### 53047 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Commodity Parts per million

Vegetable, cucurbit, group

9 ...................................... 0 .5Vegetable, foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A .................... 25.0 Vegetable, fruiting, group

8–10 ................................ 1 .4 Vegetable, leafy, except

brassica, group 4 ............ 29.0 Commodity Parts per million

Vegetable, leaves of root

and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet ............... 16.0 Vegetable, legume, edible

podded, subgroup 6A ..... 0 .5 Vegetable, root, except

sugar beet, subgroup 1B 0.4 Vegetable, tuberous and

corm, subgroup 1C ......... 0 .04 Commodity Parts per million

Vegetables, foliage of legume, group 7 ................... 25 Wheat, grain ....................... 0.02 Wheat, hay ......................... 6.0 Wheat, straw ....................... 8.5

* * * * *

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. * * *

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation date

Endive, belgium ................................................................................................................ ....................................... 11.0 12/31/13

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–20921 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0586; FRL–9393–8]**

**Halosulfuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishestolerances for residues of halosulfuronmethyl in or on artichoke and caneberry subgroup 13–07A. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective August 28, 2013. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 2013, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** ).

**ADDRESSES :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0586, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: RDFRNotice@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA’s tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 40tab

_02.tpl. C. How 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–2012–0586 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 October 28, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 2012–0586, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http:// www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/ dockets.


### 53048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of September 28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL–9364–6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8050) by IR–4, IR–4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.479 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2- pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1- methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on artichoke and caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(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 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 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 . . . .’’

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination onaggregate exposure for halosulfuronmethyl including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with halosulfuronmethyl follows. A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies 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. With repeated dosing, halosulfuron-methyl produces non-specific effects, which are frequently characterized by reduced body weight/body weight gain in the test animals. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, increases in resorptions, soft tissue (dilation of the lateral ventricles) and skeletal variations, and decreases in body weights were seen in the fetuses compared to clinical signs and decreases in body weights and food consumption in the maternal animals at a similar dose level. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, increases in resorptions and post-implantation losses and decrease in mean litter size were seen in the presence of decreases in body weight and food consumption in maternal animals were observed. However, a clear no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for these effects was established in both rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. Halosulfuron-methyl did not produce reproductive effects. No neurotoxic effects were observed in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies.

Halosulfuron-methyl is classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’ It is negative for mutagenicity in a battery of genotoxicity studies.

Although there is no immunotoxicity study for halosulfuron-methyl, the available data indicate that halosulfuron-methyl is unlikely to be an immuno toxicant. EPA is currently reviewing a waiver request for these data.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl as well as the NOAEL and Lowest Observed-Adversed-Effective-Level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: ‘‘Halosulfuron-Methyl: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Artichoke and Caneberry (Crop subgroup 13–07A),’’ dated March 25, 2013, pp. 30–34, docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0586–

0004. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide’s toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ riskassess.htm

.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for halosulfuron-methyl used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71555) (FRL–9370–6).
C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to halosulfuron-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing halosulfuron-methyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.479. EPA assessed dietary exposures from halosulfuron-methyl in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. There was no indication of an adverse effect attributable to a single dose for the general U.S. population including infants and children. Therefore, an acute dietary assessment was not conducted for the U.S. general population. However, such effects were identified for females 13–49 years old


### 53049 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

for halosulfuron-methyl. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model— Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM–FCID, ver. 3.16), which incorporates consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA); 2003–2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined assessment that assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), dietary exposure evaluation model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all existing and proposed

uses.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the DEEM–FCID, ver. 3.16 which incorporates consumption information from the USDA NHANES/ WWEIA; 2003–2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined assessment that assumed 100 PCT, DEEM 7.81 default processing factors, and tolerance-level residues for all existing and proposed uses.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that halosulfuron methyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for halosulfuron-methyl. Tolerance level residues and100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking

water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of halosulfuron-methyl. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/ water/index.htm.

Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–GROW) models, respectively, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of halosulfuron-methyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 59.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water.

For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments EDWC’s are estimated to be 59.2 ppb for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments, the water concentration value of 59.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used inthis document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential turf use. EPA assessed residential exposure using the followingassumptions: Residential handler shortterm (1–30 days) dermal and inhalationexposures, and residential postapplication short-term dermal andincidental oral (hand-to-mouth, objectto-mouth, and soil ingestion) exposures are expected from activities associatedwith the existing uses. Intermediateterm exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.

Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4. 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 halosulfuronmethyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and halosulfuron-methyl does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that halosulfuron-methyl 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. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) 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 database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl includes rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no quantitative evidence for increased susceptibility following prenatal and/or postnatal exposure. However, there was qualitative evidence for increased susceptibility of fetuses in the rat and rabbit developmental studies. In the rat study, increases in resorptions, soft tissue (dilation of the lateral ventricles) and skeletal variations, and decreases in body weights were seen in the fetuses compared to clinical signs and decreases in body weights and food consumption in the maternal animals. In the rabbit study, increases in resorptions and post-implantation losses and decrease in mean litter size was seen in the presence of decreases in body weight and food consumption in maternal animals. Thus, in both species, the developmental effect was considered to be qualitatively more severe than maternal effects (i.e., qualitative evidence for susceptibility). Nevertheless, the degree of concern for these effects is low, and there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal toxicity in both rats and rabbits for the following reasons:

i. In both studies, there are clear NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental and maternal toxicities.

ii. Developmental effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity.

iii. The effects were only seen at the high dose.

iv. In rats, developmental effects were seen at a dose which approached the limit-dose.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of


### 53050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl is complete except for an immunotoxicity study. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the available halosulfuron-methyl toxicity data to determine whether an additional uncertainty factor is needed to account or potential immunotoxicity. Thetoxicology database for halosulfuronmethyl does not show any evidence of biologically relevant effects on the immune system following exposure tothis chemical. The overall weight-ofevidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the immune system. Based on these considerations, EPA does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity testing will result in a point of departure lower than those already selected for halosulfuron-methyl risk assessment, and an additional database uncertainty factor is not needed to account for the lack of this study.

ii. There is no indication that halosulfuron-methyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and rabbits, as discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are no residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and the degree of concern for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity is low.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modelingused to assess exposure to halosulfuronmethyl in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by halosulfuron-methyl. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to halosulfuron-methyl will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13–49 years, the population group receiving the greatest

exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concludedthat chronic exposure to halosulfuronmethyl from food and water will utilize 5.5% of the cPAD for all children 1–2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Chronic residential exposure to residues of halosulfuron-methyl is not expected. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure estimate.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to halosulfuron-methyl.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,800 for adults and 840 for children. Residential exposure for use in the aggregate assessment of adults and children 1 to <2 years old reflects the combined post-application dermal plus hand-to-mouth exposures from turf treated with liquid applications of halosulfuron-methyl. Because EPA’s level of concern for halosulfuron-methyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these estimates of aggregate risk do not exceed the Agency’s level of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect wasidentified; however, halosulfuronmethyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure pathway. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure, the intermediate-term aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure estimate. Chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the equivalent POD value used to assess intermediate-term risk),no further assessment of intermediateterm risk is necessary.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, halosulfuron-methyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

An adequate analytical method is available for enforcement of tolerances for halosulfuron-methyl residues in plants. The gas chromatography (GC) method quantifies halosulfuron-methyl as its rearrangement ester (RRE; 1-Hpyrazole-4-carboxylic acid, 3-chloro-5- [(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]- 1-methyl, methyl ester) using thermionic-specific detection (TSD, nitrogen specific). For confirmation, the RRE can be determined by gas chromatography mass spectroscopic detection (GC/MS).

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@

epa.gov.

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 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to


### 53051 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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. There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl in/on any commodity.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6- dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1- methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities artichoke at 0.05 ppm and caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.05 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions 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 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).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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. 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

Dated: August 14, 2013. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

**PART 180—[AMENDED]**

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

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

■ 2. In § 180.479, add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: **§ 180.479 Halosulfuron-methyl; tolerances for residues.** 

(a) * * * (2) * * *

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Artichoke ..................................... 0.05

* * * * * Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ..... 0.05

* * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–20906 Filed 8–27–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1018; FRL–9396–8]**

**Ethyl-2E,4Z-Decadienoate (Pear Ester); Exemption From the Requirement of a**  **Tolerance**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide ethyl-2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear ester) in or on all food commodities. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximumpermissible level for residues of ethyl2E,4Z-decadienoate (pear ester).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective August 28, 2013. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 2013, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** ).

**ADDRESSES :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–1018, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review