### 65827 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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).
VIII. 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: October 15, 2012.
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 § 180.920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the following entry immediately before the entry for ‘‘Camphor (CAS Reg. No. 76–22–2).’’ **§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre harvest; exemptions from the requirement**  **of a tolerance.**
* * * * *

Inert ingredients Limits Uses

*****

Calcium gluconate (CAS Reg. No. 299– 28–5). ............ Sequestrant.

*****

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2012–26523 Filed 10–30–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0225; FRL–9360–9]**

**Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation amends tolerances for residues of trifloxystrobin in or on almond hulls; and Vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B, except radish. Bayer CropScience requested amendments to these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective October 31, 2012. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 31, 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 :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0225, 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 :**  Dominic Schuler, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 347–0260; email address: schuler.dominic@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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/ text/text-idx?&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–2012–0225 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 December 31, 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 (excluding


### 65828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

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– 2012–0225, 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.htm. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/ dockets. II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of July, 25 2012 (77 FR 43565) (FRL–9353–6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7930) by Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander Dr., RTP, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.555 be amended by increasing tolerances for residues of the fungicide trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2- [[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl] ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester), in or on almond hulls at 9.0 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. Bayer CropScience’s petition also requested that EPA delete the trifloxystrobin tolerance for ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish.’’ This tolerance was superseded by the establishment of the tolerance ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B’’ in the Federal Register of January 2, 2008 (73 FR 52). Inadvertently, EPA failed to remove the ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish’’ tolerance when it established the broader ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B’’ tolerance.

In addition to the petitioner’s requests EPA has deleted the tolerance for almond. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to amend 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 amending 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 on aggregate exposure for trifloxystrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances amended by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystrobin follows. A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 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.

Trifloxystrobin exhibits very low toxicity following single oral, dermal and inhalation exposures. It is a strong dermal sensitizer. In repeated dose tests in rats, the liver is the target organ for trifloxystrobin; toxicity is induced following oral and dermal exposure for 28 days. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility following prenatal exposure to rats and rabbits and postnatal exposures to rats. Trifloxystrobin was determined not to be carcinogenic in mice or rats following long-term dietary administration. Trifloxystrobin is positive for mutagenicity in Chinese Hamster V79 cells, albeit at cytotoxic dose levels. However, trifloxystrobin is negative in the remaining mutagenicity studies.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33190) (FRL–8829–2), and at http:// www.regulations.gov in the document ‘‘Trifloxystrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Petition Proposing Increased Tolerances for Residues in/on Field, Sweet and Pop Corn,’’ pp. 17–21 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0278. 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 trifloxystrobin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of


### 65829 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2010 (75 FR 33190).
C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from trifloxystrobin 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. Such effects were identified for trifloxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure for females 13–49 years old, EPA conducted an analysis using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMTM 7.81), which used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues. EPA assumed all commodities with established or proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues for all commodities with the exception of apples, oranges and grapes. For these commodities EPA used anticipated residues from field residue trials. EPA assumed all commodities with established or proposed tolerances were treated with trifloxystrobin.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that trifloxystrobin 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 information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such Data CallIns as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI– GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin plus its major degradation product, are estimated to be 47.98 parts per billion (ppb) and 47.31 ppb for surface water for acute and chronic exposures, respectively. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

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).

Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamentals and turfgrass. EPA assessed residential exposure under the following exposure scenarios: Adult post applicationdermal exposure; and children’s postapplication dermal and/or hand-tomouth exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/ residential-exposure-sop.html.

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 trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that trifloxystrobin 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 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. There is no indication of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbits to trifloxystrobin. In the prenatal developmental study in rats, there was no developmental toxicity at the limit dose. In the prenatal developmental study in rabbits, developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than the dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction study, there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose tested.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of 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 database is complete except for an inhalation study. An immunotoxicity study has been submitted; preliminary examination of the data found no evidence of immunotoxicity. In addition, the entire trifloxystrobin toxicity database was examined and there was no indication that this chemical directly targets the immune system. EPA does not believe that the immunotoxicity study will result in a dose less than the points of departure already used in this risk assessment and an additional database uncertainty factor (UF) for potential immunotoxicity


### 65830 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

does not need to be applied. Regarding the requirement for an inhalation toxicity study, the Agency has increased its focus on the uncertainties associated with route-to-route extrapolation (i.e., the use of oral toxicity studies for inhalation risk assessment) and is presently requiring inhalation toxicity studies more frequently. Although an inhalation toxicity study is now required for trifloxystrobin based on the current weight of the evidence approach, residential inhalation exposure is not anticipated; therefore, there are no uncertainties with respect to residential inhalation exposures to trifloxystrobin and no need to retain an additional database uncertainty factor for this safety finding.

ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. A waiver for a subchronic neurotoxicity study has been granted. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies (rats, dogs, mice), in developmental toxicity studies (rats, rabbits), or in a reproductive toxicity study (rats). There is no concern for neurotoxicity for trifloxystrobin based on the available database, limited findings in an acute neurotoxicity study, and lack of neurotoxicity in other fungicides of the strobilurin class.

iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary exposure assessment was unrefined, and the chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially refined, assuming 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues for all commodities except for apples, grapes, and oranges where the average field trial residues were used. By using these screening-level assessments with minor refinement, actual exposures/risks from residues in food will not be underestimated. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to trifloxystrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarlyconservative 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 trifloxystrobin. 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-, intermediate-, 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 trifloxystrobin will occupy 1.9% of the aPAD for females 13–49 years old, the population group receiving the greatest

exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 64% of the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of trifloxystrobin is not expected.

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).

Trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin.

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 1,100 for adults (dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); 650 for children 1–2 years (dermal residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures); and 130 for children 1–2 years (incidental oral residential + dietary food and drinking water exposures). Because EPA’s level of concern for trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or less, these MOEs are not 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). Trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk based on a short soil half-life (approximately 2 days).

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, trifloxystrobin 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 trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD), Method AG–659A and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), Method No. 200177) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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 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 established an MRL for trifloxystrobin in or on almond hulls at 3.0 ppm. This MRL is different than the proposed amended tolerance at 9.0 ppm for trifloxystrobin in the United States.


### 65831 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 211 / Wednesday, October 31, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Previously, the domestic tolerance and Codex MRL of trifloxystrobin were harmonized at 3.0 ppm. The proposed amendment, to reduce the preharvest interval of almond hulls from 60 days to 14 days requires an increase in the tolerance level from 3.0 ppm to 9.0
ppm.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

EPA is deleting the existing tolerance for almonds. The removal of the specific tolerance for almonds is a result of the coverage of almonds within the established tolerance for nut, tree, group 14 at 0.04 ppm.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the tolerance is amended for residues of trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]- (methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3 (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene] amino] oxy]methyl]-methyl ester), in or on almond, hulls from 3.0 ppm to 9.0 ppm. EPA is also granting the petitioner’s request to remove the tolerance for Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish. This tolerance should have been removed by EPA in its January 2, 2008 rulemaking, (73 FR 52) (FRL–8342–6), that added a tolerance for ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.’’ The ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B’’ tolerance was intended as a replacement for the tolerance ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish.’’ EPA is correcting that error in this action. Finally, the specific tolerance is removed for almonds because this commodity is covered by crop group tolerances. 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: October 15, 2012. 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 § 180.555, in the table in paragraph (a), remove the entries for ‘‘Almond’’ and ‘‘Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B, except radish’’ and revise the entry for ‘‘Almond, hulls’’ to read as follows:

**§ 180.555 Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.** 

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Almond, hulls ............................ 9.0

****

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2012–26757 Filed 10–30–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0279; FRL–9365–3]**

A**-(**R**-Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) Block Polymer With Poly(oxyethylene);**  **Tolerance Exemption**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of a-( r Nonylphenyl)poly(oxypropylene) block polymer with poly(oxyethylene); when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Stephan Company 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