03-20530. Diallyl Sulfides; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance; Correction

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of July 9, 2003, establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of diallyl sulfides (DADs) in/or garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots. This document corrects a typographical error in the preamble that appeared in that document.

DATES:

This document is effective on August 13, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: [phone]; e-mail address: [e-mail].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0134. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is [phone].

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register” listings at http://www.epa.gov/​fedrgstr/​.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/​edocket/​ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. What Does This Correction Do?

In the Federal Register of July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40803) (FRL-7303-6), EPA published a final rule establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of diallyl sulfides (DADs) in/or garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots. This document corrects a typographical error that appeared in that document; the word pentasulfide should have appeared as tetrasulfide. The document is corrected as follows:

On page 40804, second column, under Unit IV., the second paragraph, the first sentence is corrected to read as follows: “DADs are a composition of diallyl sulfides that includes diallyl monosulfide, diallyl disulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and diallyl tetrasulfide.”

III. Why Is This Correction Issued as a Final Rule?

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's action final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely correcting a typographical error. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to This Action?

This final rule corrects a typographical error in the preamble of a previously published final rule, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that a correction is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does this final rule contain any information collection requirements that require review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Since the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute (see Unit III.), this action is not subject to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States or on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the national government and the States or one or more Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal government and Indian tribes. As such, this action does not have any “federalism implications” as described in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), or any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Since this direct final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866, it does not require OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). This action will not result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore, require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) or Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988). In issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

V. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects

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

Dated: August 1, 2003.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.