80 FR 30644 - Proposal To Mitigate Exposure to Bees From Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products; Notice of Availability
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 103 (May 29, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 103 (May 29, 2015)
| Page Range | 30644-30646 | |
| FR Document | 2015-12989 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 30644-30646] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-12989] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Chapter I [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818; FRL-9927-36] Proposal To Mitigate Exposure to Bees From Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is seeking comment on a proposal to adopt mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect managed bees under contract pollination services from foliar application of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis. These label restrictions would prohibit applications of pesticide products, which are acutely toxic to bees, during bloom when bees are known to be present under contract. EPA is also seeking comment on a proposal to rely on efforts made by states and tribes to reduce pesticide [[Page 30645]] exposures through development of locally-based measures, specifically through managed pollinator protection plans. These plans would include local and customizable mitigation measures to address certain scenarios that can result in exposure to pollinators. EPA intends to monitor the success of these plans in deciding whether further label restrictions are warranted. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818, by one of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8157; email address: [email protected], or Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-8578; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you produce an agricultural crop that is attractive to pollinators, if you are a beekeeper, or if you manufacture pesticides. In addition, state and tribal governments may be potentially affected by this action. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325320), e.g., Insecticide and Herbicide Manufacturers Apiculture (NAICS code 112910) Crop Production (NAICS code 111) Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities (NAICS code 926140), e.g., Pest control programs, agriculture, government B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. C. How can I get copies of this document and other related information? A copy of EPA's Proposal to Mitigate Exposure to Bees from Acutely Toxic Pesticide Products is available in the docket under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0818. II. What action is the agency taking? EPA is proposing mandatory pesticide label restrictions to protect contracted managed bees, e.g., honey bee colonies that are under contract to provide pollination services, from foliar applications of pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees on a contact exposure basis, i.e., those pesticides with an acutely lethal dose to 50% of the bees tested of less than 11 micrograms per bee, based on acute contact toxicity testing. Contracted pollination services result in a heightened risk potential where a large number of honey bee colonies are intentionally placed at a use site, and application of a toxic pesticide in this scenario is nearly certain to result in direct exposure to pollinators. Although the likely outcomes are counter- productive for both the beekeeper (loss of honey bee stock) and the grower (diminished pollination services), many beekeepers and growers seem not to have found ways to avoid such outcomes. Consequently, EPA believes that strong regulatory measures should be in place for the contracted service scenario to mitigate these potential problems. Therefore, EPA proposes to prohibit the foliar application of acutely toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract, unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared public health response. There would be no other exceptions to the bloom prohibition in the contracted-services scenario. Current neonicotinoid product labels include a 48-hr notification exception to the bloom prohibition. However, as part of this mitigation proposal, the 48-hr notification exception for crops under contracted pollination services during bloom for all neonicotinoid product labels would be removed. These restrictions are expected to reduce the likelihood of acute exposure and mortality to managed bees under contract. EPA believes that managed bees not under contracted services (and other unmanaged bees) may also be exposed to acutely toxic pesticides when they are within forage range of the application site. While pesticide exposure under this scenario is possible, it is less certain than in situations where a pesticide is applied to a site when large numbers of managed bees have intentionally been positioned at the site for the purposes of providing pollination services. EPA believes that the lower likelihood of exposure for large numbers of managed bees in this scenario may warrant a more flexible approach toward mitigation such as that afforded by state or tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). Accordingly, EPA intends to encourage states and tribes to develop MP3s that are effective in reducing the likelihood of bees being present in the treatment area at the time a pesticide application is to be made. EPA would monitor success of these MP3s in mitigating risk to bees from acutely toxic pesticides on an ongoing basis and determine whether additional EPA action is warranted. Therefore, for managed bees not under contract pollination services, EPA is not proposing to require any new language [[Page 30646]] for pesticide labels. This does not alter EPA's previous requirement for more specific restrictions on neonicotinoid pesticides for which EPA required language to address risks to bees not under contract for pollination services. EPA is seeking comment on both the approach of label restrictions on products used for bees under contract for pollinator services, and for the approach to rely on state and tribal pollinator protection plans to bees that are not under contract for pollination services. These actions are consistent with the Presidential directive issued in June 2014 to reduce the effect of factors that have been associated with pollinator declines in general as well as the mandate to engage state and tribal partners in the development of pollinator protection plans. While the proposed mitigation focuses on managed bees, EPA believes that in protecting managed bees, these measures will also protect native solitary and social bees that are in and around treatment areas. The proposed mitigation is based on an acute toxicity threshold and is not intended to supersede more restrictive product- specific use prohibitions. EPA will continue to conduct chemical- specific risk assessments for bees and will consider additional product-specific mitigation as needed in the Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) registration and registration review programs. III. Areas of Feedback EPA is seeking comments on the proposed approach to mitigate exposure to bees from acutely toxic pesticide products under contract and non-contract pollination scenarios. In addition, EPA is specifically seeking comment on several issues described in the policy paper. A. Label Language for Applications to Sites With Bees Present Under Contracted Services EPA is proposing to prohibit the foliar application of acutely toxic products during bloom for sites with bees on-site under contract, unless the application is made in accordance with a government-declared public health response. EPA encourages growers and beekeepers to include provisions in pollination service contracts that take into account the increased likelihood of bee colony exposure and ensure that colonies will be protected and pollination services secured. If EPA receives evidence during the public comment period and/or through outreach at stakeholder meetings that such contract provisions are common or that there are other effective and mutually agreed upon stakeholder (i.e., beekeeper-to-grower) practices indicating that application of acutely toxic pesticides is not of risk concern for bees under contract, then EPA will consider this evidence in determining whether this scenario needs the mitigation indicated in the proposed language. Please comment on any factors that may allow EPA to reconsider the mitigation for this scenario, for example, if risks to bees are addressed through existing, and widely used, contract language. B. State and Tribal Managed Pollinator Protection Plans For sites not under contracted services, EPA believes that pollinator protection plans serve as examples of effective collaboration between stakeholders at the local level that can lead to reduced pesticide exposure and protection of managed bees while maintaining the flexibility needed by growers to protect crops. Based on feedback provided to EPA by state lead agencies that have developed such plans, beekeeper-to-grower communication has been enhanced and fewer bee kill incidents have been reported as a result of the plans. Across these diverse plans, the common element has been effective stakeholder engagement, and anecdotal reports from the stakeholder groups suggest that the plans are effective at increasing communication and cooperation. The development of pollinator protection plans is a voluntary way for states and tribes to address acute pesticide exposure to pollinators. EPA believes that a key factor for states and tribes to determine the effectiveness of managed pollinator protection plans will be to include mechanisms to measure the effectiveness and a process to periodically review and modify each plan. Please comment on EPA's proposal to address risk to non-contract bees through reliance on state and tribal plans. Also, given the uncertainties with incident data, what kind of measures should be used to demonstrate that state and tribal pollinator protection plans are effective? C. Uncertainties EPA recognizes that there are a number of uncertainties that remain regarding chemicals and exposure scenarios that may not fall within the domain of the proposal. EPA is also interested in receiving feedback on these uncertainties, which are described in the proposal. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a. Dated: May 19, 2015. Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 2015-12989 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![30644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules
C. Trade Considerations Environmental Justice in Minority PART 180—[AMENDED]
The revocation of the existing Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
tolerance exemption and establishment
1994); and does not involve any continues to read as follows:
of tolerances for four commodities is a
reduction in allowable residues of technical standards that would require Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
BLAD on food. Therefore, EPA intends Agency consideration of voluntary ■ 3. Section 180.683 is added to read as
to provide notice to the World Trade consensus standards pursuant to section follows:
Organization (WTO) of this proposal in 12(d) of the National Technology
accordance with its obligations under Transfer and Advancement Act § 180.683 Banda de Lupinus albus doce;
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). tolerances for residues.
the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures Agreement. This action directly regulates growers, (a) General. Tolerances are
food processors, food handlers, and food established for residues of the fungicide
VI. Conclusion retailers, but it does not regulate State banda de Lupinus albus doce (BLAD),
EPA proposes to revoke the existing or tribal governments. Nor does this including its metabolites and
tolerance exemption for residues of action alter the relationships or degradates, in or on the commodities in
BLAD in or on all food commodities as distribution of power and the table below as a result of the
established in the Federal Register of responsibilities established in the application of BLAD. Compliance with
March 22, 2013 under section 408 of the preemption provisions of FFDCA the tolerance levels specified below is to
FFDCA due to potential allergenicity section 408(n)(4). Therefore, the Agency be determined by measuring only BLAD
concerns. In its stead, the Agency has determined that Executive Orders in or on the following commodities.
proposes to establish a tolerance for 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
residues of BLAD in or on almonds, 43255, August 10, 1999) and 13175, Parts per
Commodity million
grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes at the entitled Consultation and Coordination
level of detection of 0.005 ppm based on with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR Almonds ...................................... 0.005
BLAD’s low toxicity profile, testing that 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply Grapes ........................................ 0.005
indicated that BLAD is non-allergenic, to this action. In addition, this action Strawberries ................................ 0.005
and residue data that demonstrated a does not impose any enforceable duty, Tomatoes .................................... 0.005
rapid decline of BLAD following contain any unfunded mandate, or
application at an exaggerated rate. otherwise significantly or uniquely (a) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish affect small governments as described in [Reserved]
a tolerance level at the limit of detection the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (b) Tolerances with regional
for the analytical method to prevent any (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). registrations. [Reserved]
exposure to sensitive individuals from Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (c) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
potential residues of BLAD on the (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I certify that [Reserved]
treated crops. this action will not have significant § 180.1319 [Removed and Reserved]
VII. Statutory and Executive Order economic impact on a substantial
■ 3. Remove and reserve § 180.1319.
Reviews number of small entities. In making this [FR Doc. 2015–12530 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am]
determination, the impact of concern is
BILLING CODE P
This proposed action would revoke an any significant adverse economic
existing exemption from the impact on small entities. An agency may
requirement of a tolerance and establish certify that a rule will not have a ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
new tolerances under FFDCA section significant economic impact on a AGENCY
408(e). The Office of Management and substantial number of small entities if
Budget (OMB) has exempted tolerance the action will not impose any 40 CFR Chapter I
actions from review under Executive requirements on small entities. There
Orders 12866, entitled Regulatory [EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0818; FRL–9927–36]
are not a substantial number of small
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, entities affected by this rule. BLAD, Proposal To Mitigate Exposure to Bees
October 4, 1993), and 13563, entitled which is currently manufactured only From Acutely Toxic Pesticide
Improving Regulation and Regulatory by CEV, is not being used as a pesticide Products; Notice of Availability
Review (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). on food at this time. Therefore, this
As a result, this action is not subject to action will not impose any requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions or have a significant impact on a Agency (EPA).
Concerning Regulations That substantial number of small entities. We ACTION: Notice.
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, have therefore concluded that this
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May action will not impact small entities. SUMMARY: EPA is seeking comment on a
22, 2001). Nor does it require OMB proposal to adopt mandatory pesticide
review or any Agency action under List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 label restrictions to protect managed
Executive Order 13045, entitled Environmental protection, bees under contract pollination services
Protection of Children from Administrative practice and procedure, from foliar application of pesticides that
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Agricultural commodities, Pesticides are acutely toxic to bees on a contact
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping exposure basis. These label restrictions
This action does not contain any requirements. would prohibit applications of pesticide
information collections subject to OMB products, which are acutely toxic to
Dated: March 13, 2015.
approval under the Paperwork bees, during bloom when bees are
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et Jack Housenger, known to be present under contract.
seq.); require any special considerations Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA is also seeking comment on a
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR proposal to rely on efforts made by
Federal Actions to Address chapter I be amended as follows: states and tribes to reduce pesticide
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:18 May 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM 29MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30747/page/1.svg)
![30646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for pesticide labels. This does not alter effective and mutually agreed upon Dated: May 19, 2015.
EPA’s previous requirement for more stakeholder (i.e., beekeeper-to-grower) Jack E. Housenger,
specific restrictions on neonicotinoid practices indicating that application of Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
pesticides for which EPA required acutely toxic pesticides is not of risk [FR Doc. 2015–12989 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am]
language to address risks to bees not concern for bees under contract, then BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
under contract for pollination services. EPA will consider this evidence in
EPA is seeking comment on both the determining whether this scenario
approach of label restrictions on needs the mitigation indicated in the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
products used for bees under contract proposed language. Please comment on
for pollinator services, and for the HUMAN SERVICES
any factors that may allow EPA to
approach to rely on state and tribal reconsider the mitigation for this Office of the Secretary
pollinator protection plans to bees that scenario, for example, if risks to bees are
are not under contract for pollination addressed through existing, and widely 45 CFR Part 162
services. used, contract language.
These actions are consistent with the [CMS–0026–NC]
Presidential directive issued in June B. State and Tribal Managed Pollinator
2014 to reduce the effect of factors that Protection Plans Request for Information Regarding the
have been associated with pollinator Requirements for the Health Plan
declines in general as well as the For sites not under contracted Identifier
mandate to engage state and tribal services, EPA believes that pollinator
protection plans serve as examples of AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (HHS).
partners in the development of
effective collaboration between ACTION: Request for information.
pollinator protection plans. While the
proposed mitigation focuses on stakeholders at the local level that can SUMMARY: This request for information
managed bees, EPA believes that in lead to reduced pesticide exposure and seeks public comment regarding the
protecting managed bees, these protection of managed bees while health plan identifier (HPID) including
measures will also protect native maintaining the flexibility needed by the requirements regarding health plan
solitary and social bees that are in and growers to protect crops. Based on enumeration and the requirement, to
around treatment areas. The proposed feedback provided to EPA by state lead use the HPID in electronic health care
mitigation is based on an acute toxicity agencies that have developed such transactions.
threshold and is not intended to plans, beekeeper-to-grower
DATES: To be assured consideration,
supersede more restrictive product- communication has been enhanced and
fewer bee kill incidents have been written or electronic comments must be
specific use prohibitions. EPA will
reported as a result of the plans. Across received at one of the addresses
continue to conduct chemical-specific
these diverse plans, the common provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
risk assessments for bees and will
element has been effective stakeholder July 28, 2015.
consider additional product-specific
mitigation as needed in the Office of engagement, and anecdotal reports from ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file
Pesticide Program’s (OPP) registration the stakeholder groups suggest that the code CMS–0026–NC. Because of staff
and registration review programs. plans are effective at increasing and resource limitations, we cannot
communication and cooperation. The accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
III. Areas of Feedback development of pollinator protection transmission.
EPA is seeking comments on the plans is a voluntary way for states and You may submit comments in one of
proposed approach to mitigate exposure tribes to address acute pesticide four ways (please choose only one of the
to bees from acutely toxic pesticide exposure to pollinators. EPA believes ways listed):
products under contract and non- that a key factor for states and tribes to 1. Electronically. You may submit
contract pollination scenarios. In determine the effectiveness of managed electronic comments on this regulation
addition, EPA is specifically seeking pollinator protection plans will be to to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
comment on several issues described in include mechanisms to measure the the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
the policy paper. effectiveness and a process to 2. By regular mail. You may mail
periodically review and modify each written comments to the following
A. Label Language for Applications to address ONLY: Centers for Medicare &
Sites With Bees Present Under plan. Please comment on EPA’s
proposal to address risk to non-contract Medicaid Services, Department of
Contracted Services Health and Human Services, Attention:
bees through reliance on state and tribal
EPA is proposing to prohibit the foliar plans. Also, given the uncertainties with CMS–0026–NC, P.O. Box 8013,
application of acutely toxic products incident data, what kind of measures Baltimore, MD 21244–8013.
during bloom for sites with bees on-site should be used to demonstrate that state Please allow sufficient time for mailed
under contract, unless the application is and tribal pollinator protection plans comments to be received before the
made in accordance with a government- are effective? close of the comment period.
declared public health response. EPA 3. By express or overnight mail. You
encourages growers and beekeepers to C. Uncertainties may send written comments to the
include provisions in pollination following address ONLY: Centers for
service contracts that take into account EPA recognizes that there are a Medicare & Medicaid Services,
number of uncertainties that remain
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the increased likelihood of bee colony Department of Health and Human
exposure and ensure that colonies will regarding chemicals and exposure Services, Attention: CMS–0026–NC,
be protected and pollination services scenarios that may not fall within the Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
secured. If EPA receives evidence domain of the proposal. EPA is also Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
during the public comment period and/ interested in receiving feedback on 4. By hand or courier. Alternatively,
or through outreach at stakeholder these uncertainties, which are described you may deliver (by hand or courier)
meetings that such contract provisions in the proposal. your written comments ONLY to the
are common or that there are other Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a. following addresses: a. For delivery in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:18 May 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM 29MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30747/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:31:41
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:31:41
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2015. | |
| Contact | Michael Goodis, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8157; | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 30644 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR