[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1073-1074]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0133]

Public Meeting Concerning Test Device for Human Occupant
Restraint

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting on Tuesday, January 20,
2015 concerning the development of the Test Device for Human Occupant
Restraint (THOR). NHTSA has been developing the THOR anthropomorphic
test device (ATD) in order to better understand the causal mechanisms
for injury and develop countermeasures to prevent injuries and
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. The purpose of this public meeting
is to provide a forum for open communication and data sharing on the
THOR ATD towards the common goal of improving the safety of passenger
vehicle occupants. This notice announces the date and location of the
meeting and explains how those who wish to attend can register for the
meeting.

DATES: The public meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on
Tuesday, January 20, 2015. If you would like to attend the public
meeting (either in person or via teleconference), you must register no
later than Thursday, January 15, 2015. For further information about
registration, please see the information provided under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. Please submit all written comments no later than
March 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590. This facility is
accessible to individuals with disabilities.
    Written comments. You may submit comments to the docket number
NHTSA-2014-0133 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.
    Docket: For access to the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday,

except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit two
copies of your complete submission and one copy of the submission
containing only the portions for which no claim of confidential
treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential
treatment is claimed have been redacted, to the Office of Chief Counsel
(NCC-111), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W41-
227, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). In
addition, you should submit two copies from which you have redacted the
claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the
address given above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register for the public meeting,
please send your name, affiliation, phone number, email address, and
whether you will attend in person or over teleconference to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by the date stated under DATES. Teleconference
information will be distributed to the pre-registered remote
participants. For questions about registering for, or general questions
about, the public meeting, please contact Dan Parent<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Stephen Ridella<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint
(THOR) is an advanced anthropomorphic test device (ATD, or test dummy).
It is designed to better represent the automotive occupants in the
sophisticated restraint systems developed since the advent of the
Hybrid III test dummy, such as force-limited three-point belts and air
bags. NHTSA has been researching the application of the THOR 50th
percentile adult male ATD in frontal and frontal oblique crash test
modes. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide a forum for
open communication and data sharing on the THOR ATD towards the common
goal of improving the safety of passenger vehicle occupants. Potential
topics for discussion at the meeting include qualification procedures,
repeatability and reproducibility, biofidelity evaluation, injury
criteria, and computational models.
    Registration is necessary for all attendees. Please see
registration instructions under DATES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement
weather or any other emergencies, a decision to cancel will be made as
soon as possible and emailed to the registered attendees. If you do not
have access to email, you may call the contacts listed in this
announcement and leave your telephone number and/or email address. You
will be contacted only if the meeting is postponed or canceled.
    Written comments can be submitted to the docket. See information
under DATES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The final agenda, as
well as material presented at the public meeting, will be posted to the
NHTSA Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Biomechanics+&+Trauma/THOR+50th+Male+ATD. The agenda will be posted one week prior to the
meeting. A teleconference will be arranged for those who cannot attend
the meeting in person.

Tim Johnson,
Acting Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2015-00150 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21676-21679]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8733]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0934; FRL-9333-6]

Silicic Acid, Sodium Salt etc.; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction
products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction
with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol; when used as an inert
ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Dow Corning Corporation
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction
products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction
with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 11, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 11, 2012, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0934. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alganesh Debesai, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0934 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing

must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before June 11, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of
objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0934, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of Thursday, December 8, 2011 (76 FR 76674)
(FRL-9328-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7877)
filed by Dow Corning Corporation, 2200 W. Salzburg Road, Midland, MI.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane
and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-
poly(oxyethylene) glycol. That notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the
petitioner's request. The Agency received one comment. EPA's response
to this comment is discussed in Unit VIII.C.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction
products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction
with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e): The polymer's number
average MW of 75,000 is greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The
polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less
than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with
chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with
poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol meets the criteria for a
polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to Silicic
acid, sodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and
iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene)
glycol.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction
products

with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with
poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol could be present in all raw
and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average
MW of Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with
chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with
poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol is 75,000 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since
Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane
and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-
poly(oxyethylene) glycol conform to the criteria that identify a low-
risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any
potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The
Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with
chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with
poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and Silicic acid, sodium salt,
reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol,
reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane
and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-
poly(oxyethylene) glycol does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of Silicic acid, sodium
salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl
alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol, EPA
has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same
reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction
products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol, reaction
with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for Silicic acid, sodium salt,
reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl alcohol,
reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene) glycol.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of Silicic acid,
sodium salt, reaction products with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-
propyl alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-poly(oxyethylene)
glycol from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these rules from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because
this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this

action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L,
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.
    One comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to
establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by the statute.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 3, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymer; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Silicic acid, sodium salt, reaction products    None.
 with chlorotrimethylsilane and iso-propyl
 alcohol, reaction with poly(oxypropylene)-
 poly(oxyethylene) glycol, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu), 75,000.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-8733 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21395-21397]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8218]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0333; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-085-AD;
Amendment 39-17011; AD 2012-07-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050 airplanes. This proposed AD
would require performing a low frequency eddy current inspection for
cracks of the lap joint of the rear fuselage, and repair if necessary.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the fuselage lap joint.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct exponential crack growth,
which could lead to failure of the lap joint over a certain length and
consequent in-flight decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 25, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of the service information listed in the AD as of April 25,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0064, dated April 7, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    One operator reported a clearly visible crack in a fuselage lap
joint, just forward of the ice protection plate in the forward
fuselage. During a subsequent review of fatigue lives of lap joints
in general, a critical location was found at a skin cut-out for a
water service panel in the rear fuselage. Analysis by Fokker
Services shows that at this specific location, due to the high local
loads, cracks can occur from about 47,000 flight cycles (FC) in the
inner skin. The outer skin will cover a crack in the inner skin and
a crack will therefore not be visible.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, can result in an
exponential crack growth rate, possibly leading to failure of the
lap joint over a certain length and consequent in-flight
decompression of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time low-frequency eddy current inspection of the lap joint for
cracks and, depending on findings, repair of the lap-joint. This
[EASA] AD also requires sending an inspection report (even when no
cracks are found) to the TC [type certificate] holder to confirm the
selected inspection threshold for aeroplanes that have not yet
accumulated 45,000 FC, as well as the inspection interval. The
repetitive inspection task will be introduced in a future revision
of the Fokker 50/60 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Document.
    Repair of the lap joint constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. In addition, the terminating action can also
be applied before the initial inspection is required, thereby
preventing the need for inspection altogether.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF50-53-061,
dated January 13, 2011; and Service Bulletin

SBF50-53-062, dated January 13, 2011. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    There are no products of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are
placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0333; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NM-085-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-07-05 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-17011. Docket No. FAA-
2012-0333; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-085-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 25,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050
airplanes; certificated in any category; serial numbers 20103
through 20252 inclusive, 20254 through 20267 inclusive, 20270
through 20279 inclusive, 20281, 20283 through 20286 inclusive, 20288
through 20317 inclusive, 20328, 20331, 20333, and 20335; except
those that have already been modified in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF50-53-062.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the fuselage lap
joint. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct exponential
crack growth, which could lead to failure of the lap joint over a
certain length and consequent in-flight decompression of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection

    Within the applicable times specified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a low frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspection for cracks of the lap joint of the rear fuselage, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF50-53-061, dated January 13, 2011.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 47,000 total flight
cycles or more as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3 months
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 46,000 total
flight cycles but less than 47,000 total flight cycles as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 6 months after the effective date
of this AD.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 45,000 total
flight cycles but less than or equal to 46,000 total flight cycles
as of the effective date of this AD: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.

(h) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during the LFEC inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the lap
joint in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF50-53-062, dated January 13, 2011.

(i) Reporting Requirement

    Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of
the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Fokker
Services B.V., Technical Services, in accordance with the
instructions of Figure 6 of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-061,
dated January 13, 2011, at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    Repairing the lap joint in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-062, dated January
13, 2011, terminates the action required by paragraph (g) of this AD
provided that the action is accomplished within the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2011-0064, dated April 7,
2011; Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-061, dated January 13, 2011;
and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-062, dated January 13, 2011;
for related information.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-061, dated January 13,
2011.
    (ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF50-53-062, dated January 13,
2011.
    (2) For Fokker Services B.V. service information identified in
this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept.,
P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31
(0)252-627-350; fax +31 (0)252-627-211; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8218 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum DATE:

SUBJECT: BEAD Benefits Assessment for Methyl Parathion Use on Walnuts FROM: Donald W. Atwood, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Jihad Alsadek, Economist Economic Analysis Branch THROUGH: Arnet Jones, Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch TO: Laura Parsons, Chemical Review Manager Susan Lewis, Chief Reregistration Branch 2 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

PRP REVIEW DATE: August 21, 2002 SUMMARY BEAD has reviewed available data related to methyl parathion use on walnuts. Sufficient alternatives are available with proven efficacy against the targeted pest, codling moth. Market data supports movement from methyl parathion to chlorpyrifos if methyl parathion was not available. Chlorpyrifos currently is the product of choice for control on most acres and is less expensive than methyl parathion. In addition, chlorpyrifos shares the negative correlation to azinphos methyl resistance which was a key factor in methyl parathion registration for this crop. BEAD concludes that there would be no biological or economic impact if methyl parathion was not available for use on walnuts.

LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT 2 There are limits to this assessment. Commercial walnut production in the US is limited to California. This assessment is limited to walnuts in general and does not consider methyl parathion usage variances which might occur between different varieties. It is assumed that producers will not shift to alternate crops. This analysis also assumes that farm gate prices are not affected by any changes at the grower level and that growers do not drastically alter their production practices. This analysis will focus solely on operation costs, ignoring overhead and other opportunity costs, which can be difficult to measure and are beyond the scope of this exercise. Thus, net cash returns overstate actual profits to the grower.

The scope of this analysis includes an examination of potential grower and industry level impacts associated with methyl parathion being unavailable for use on walnuts. This mitigation scenario reflects the health risks to pesticide mixers, loaders, and applicators as identified by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs.

BEAD estimates of yield losses associated with methyl parathion unavailabilty are based on the best professional judgement of BEAD analysts when estimates are not available from other sources. BEAD estimates are based on a review of available comparative efficacy data, USDA crop profiles, state crop production guides, discussions with university extension and research entomologists knowledgeable in sweet corn production, and other sources listed. Walnut production is a very complex system that can be influenced by a variety of parameters ( e. g., weather). BEAD's ability to quantitatively capture the wide array of events that could unfold given each hypothetical scenario listed above is very limited.

PRODUCTION OF U. S. WALNUTS California produces 99% of the walnuts grown in the United States and 38% of the world's production. 1 Over 40% of the California walnut crop is currently being exported. About 35% of the crop is marketed in shell. Production and crop value for 1999 2001 are provided in Table 1. The average farm size is 38 acres. 2 Table 1. Production and Crop Value for walnut production. 1 Year Bearing Acres ( 1000) Yield per Acre ( Tons) Production ( 1000 Tons) Price per Ton ( dollars) Crop Value ( 1000 dollars)

1999 193 1.18 227 1050 238,350 2000 191 1.48 283 886 250,738 2001 193 1.24 239 NA NA Walnuts are ideally suited to deep, well drained, fine sandy loam to clay loam soils, but will not 3 produce adequate commercial crops without irrigation in most California growing areas. 3 Flood, furrow, and sprinkler irrigation are predominant. Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation being used more often in marginal soils. Irrigation takes place from mid April through October. Orchard soils are generally not cultivated, but herbicide treated tree rows are common. Mechanized winter pruning is practiced. A smooth orchard floor is necessary to facilitate harvest of walnuts that are shaken to the ground, swept into a windrow, and picked up with pickup machines. All these harvest activities are mechanized. Some orchards are disced and rolled before harvest to insure a smooth, firm surface for harvest.

The Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys of California are the largest production areas. Acreage is well distributed throughout these regions. 3 The coastal valleys in the counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito also have significant production. Unique areas in the Sierra Foothills and Lake County also have some walnut production. Over 15 varieties of walnuts are grown in the state commercially, with numerous other cultivars being planted on a smaller scale. Selected cultivars are grafted onto rootstocks. The three rootstocks generally used in California are Northern California Black, Paradox hybrid, and English Walnut. Both varieties and rootstocks vary in susceptibility to diseases, nematodes, and insect pests.

Activities in the orchard during the summer months include mowing, summer training young trees, vertebrate pest and weed control, and harvest. Pruning occurs between October and January, and mummy nut removal takes place around February.

USE AND USAGE OF METHYL PARATHION ON WALNUTS California received a Special Local Needs ( SLN) label to use methyl parathion on walnuts in 1997. Table 2 shows the use of methyl parathion in California walnuts from 1998 to 2000. The observed increase in acres treated with methyl parathion between 1998 and 1999 illustrates increased usage to control codling moth populations that had become resistant to azinphos methyl. Usage is now stable at 18% of acres treated. Application is primarily by ground equipment ( 85 95%). 4 Table 2. Usage of Methyl Parathion on Walnuts in California from 1998 2000.

Year Bearing Acreage1 ( 1000 acres) Acres Treated4 ( 1000 acres) % Acres Treated Pounds AI Applied4 ( 1000 lbs)

2000 193 35 18% 56 1999 191 35 18% 57 1998 193 20 10% 33 TARGET PESTS IN WALNUT PRODUCTION 4 Methyl parathion is used to control codling moth in California walnut production. The use of methyl parathion to control codling moth was initiated in 1997 to control populations that were resistant to azinphos methyl.

Codling moth is the most economically important pest in walnuts, with approximately 60% of the acreage susceptible to damage. 3 Those acres of susceptible cultivars require one to three treatments per year to manage this pest.

Damage results from the codling moth larvae boring into the nuts and feeding on the kernel. The moth overwinters on the tree or the soil, laying eggs in the spring that emerge as larvae to enter nutlets. Later developing larvae also enter the nuts to feed on the kernel. There are typically three to ( less common) four generations per year. The navel orangeworm uses the entry site in the walnut from the codling moth larvae to access the kernel, encouraging populations of this pest. The codling moth is monitored with pheromone traps.

ALTERNATIVE CONTROL Cultural Control No cultural methods are available which will provide control of the codling moth.

Biological Control3 Although over 250 biological control organisms have been shown to attack codling moth, none are capable of keeping populations below that which causes economic damage. Codling Moth Granulosis virus has been shown to be somewhat effective. It must be ingested by larvae and from 9 to 12 applications are needed each year to cover the long generation time. Timing these treatments is extremely difficult because irrigation schedules prevent growers from getting into orchards in a timely matter. Also, because walnut trees are large, it is not possible to get the thorough spray coverage with this material necessary for reliable control.

Trichogramma platneria, a codling moth egg parasite, has reduced codling moth damage by up to 70% when 12 weekly releases of 150,000 200,000 wasps per acre per week are released in low to moderate population situations. This level of control is not adequate to prevent a buildup over time and economic damage in most walnut orchards in the state.

At this time codling moth mating disruption is not economically feasible in walnuts because of large tree size and the large volume of air which would have to be permeated with pheromone.

Novel ways of applying codling moth pheromones and the parasite Trichograma platneri may provide some alternative controls for this pest. Pheromone mating disruption control programs have 5 been effective in pome fruit for codling moth control when early season pest populations are initially at low to moderate levels. Heavy codling moth pest pressure is not adequately controlled by the pheromone mating disruption programs. However, consultants and University extension personnel report that early season control of codling moths with azinphos methyl works to prevent buildup of pest populations and has facilitated the success of the codling moth mating disruption programs.

Alternative Insecticides Table 3 presents all insecticides which are currently used to control codling moth on walnuts. Insecticides with less than 1% of acreage treated were considered ineffective and not included in this analysis ( malathion, Bt, carbaryl, naled, and pyriproxyfen).

Methyl parathion was registered as a SLN insecticides in walnuts due to development of codling moth resistance to azinphos methyl. While azinphos methyl was once the primary insecticide used to control this pest, methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos are now more widely used in walnut production.

Table 3. Insecticides used to control codling moth in walnuts.

Insecticide  In Order of Importance ( Based on Estimated Usage for the Control of Codling Moth) 4, 5, 6 % Share of Total Insecticide Use ( Total Acre Treatments) for Control of Codling Moth6 PHI 4 Limitations and advantages 4 chlorpyrifos 35.3 14 Reduced from 8lbs ai/ A to 4 lbs ai/ A. Now limited to 2 applications/ year. Effective against azinphos methyl resistant populations.

esfenvalerate 14.2 21 Very disruptive to biological control of mites.

phosmet 12.7 14 Limited to 12 lbs ai/ A. Less disruptive to beneficial mites than some other OP's. Used where minimal non target impact is essential.

methyl parathion 11.3 14 Effective against azinphos methyl resistant populations azinphos methyl 7.1 21 Under 4 year phase out. Resistant codling moth populations.

tebufenozide 5.9 30 A high priority material. Need for good coverage and large trees limit the utility of this material Insecticide  In Order of Importance ( Based on Estimated Usage for the Control of Codling Moth) 4, 5, 6 % Share of Total Insecticide Use ( Total Acre Treatments) for Control of Codling Moth6 PHI 4 Limitations and advantages 4 6 permethrin 5.8 1 Disruptive to biological mite control and not used in the San Joaquin Valley because of this problem methidathion 2.3 7 Can provide control.

diazinon 2.1 45 Can provide control.

diflubenzuron 1.2 28 A high priority material. Need for good coverage and large trees limit the utility of this material 7 BIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF METHYL PARATHION CANCELLATION ON WALNUTS Neither changes in cultivation practices nor use of biological control agents can adequately control codling moth in walnuts at this time. There are alternative insecticides to methyl parathion which are efficacious and currently have greater market share than methyl parathion. While methyl parathion is useful in resistance management, it is not essential. Chlorpyrifos currently has a greater market share and is also effective against codling moth populations which have shown resistance to azinphos methyl. The scheduled phase out of azinphos methyl in the next 4 years will reduce the need for methyl parathion as a resistance management alternative. BEAD feels that there would be little biological impact if methyl parathion was not available for use on walnuts, with the majority of growers switching to chlorpyrifos with no resulting loss in production or quality.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF METHYL PARATHION CANCELLATION ON WALNUTS Analysis of proprietary data on insecticide cost indicates there would be no negative impact if methyl parathion was not available for use on walnuts. 6 Data for 1998 2000 show insecticide costs of $ 26.78 and $ 20.86 per acre for methyl parathion and chlorpyrifos, respectively. Switching to chlorpyrifos, the current market share leader for codling moth control, would result in a savings of $ 5.92/ acre. 6 CONCLUSIONS The absence of methyl parathion as a pest management tool would have no impact on walnut production in the US. This product was registered as a SLN insecticide for use against azinphosmethyl resistant codling moth populations. Chlorpyrifos also has the same negative correlation to resistant pest populations and currently has the largest market share for walnut acres treated. BEAD concludes that most producers currently using methyl parathion would switch to chlorpyrifos. As the price of chlorpyrifos is less than that of methyl parathion, it would also be to the producers advantage to switch to the efficacious but cheaper alternative.

REFERENCES 1 Agricultural Statistics. 2002. USDA/ NASS. http:// www. usda. gov/ nass/ pubs/ agr02/ acro02. htm 2 Census of Agriculture. 1997. USDA/ NASS. http:// www. nass. usda. gov/ census/

3 Crop Profile for Walnuts in California 1998. USDA/ NASS. http:// pestdata. ncsu. edu/ cropprofiles/ docs/ cawalnuts. html 8 4 California Pesticide Use. 1998 2000. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation. University of California. http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PUSE/ puse1. html 5 Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2000 Preliminary Summary. 2001. NASS/ USDA http:// usda. mannlib. cornell. edu/ reports/ nassr/ fruit/ pnf bb/ ncit0701. pdf 6 Proprietary EPA Data. 1999 2001. DOANE.