicity that would support a finding of carcinogenicity.
        Comment: Uniroyal also commented that revocation of the FARs for 
    propargite may increase dietary risk to consumers and raise the cost 
    and lower the quality of food. Finally, Uniroyal commented that raisins 
    and dried tea should be classified as RACs rather than as processed 
    foods.
        EPA's response: The concerns raised by Uniroyal regarding relative 
    dietary risks and cost or quality of food are not relevant to the 
    analysis of FARs under the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause contains 
    no provision for consideration of exposure levels, relative risks, or 
    cost impacts. See Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. 
    denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361 (1993).
        With regard to whether raisins and dried tea are RACs or processed 
    foods, EPA recently issued an interpretive ruling defining RACs. Under 
    this ruling, commodities which are routinely dried for storage or 
    transportation purposes are considered RACs, while commodities which 
    are dried for the purpose of creating a distinct commodity are 
    considered processed. As specifically discussed in that ruling, raisins 
    are produced by a drying process that converts one distinct commodity 
    (i.e. grapes) into another distinct commodity (i.e. raisins). 
    Therefore, raisins are a processed food.
        EPA has found that dried tea is also a processed food, but for a 
    slightly different reason. Tea leaves are not only dried prior to 
    storage and transport; some varieties constituting a significant 
    amount, if not the majority, of tea imported into this country, are 
    fermented to various degrees prior to drying. Fermenting is certainly 
    within the meaning of ``processing,'' therefore the status of dried tea 
    as a processed food was not affected by the RAC interpretation of 
    drying. Although there are some varieties of tea which are not 
    fermented prior to the drying process, the propargite tea FAR applies 
    to dried tea generally, and thus must be revoked.
    
    Propyline Oxide
    
        Comment: The Warren Chemical Co. (Warren) commented that inhalation 
    studies should not be used to determine carcinogenicity because 
    propylene oxide converts to propylene glycol in the stomach.
        EPA's response: The Agency believes that inhalation studies are 
    appropriate for evaluating the safety of propylene oxide due to the 
    appearance of tumors in both mice and rats at a site distant (e.g. in 
    the mammary gland) from the route of exposure (inhalation). EPA does 
    not have sufficient data to establish that ingestion of propylene oxide 
    residues in foods would only result in exposure to propylene glycol, as 
    the commenter asserts. Therefore, the Agency believes that the 
    inhalation data are appropriate for the evaluation of propylene oxide.
        Comment: Warren also commented that EPA's finding that female mice 
    showed a significant dose related trend of mammary gland 
    adenocarcinomas relative to controls did not consider a statement in 
    the study report. The authors of the study stated that the tumor 
    incidence was within the range found in historical untreated controls, 
    and that they did not consider the incidence of this tumor to be 
    related to exposure to propylene oxide.
        EPA's response: For comparisons of tumor incidence in treated and 
    control animals, it is the concurrent control which is the primary 
    reference. The following excerpt is from EPA's ``Guidelines for 
    Carcinogen Risk Assessment'' (51 FR 33992-34003, September 24, 1986)
    
        To evaluate carcinogenicity, the primary comparison is tumor 
    response in dosed animals as compared with that in contemporary 
    matched control animals. Historical control data are often valuable, 
    however, and could be used along with concurrent control data in the 
    evaluation of carcinogenicresponses.
    
    Thus, comparisons with historical controls are secondary to those with 
    concurrent controls. Historical control data when it is from the same 
    laboratory and same time period as that in which the study was 
    performed may be used to determine if the concurrent control response 
    is within the normal range. EPA often disagrees with authors of studies 
    regarding the significance of certain observations. In this case, the 
    EPA review considered the concurrent controls a more appropriate 
    reference for comparing the tumor incidence in treated animals. In any 
    event, there were tumors found in the rat study as well, which fact 
    also forms part of the basis for EPA's finding that propylene oxide 
    induces cancer.
        Comment: Warren also commented that EPA should not consider 
    fibroadenomas when applying the Delaney clause because a fibroadenoma 
    could possibly disappear without becoming malignant.
        EPA's response: A fibroadenoma is a benign neoplastic lesion. 
    Adenocarcinomas are malignant and can arise within fibroadenomas. A 
    fibroadenoma may or may not progress to a carcinoma. As discussed 
    above, an increase in the incidence of malignant tumors or, where 
    appropriate, benign tumors or a combination of benign and malignant 
    tumors, satisfy the ``induce cancer'' standard under the Delaney 
    clause. In any event, adenocarcinomas were also found in the study 
    where fibroadenomas occurred.
        Comment: Warren also argued that EPA should not rely on the rat 
    gavage study for each of the following reasons:
        (a) It showed tumors only in the forestomach, an organ humans do 
    not have.
        (b) EPA's peer review did not take into account the fact that 
    propylene oxide converts in the stomach to propylene glycol.
        (c) The study went on for three years instead of two, which is 
    improper because older rats are more susceptible to cancer.
        (d) Human stomachs have a protective lining which rat forestomachs 
    do not have.
        (e) Gavage, or pipetting substance into an animal's stomach, is not 
    what ``ingested'' means in the context of the Delaney clause.
        EPA's response: (a) The commenter points out that humans do not 
    have forestomachs, and argues that tumors in this organ should be 
    disregarded by EPA in assessing the carcinogenicity of propylene oxide. 
    However, it is not always possible to draw a direct site to site 
    correlation between tumors in different species. Just because humans do 
    not have forestomachs does not mean that there could not be any 
    tumorigenic response in another organ. In any event, the absence of a 
    forestomach in humans does not affect the fact that cancer was induced 
    in the rat forestomach.
        (b) EPA addressed the issue of conversion of propylene oxide to
    
    [[Page 12005]]
    propylene glycol in the stomach in its response to a prior comment 
    above.
        (c) The commenter argues that because the study lasted three years 
    instead of two, the Q* or cancer potency factor assigned to propylene 
    oxide should have been revised. The fact that the study lasted three 
    years instead of two does not necessarily mean that its findings were 
    not valid. Although older rats may tend to get more cancer than younger 
    rats, the concurrent control animals also aged, and their chance of 
    developing tumors increased with that of the treated animals. Whether 
    or not the Q* should account for this element of the study is not 
    relevant to the determination that tumors were produced in the study, 
    and therefore propylene oxide induces cancer. An ``induces cancer'' 
    finding under the Delaney clause does not depend on relative potency.
        (d) The commenter speculates that the protective lining of the 
    human stomach would protect it from any tumor-causing effects of 
    exposure to propylene oxide, therefore rat forestomach tumors cannot be 
    relevant to whether propylene oxide residues in food would cause cancer 
    in humans. However, there is no data to support the commenter's theory 
    that such a protective lining would have prevented the forestomach 
    tumors in the rat study. As noted above, there is not necessarily a 
    direct site to site correlation between species. EPA does not believe 
    that this speculation forms any basis to disregard the rat gavage 
    study.
        (e) The Agency believes that studies where test compounds are 
    administered to treated animals by gavage are ``ingestion'' studies 
    within the meaning of the Delaney clause. EPA also believes that gavage 
    studies are generally appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of 
    food additives. See EPA's response to comments of Grocery 
    Manufacturers' Association, below.
        Comment: Finally, Warren commented that there is no alternative 
    sterilant for cocoa or for nutmeats. The commenter noted that 
    irradiation is not appropriate for treatment of cocoa powder because 
    irradiated cocoa tends to turn rancid. The commenter also noted that 
    irradiation is not a viable alternative for all spices because it 
    degrades the oils and flavor of some spices (like chili powder). 
    Finally, the commenter stated that irradiation would impose high costs 
    on production of these commodities.
        EPA's response: As noted earlier regarding costs of food, 
    availability of pesticide alternatives is not relevant to the Agency's 
    decisions on FARs under the Delaney clause. EPA can only consider 
    whether the substance at issue induces cancer when ingested by man or 
    animals, or when tested in a test which is appropriate for evaluating 
    the safety of a food additive.
        Comment: John A. Todhunter commented on behalf of Aberco, Inc., a 
    registrant of pesticides containing propylene oxide. With regard to 
    cocoa, Dr. Todhunter commented that there will be no propylene oxide 
    residues in foods made with treated cocoa powder because the cocoa is 
    incorporated into foods which are processed at high temperatures (i.e. 
    baked or cooked foods). With regard to gums and spices, Dr. Todhunter 
    commented that propylene oxide is not a pesticide under the FFDCA when 
    it is used to sterilize gums and spices. The commenter argued that FDA 
    has listed gums and spices as ``generally regarded as safe'' (GRAS), 
    and that therefore anything which becomes a constituent of a GRAS 
    substance through good manufacturing practices (GMP) cannot be 
    regulated under section 409. The commenter cited FDA regulations at 21 
    CFR 182.10 (spices) and 184.1330 through 184.1351 (gums). With regard 
    to starch, Dr. Todhunter commented that propylene oxide is not a 
    pesticide under the FFDCA when it is used to sterilize starch because 
    starch is not a RAC. The commenter also stated that there will be no 
    propylene oxide residues on foods made with treated starch because the 
    starch is later incorporated into foods and beverages which are all 
    processed at high temperatures. Dr. Todhunter also recommended that EPA 
    establish tolerances for propylene oxide on cocoa powder, gums and 
    starch under section 406 of the FFDCA. Dr. Todhunter further commented 
    that the nuts on which propylene oxide is used are not ``processed 
    nutmeats'' but are RACs, and therefore propylene oxide should be 
    regulated under FFDCA section 408 rather than 409.
        EPA's response: EPA disagrees with most of these comments. First, 
    propylene oxide, when used to sterilize these processed foods, is a 
    pesticide as defined under FIFRA because it is used to destroy or 
    mitigate pests. See 7 U.S.C. 136(u). Cocoa powder is a processed food 
    which is treated before it moves in commerce, therefore propylene oxide 
    is a food additive when used to treat cocoa powder. Whether residues 
    would remain in the cocoa after it is incorporated into other foods is 
    not relevant to whether or not a FAR is necessary for propylene oxide 
    residues on cocoa powder.
        Edible gums and spices are processed foods which are treated with 
    propylene oxide before they move in commerce, therefore propylene oxide 
    is a food additive when used to sterilize them. Whether or not use of 
    propylene oxide is part of GMP for production of these foods is not 
    relevant to whether or not a FAR is necessary for propylene oxide 
    residues. The regulations cited are simply the FDA's listing of the 
    gums and spices themselves as GRAS. The FDA regulations are not 
    intended to make anything which may become part of the foods (such as a 
    sterilant) GRAS.
        Starch is a processed food which is treated before it moves in 
    commerce, therefore propylene oxide is a food additive when used to 
    treat starch. Whether residues would remain in a food made from treated 
    starch after it is incorporated into other foods is not relevant to 
    whether or not a FAR is necessary for propylene oxide residues on 
    starch.
        The notion that EPA should regulate pesticides in processed foods 
    under FFDCA section 406 was raised by NFPA in their second petition 
    submitted in July 1995. EPA responded to this issue in the notice 
    issuing the Coordination Policy (61 FR 2377, January 25, 1996). To the 
    extent that Congress left EPA with discretion to regulate pesticides 
    under either sections 406 or 409, EPA has declined to change from its 
    current practice.
        With regard to nutmeats, EPA agrees that nutmeats per se are a RAC 
    that should have a raw food tolerance established under FFDCA section 
    408. See Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision O: Residue 
    Chemistry Table II (October 1982, amended September 1995).
        The current FAR for propylene oxide on processed nutmeats was 
    established more than 25 years ago. EPA determined in 1982 that nuts 
    were a RAC, and since then, has established raw food tolerances for 
    nuts under FFDCA section 408. Although the FAR was established for 
    ``processed'' nutmeats, it has been viewed by the industry as covering 
    the current use of propylene oxide on nutmeats, regardless of whether 
    they were considered raw or processed.
        EPA has not yet reviewed propylene oxide in its pesticide 
    reregistration program, at which time the discrepancy in the tolerance 
    situation would have been addressed routinely. In light of the strict 
    standard of the Les v. Reilly court decision, however, EPA has focused 
    its attention more carefully on each of the statutory provisions 
    affecting its decisions relating to tolerances. For instance, EPA has 
    articulated or refined its policies in a number of areas, including its 
    concentration, ready-to-eat
    
    [[Page 12006]]
    and raw/processed policies, discussed in Unit II of this preamble.
        EPA has received a petition from SRS International corporation, on 
    behalf of Aberco, Inc., to establish a 408 tolerance for propylene 
    oxide on raw nutmeats. A notice of filing of this petition was 
    published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3696). The 
    Agency is currently reviewing the petition and the toxicology and 
    residue databases for propylene oxide, and will act on the petition as 
    soon as practicable.
    
    Simazine
    
        Comment: Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Ciba) commented that the results of 
    studies relied upon by EPA for its determination that simazine induces 
    cancer are not appropriate for evaluation of the human safety of 
    simazine as a food additive and do not demonstrate that simazine 
    ``induces cancer'' within the meaning of Delaney Clause. Ciba's first 
    argument for this premise was based on the fact that no increased 
    incidence of any tumor type was observed in male or female mice which 
    were fed simazine.
        EPA's response: EPA has found that simazine induces cancer in 
    animals when ingested within the meaning of the Delaney clause. As 
    such, EPA was precluded from considering relevance of this finding to 
    humans. (See response to ACPA's comments.) In construing the ``induce 
    cancer'' standard as to animals, EPA follows a weight-of-the-evidence 
    approach. After a full evaluation of all the data and supporting 
    information regarding animal carcinogenicity, EPA concluded that 
    exposure to simazine by ingestion results in increased incidence of 
    malignant mammary gland carcinomas and malignant pituitary gland 
    carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats. The study's tumor incidence 
    results were statistically significant when compared with concurrent 
    controls and exceeded the upper limit of the historical control range 
    of the testing laboratory. The pituitary tumors were fatal with a 
    possibly accelerated onset at both the mid- and highest dose, and the 
    mammary tumors also contributed to the increased mortality at the 
    highest dose. There was equivocal evidence of kidney tubule tumors (an 
    uncommon tumor type) in both sexes. The structural analogs are strongly 
    supportive as these compounds mostly induced malignant mammary gland 
    tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats. There was some evidence of genotoxicity 
    for simazine, as well as for some of the analogs.
        The Agency agrees that there was no increased incidence of tumors 
    associated with Simazine exposure in the CD-1 mouse study. However, 
    this negative study in mice does not convince EPA that simazine did not 
    induce cancer in the study on rats.
        Comment: Ciba also argued that the mid-dose level (100 ppm) in the 
    Sprague-Dawley rat study exceeded the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), 
    based on significant reductions in survival at this dose. Based on this 
    argument, Ciba asserted that increased incidence of mammary gland 
    carcinomas resulted only at doses that exceeded the MTD, i.e., the mid- 
    and high doses.
        EPA's response: The Agency is not convinced that the mid-dose in 
    female rats exceeded the MTD, because the pituitary tumors contributed 
    to the mortality. There were statistically significant increases in 
    mammary gland carcinomas and in pituitary adenomas and combined 
    adenoma/carcinoma at both the mid-and highest-doses.
        The study authors reported that the pituitary tumors (adenomas and 
    carcinomas) in female rats were considered to be fatal ``by virtue of 
    their size and compression of the mid-brain'' and thus contributed to 
    the decreased survivability of both the mid- and highest-dose group 
    females. In addition, their onset was 4-15 weeks earlier in the mid- 
    and highest-dose groups as compared to the control and low dose groups.
        Comment: Ciba also commented that atrazine, a structurally similar 
    compound, while displaying a similar oncogenic profile in S-D rats and 
    in mice, did not induce mammary tumors in the Fisher 344 female rat.
        EPA's response: Simazine is one of several s-triazine compounds 
    used in agriculture as herbicides. It is structurally related to 
    atrazine, cyanazine, and propazine, among others. Although atrazine did 
    not induce mammary tumors in Fisher 344 female rats, these structural 
    analogs provide much evidence from other studies to support EPA's 
    finding regarding simazine. Atrazine was associated with increased 
    mammary gland tumors (primarily malignant tumors) in female Sprague-
    Dawley rats; early onset of mammary tumors was also observed. Cyanazine 
    was also associated with increased mammary gland tumors (primarily 
    malignant tumors in female Sprague-Dawley rats.) Propazine was 
    associated with increased mammary gland tumors (primarily benign) in 
    female Sprague-Dawley rats. The structural analogs are strongly 
    supportive as these compounds mostly induced malignant mammary gland 
    tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats.
        Comment: Ciba asserted that simazine is not genotoxic, although the 
    commenter admitted that a few positive genotoxicity results have been 
    reported in the public literature. Ciba argued that potent genotoxic 
    oncogens usually induce mammary tumors in almost one hundred percent of 
    animals, while mammary tumor incidence with simazine was far short of 
    one hundred percent.
        EPA's response: Simazine was found negative in the Salmonella assay 
    for gene mutations; this is consistent with other tested s-triazines. 
    However, it is reported that simazine is positive for gene mutations in 
    the mouse lymphoma assay, the Drosophila sex-linked recessive lethal 
    assay, the cell transformation assay in Syrian hamster embryo cells, 
    and plant cytogenetic assays. Simazine is also reported negative in 
    several other assays including yeast assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis 
    (UDS), sister chromatid exchanges, and for aneuploidy. Overall, these 
    data suggest a possible mutagenic action for simazine. The Agency 
    believes that the evidence of simazine's genotoxicity provides 
    additional support for the finding that it induces cancer.
        In addition, structural analogs of simazine have shown genotoxic 
    actions as well. For example, cyanazine has evidence of positive 
    genotoxic activity in the mouse lymphoma assay for gene mutations and 
    for UDS in rat hepatocytes, and propazine induces gene mutations in the 
    cultured V79 cell assay for gene mutations.
        Comment: Ciba argued that Sprague-Dawley rats have a high 
    spontaneous background rate of mammary tumors, and that any mammary 
    tumors induced by simazine are hormonally-mediated and therefore have a 
    threshold. Ciba asserted that therefore simazine's carcinogenicity 
    should be regulated qualitatively with a safety factor and not 
    quantitatively.
        EPA's response: Simazine induced increased incidence of malignant 
    mammary gland carcinomas and malignant pituitary gland carcinomas in 
    female Sprague-Dawley rats. Mammary tumor incidence was as high as 78%, 
    and was outside the historical control incidence of the testing 
    laboratory. The pituitary and mammary tumors also contributed to the 
    observed increased mortality. There was equivocal evidence of kidney 
    tubule tumors (an uncommon tumor type) in both sexes. The structural 
    analogs are strongly supportive as these compounds mostly induced 
    malignant mammary gland
    
    [[Page 12007]]
    tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats. There was some evidence of genotoxicity 
    for Simazine as well as for some of the analogs.
        Although a hormonal mechanistic argument for the mammary tumors was 
    proposed by the commenter, neither the Agency nor the scientific 
    community at large has yet developed or identified protocols which 
    could provide data to demonstrate such a mechanism. No agreed upon 
    experimental model has been identified, and the critical step 
    associated with the mode of action has not been identified. As 
    discussed with respect to cell proliferation and jejunal tumors in 
    EPA's response to comments on propargite, important basic science data 
    must be developed, as were developed for the thyroid mechanism, before 
    the Agency can evaluate the validity of the claim that simazine induces 
    cancer through a hormonal mechanism. (See also EPA's response to ACPA 
    regarding secondary mechanisms in general.)
    
    Other Comments
    
        Comment: GMA commented that FDA determined in 1974 that the term 
    ``ingestion'' in the Delaney clause does not include gavage studies, 
    and therefore the results of a gavage study would invoke the Delaney 
    clause only if this type of study is found to be scientifically 
    ``appropriate'' as a model for dietary exposure. The commenter 
    submitted an excerpt of FDA's ``Study of the Delaney Clause and Other 
    Anti-Cancer Clauses,'' (Agriculture, Environmental and Consumer 
    Protection Appropriations for 1975: Hearings before a Subcommittee on 
    Appropriations, House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., part 
    8, 1974).
        EPA's response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Gavage is merely 
    one of several different techniques for administering a test compound 
    to animal orally. Gavage is sometimes used instead of incorporating the 
    substance into an animal's food because a more precise dose can be 
    given by gavage. EPA could not find any reference, other than the 
    report cited, where FDA stated that a gavage study must be evaluated 
    under the ``appropriate test'' prong of the Delaney clause rather than 
    the ``ingestion'' prong. Moreover, there is no explanation in the 
    report as to why a gavage study should not be considered an ingestion 
    study. In any event, it is not necessary to determine whether gavage is 
    ingestion for purposes of this notice because EPA believes that gavage 
    studies are generally appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of a 
    food additive because they involve dietary exposure to the test 
    substance, albeit by forced feeding.
    
    VII. Procedural Matters
    
    A. Filing of Objections and Requests for Hearings
    
        Any person adversely affected by this final rule may file written 
    objections to the final rule, and may include with any such objection a 
    written request for an evidentiary hearing on the objection. Such 
    objections must be submitted to the Hearing Clerk on or before April 
    22, 1996. A copy of the objections and hearing requests filed with the 
    Hearing Clerk shall be submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs 
    Docket Room. Regulations applicable to objections and requests for 
    hearings are set out at 40 CFR parts 178 and 179. Those regulations 
    require, among other things, that objections specify with particularity 
    the provisions of the final rule objected to, the basis for the 
    objections, and the relief sought. Additional requirements as to the 
    form and manner of the submission of objections are set out at 40 CFR 
    178.25. The Administrator will respond as set forth in 40 CFR 178.30, 
    178.35 and/or 178.37 to objections that are not accompanied by a 
    request for evidentiary hearing.
        A person may include with any objection a written request for an 
    evidentiary hearing on the objection. A hearing request must include a 
    statement of the factual issues on which a hearing is requested, the 
    requestor's contentions on each such issue, and a summary of any 
    evidence relied upon by the requestor. Additional requirements as to 
    the form and manner of submission of requests for an evidentiary 
    hearing are set out at 40 CFR 178.27. Under 40 CFR 178.32(c), the 
    Administrator, where appropriate, will make rulings on any issues 
    raised by an objection if such issues must be resolved prior to 
    determining whether a request for an evidentiary hearing should be 
    granted. The Administrator will respond to requests for evidentiary 
    hearings as set forth in 40 CFR 178.30, 178.32, 178.35, 178.37, and/or 
    179.20. Under 40 CFR 178.32(b), a request for an evidentiary hearing on 
    an objection will be granted if the objection and request have been 
    properly submitted and if the Administrator determines that the 
    material submitted show:
        (1) There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact for resolution 
    at a hearing.
        (2) 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.
        (3) Resolution of one or more of the factual issues in the manner 
    sought by the person requesting the hearing would be adequate to 
    justify the action requested.
        Any person wishing to comment on any objections or requests for a 
    hearing may submit such comments to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 
    6, 1996.
    
    B. Effective Date
    
        EPA is making this final rule effective May 21, 1996. In addition, 
    if EPA does not receive objections to this order, this order and the 
    factual and legal basis for this order, become final and are not 
    judicially reviewable. See section 409(g)(1), 21 U.S.C. 348 (g)(1) and 
    Nader v. EPA: 859 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1931 
    (1989). For example, if an interested person disagrees with a necessary 
    finding in this order but agrees with the outcome, that person must 
    file timely objections to that finding in this order; if no objection 
    to the finding is made, the finding will become final for purposes of 
    any future proceedings to which that finding is relevant.
    
    C. Request for Stays of Effective Date
    
        A person filing objections to this final rule may submit with the 
    objections a petition to stay the effective date of this final rule. 
    Such stay petitions must be submitted to the Hearing Clerk on or before 
    April 22, 1996. A copy of the stay request filed with the Hearing Clerk 
    shall be submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs Docket Room. A 
    stay may be requested for a specific time period or for an indefinite 
    time period. The stay petition must include a citation to this final 
    rule, the length of time for which the stay is requested, and a full 
    statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which the petitioner 
    relies for the stay. In determining whether to grant a stay, EPA will 
    consider the criteria set out in the Food and Drug Administration's 
    regulations regarding stays of administrative proceedings at 21 CFR 
    10.35. Under those rules, a stay will be granted if it is determined 
    that:
        (1) The petitioner will otherwise suffer irreparable injury.
        (2) The petitioner's case is not frivolous and is being pursued in 
    good faith.
        (3) The petitioner has demonstrated sound public policy grounds 
    supporting the stay.
        (4) The delay resulting from the stay is not outweighed by public 
    health or other public interests.
        Under FDA's criteria, EPA may also grant a stay if EPA finds such 
    action is
    
    [[Page 12008]]
    in the public interest and in the interest of justice.
        Any person wishing to comment on any stay request may submit such 
    comments and objections to a stay request, to the Hearing Clerk, on or 
    before May 6, 1996. Any subsequent decisions to stay the effect of this 
    order, based on a stay request filed, will be published in the Federal 
    Register, along with EPA's response to comments on the stay request.
    
    VIII. Regulatory Requirements
    
    A. Executive Order 12866
    
        EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget 
    (OMB) for review and any changes made during that review have been 
    documented in the public record.
        EPA has estimated the following economic impacts on the affected 
    pesticide use sites:
    1. Spices
        EtO may currently be used either on whole spices under its raw food 
    tolerance (40 CFR 180.151), which are then ground (processed), or 
    directly on ground spices under the processed food tolerance being 
    revoked today. Sixty to eighty percent of the American spice supply is 
    imported, and an estimated 22% of those imported spices are treated 
    with EtO.
        EPA does not have information on what portion of EtO treatments are 
    made to whole as opposed to ground spices. If EtO were unavailable for 
    use on all spices (both whole and ground), there would be an estimated 
    impact of $18 million to $27 million per year in increased costs of 
    alternative treatments and loss of some untreated product. Impacts are 
    unlikely to be this high, because only the tolerance on ground spices 
    is being revoked. The section 408 tolerance will remain, thus allowing 
    continued use of EtO on whole spices. To the extent that spices are 
    currently treated whole, a portion of the above estimated impacts will 
    not be incurred.
        Moreover, EPA believes that some portion, possibly a substantial 
    portion, of spices currently treated in ground form can be shifted to 
    treatment in whole form. If a change to treating them whole would cost 
    less than substitution of alternatives, impacts would be further 
    reduced.
        Alternatives to EtO treatment are limited to irradiation treatment 
    and heat-based technologies, both of which have practical limitations. 
    There is currently insufficient capacity of contract irradiation 
    facilities to handle all spices currently treated with EtO. The 
    majority of these facilities' business comes from the sterilization of 
    medical devices which have rigorous hygienic specifications causing 
    most facilities to not accept spices. Current heat-based technologies 
    have an adverse effect on the color and flavor of some spices. However 
    these limitations are expected to be reduced over time by the industry.
        Only about one percent of the total U.S. spice supply is treated 
    with propylene oxide and its loss is not expected to cause significant 
    economic impacts.
    2. Nutmeats
        Propylene oxide is used to reduce microbial contamination of raw 
    nutmeats (except peanuts) which are to be used in other food products 
    such as ice cream, cheese, ready-to-eat cereals, some baked goods and 
    some confections. It is used because these foods are not processed at 
    high enough temperatures to reduce microbial contamination to 
    acceptable levels. There appear to be no viable alternatives to 
    propylene oxide for nutmeats used in these foods.
        The section 409 FAR being revoked today does not authorize 
    propylene oxide residues in raw nutmeats, only processed nutmeats. At 
    the time of proposal there was no section 408 tolerance covering use of 
    propylene oxide on raw nutmeats. The proposed revocation of the 
    processed nutmeat tolerance would have left no tolerance covering any 
    use of propylene oxide on nutmeats. As a result, EPA received 
    considerable comment on the potential economic impacts of the loss of 
    propylene oxide.
        Information on the impacts of the loss of propylene oxide for 
    nutmeats is limited, and quantifying these impacts is complicated. U.S. 
    nut production is nearly 1 billion pounds annually. According to 
    commenters, about 10 to 20 percent of all nutmeats are currently 
    treated with propylene oxide. At a value of approximately $1.60 per 
    pound, the farm value of the 10-20% of nutmeats that are treated is 
    $160-320 million. Commenters suggested that this 10-20 percent segment 
    of the nutmeat industry would be a total loss if propylene oxide became 
    unavailable for use. EPA believes that this estimate is high because it 
    assumes that there are no alternative uses of the nuts.
        Untreated nuts currently are roasted or salted or added to other 
    foods that are processed under conditions that effectively reduce 
    microbial contaminants to acceptable levels. EPA believes that nuts 
    that cannot be treated with propylene oxide will not be a total loss, 
    but will be diverted into alternative uses. EPA cannot estimate with 
    current information how much this would reduce the overall impacts on 
    the nutmeat industry, nor can EPA estimate the impacts on the food 
    industries whose nut supply could be severely curtailed. EPA believes 
    that there would be substantial incentive for the affected industries 
    to develop alternative practices or treatments to reduce microbial 
    contamination in raw nutmeats.
        EPA has received a petition to establish a section 408 raw food 
    tolerance for propylene oxide on nutmeats. If a section 408 tolerance 
    is granted, propylene oxide could continue to be used on nutmeats, and 
    there would be no impacts.
    3. Cocoa
        Impacts to the cocoa industry of losing the use of propylene oxide 
    are expected to be minor or insignificant. There are no chemical 
    alternatives to propylene oxide for use on cocoa. However, with proper 
    handling and processing techniques cocoa powder can be safely produced 
    without propylene oxide. The U.S. imports all of its cocoa, and 
    generally, only that cocoa which comes from relatively unsanitary 
    processing plants (50 percent or less) is treated with propylene oxide. 
    Without propylene oxide, switching to markets with higher quality cocoa 
    beans and better processing plant management techniques may cause 
    slightly higher prices to consumers for products containing cocoa 
    powder. In 1994, the U.S. imported over 650,000 metric tons of cocoa, 
    valued at $1 billion.
    4. Dried Tea
        Insignificant impacts are expected on the dried tea industry from 
    the loss of the propargite FAR. Propargite is not registered for use in 
    the U.S. on dried tea and is not the miticide of choice in tea 
    exporting countries. Dicofol is the preferred miticide on tea and its 
    FAR currently remains in effect.
    5. No impacts
        No impacts are expected from revocation of the FARs for the 
    following processed foods:
        Propylene oxide is no longer registered for use on the following: 
    Glace fruit, gums, dried prunes, and starch.
        EPA no longer establishes FARs in potable water. Therefore, no 
    impact is expected due to this FAR revocation.
        For the 13 FARs that are not needed (listed in table I) the section 
    408 tolerances and registered uses will remain effective. Therefore, no 
    impact is expected.
    
    [[Page 12009]]
    
        Three of the section 409 FARs being revoked today also have section 
    408 tolerances which were proposed for revocation in the Federal 
    Register on March 1, 1996 (61 FR 8174). The estimated impacts from the 
    loss of these three pesticide uses are included in that notice. These 
    FARs are mancozeb/oat bran, propargite/dried figs, and simazine/
    sugarcane molasses.
    
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 
    1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA to analyze regulatory options 
    to assess the economic impact on small businesses, small governments 
    and small organizations.
        In general, regulating pesticide residues and FARs in food is 
    indiscriminate with respect to the size of the farm or business that 
    was the source or processor of the food. The existence or absence of 
    FARs, and the levels at which FARs are set must logically apply to all 
    food available to U.S. consumers. In this instance, there is unlikely 
    to be a regulatory option that would treat small businesses differently 
    than large businesses with respect to pesticide FARs. In any event, 
    under the Delaney clause, the Agency is compelled to take this action 
    without regard to the economic impacts on either large or small 
    entities.
    
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        This order does not contain any information collection requirements 
    subject to review by Office of Management and Budget under the 
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875
    
        Under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
    104-4), this action does not result in the expenditure of $100 million 
    or more by any State, local or tribal governments, or by anyone in the 
    private sector, and will not result in any ``unfunded mandates'' as 
    defined by Title II. The costs associated with this action are 
    described in the Executive Order 12866 section of this preamble.
        Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA 
    must consult with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal 
    governments before promulgating a discretionary regulation containing 
    an unfunded mandate. This action does not contain any mandates on 
    States, localities or tribes and is therefore not subject to the 
    requirements of Executive Order 12875.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 185
    
        Environmental protection, Food additives, Pesticides and pests.
    
        Dated: March 15, 1996.
    
    Lynn R. Goldman,
    Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
    Substances.
    
        Therefore, 40 CFR part 185 is amended as follows:
    
    PART 185--[AMENDED]
    
        l. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 348.
    
    Sec. 185.500  [Removed]
    
        2. By removing Sec. 185.500.
    
    
    Sec. 185.2850  [Removed]
    
        3. By removing Sec. 185.2850.
    
    
    Sec. 185.4600  [Removed]
    
        4. By removing Sec. 185.4600.
    
    
    Sec. 185.5000  [Amended]
    
        5. By removing from the table in Sec. 185.5000 the entries for 
    ``Figs, dried'', ``Raisins'' and ``Tea, dried.''
    
    
    Sec. 185.5150  [Removed]
    
        6. By removing Sec. 185.5150.
    
    
    Sec. 185.5350  [Removed]
    
        7. By removing Sec. 185.5350.
    
    
    Sec. 185.6300  [Removed]
    
        8. By removing Sec. 185.6300.
    [FR Doc. 96-7026 Filed 3-21-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
5/21/1996
Published:
03/22/1996
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
96-7026
Dates:
This final rule is effective May 21, 1996.
Pages:
11994-12009 (16 pages)
Docket Numbers:
OPP-300335A, FRL-5357-7
PDF File:
96-7026.pdf
CFR: (7)
40 CFR 185.500
40 CFR 185.2850
40 CFR 185.4600
40 CFR 185.5000
40 CFR 185.5150
More ...