[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48391-48396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22523]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0854; FRL-8429-7]


Meptyldinocap; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes import tolerances for combined 
residues of meptyldinocap, 2-(1-methylheptyl)-4,6-dinitrophenyl (2E)-2-
butenoate and 2,4-DNOP, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl)phenol expressed 
as meptyldinocap in or on grape. Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these 
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 23, 2009. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 23, 2009, 
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-2008-0854. 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: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division, 
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(703) 308-9354; e-mail address: waller.mary @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. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those 
engaged in the following activities:
    <bullet> Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    <bullet> Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    <bullet> Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    <bullet> Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 
provide 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

[[Page 48392]]

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at 
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register 
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal 
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access 
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations 
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite 
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized 
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines 
at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2008-0854 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be 
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 
on or before November 23, 2009.
    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 that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked 
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA 
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0854, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    <bullet> 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 (703) 305-5805.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 13, 2009 (74 FR 16866) (FRL-8396-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
7E7294) by Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by 
establishing import tolerances for residues of the fungicide 
meptyldinocap, as the parent 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl) phenyl 
crotonate and the 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl) phenol metabolite, in 
or on grape; grape, juice; and grape, wine at 0.3 parts per million 
(ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow 
AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available to the public in 
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received 
in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
determined that tolerances are not needed for grape, wine and grape, 
juice. The reason for these changes 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 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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors 
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for 
import tolerances for combined residues of meptyldinocap, 2-(1-
methylheptyl)-4, 6-dinitrophenyl (2E)-2-butenoate and 2,4-DNOP, 2,4-
dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl)phenol expressed as meptyldinocap on grape at 
0.20 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 
establishing tolerances 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.
    Meptyldinocap is one of the six isomers found in the older 
fungicide dinocap (dinocap is 22% meptyldinocap and 77% remaining five 
isomers). Based on a comparison of the toxicological databases, EPA has 
determined that meptyldinocap and dinocap are toxicologically 
different, with meptyldinocap being less toxic. Unlike dinocap, which 
was teratogenic in mice and rabbits, meptyldinocap caused no 
developmental toxicity in any species tested. In addition, a comparison 
of subchronic studies in the mouse for dinocap with similar studies for 
meptyldinocap indicated that dinocap caused liver toxicity and death 
(JMPR 1998), whereas toxicity was absent with meptyldinocap following 
treatment for 28 days at a higher dose. Finally, the most sensitive 
endpoint for dinocap was ocular effects in the dog. No ocular effects 
were evident with meptyldinocap in a subchronic study in dogs which was 
extended from 90 days to 1 year specifically to determine if ocular 
effects were elicited.
    Meptyldinocap caused no deaths following acute oral 
(LD<INF>50</INF> >2,000 milgrams/kilograms body weight (mg/kg/bw)) or 
dermal (LD<INF>50</INF> >5,000 (mg/kg bw)) exposures. No abnormal 
clinical observations were recorded following dermal exposure other 
than erythema/edema at the dose site at 5,000 mg/kg bw beginning on day 
1 and persisting through days 4-9. Meptyldinocap is minimally 
irritating to the eye and slightly irritating to the skin and exhibited 
a skin sensitization potential under the conditions of the local lymph 
node assay. Short-term (90-day)

[[Page 48393]]

exposure of rats to meptyldinocap led to decreased body weight, body 
weight gain, and food consumption in both sexes at the highest dose 
tested (113 mg/kg bw/day). Dogs treated with low doses of meptyldinocap 
(approximately 4 mg/kg bw/day) for the same length of time showed 
evidence of hepatic toxicity, specifically as significantly increased 
ALT (alanine aminotransferase) and AST (aspartate aminotransferase) 
levels that were sustained throughout the treatment period. However, 
unlike the parent mixture dinocap, there was no evidence of ocular 
toxicity in dogs with meptyldinocap during the 90-day treatment period, 
or when treatment of these dogs was extended to 1 year. No adverse 
effects were observed in mice treated with meptyldinocap for 28 days. 
Meptyldinocap was tested in a number of developmental toxicity studies 
in several species. Unlike dinocap, which was teratogenic in mice and 
rabbits, meptyldinocap caused no developmental toxicity in any species 
tested. Meptyldinocap was negative in two in vitro mutagenicity 
studies, as well as in one in vivo and one in vitro clastogenicity 
assay.
    Long-term toxicity studies in rodents, including carcinogenicity 
studies, and studies designed to assess male and female fertility were 
not performed with meptyldinocap. However, the hazard database for 
meptyldinocap, in conjunction with the dinocap hazard database, is 
adequate for the purposes of this action on imported grapes.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by meptyldinocap as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level from 
the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in 
document Meptyldinocap (DE-126/Dinocap II): PP#7E7294. Tolerances on 
Fresh and Processed Imported Grapes. Human-Health Risk Assessment at 
pp. 22-35 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0854.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is 
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk 
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no 
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study 
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a 
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of 
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach 
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) 
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties 
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and 
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population 
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic 
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the 
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic 
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by 
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and 
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure 
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
    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 
greater than that 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 meptyldinocap can be 
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Meptyldinocap (DE-126/
DinocappII): PP# 7E7294. Tolerances on Fresh and Process Imported 
Grapes. Human-Health Risk Assessment at pp. 11 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0854.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to meptyldinocap, EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing dinocap tolerances in 
(40 CFR 180.341). EPA assessed dietary exposures from meptyldinocap 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.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for 
meptyldinocap; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure 
assessment is unnecessary.
    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 assumed tolerance 
level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all potential 
sources of meptyldinocap from the proposed use on imported grapes and 
meptyldinocap exposure from use of dinocap on imported apples and 
grapes. Since 22% of technical dinocap is meptyldinocap and since the 
proportion of meptyldinocap in dinocap residues is unknown, the chronic 
analysis assumed that 100% of the dinocap residues on imported apples 
and grapes were meptyldinocap. Based on dinocap processing studies, the 
default grape juice and wine processing factors were reduced to 1. For 
raisin, apple juice, and dried apple, default processing factors were 
retained. Anticipated residue and/or PCT were not used.
    iii. Cancer. The carcinogenic potential of meptyldinocap has not 
been tested. However, the parent mixture dinocap was previously 
classified as ``Group E, Evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans.'' 
The Agency concluded that given the lack of developmental, ocular, and 
genetic toxicities with meptyldinocap, dinocap toxicity represents a 
``worst case'' scenario relative to meptyldinocap. Therefore, the 
Agency concluded an exposure assessment was not necessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the 
dietary assessment for meptyldinocap. Tolerance level residues and/or 
100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. There is no expectation 
that meptyldinocap residues would occur in surface water or ground 
water sources of drinking water. Meptyldinocap is proposed for use only 
on imported grapes, and established tolerances for dinocap are for 
imported grapes and apples only. The sole exposure route for the U.S. 
population is via food exposure. There are no registered uses of 
meptyldinocap or dinocap in the United States.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
     Neither meptyldinocap nor dinocap are registered for any specific 
use patterns that would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity.

[[Page 48394]]

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 meptyldinocap to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and meptyldinocap does not appear 
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
meptyldinocap 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 website 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 of 1996 (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 was no evidence of 
increased susceptibility of offspring following prenatal exposure of 
mice, rats, or rabbits. In both the rat and rabbit developmental 
toxicity studies, toxicity to offspring was not observed, whereas 
maternal toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested in both 
studies. In the non-guideline developmental toxicity studies in the 
mouse, meptyldinocap failed to cause either offspring or maternal 
toxicity in either study. One of these studies also assessed postnatal 
toxicity to offspring. No evidence of postnatal toxicity was observed. 
These results contrast with those for dinocap, which was used as a 
positive control in the study and caused developmental toxicity as well 
as adverse postnatal effects.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that an FQPA SF of 3X is 
necessary to protect the safety of infants and children given that the 
POD for estimating chronic human risk was chosen from a subchronic 
study. Use of a 3X SF, in the form of an uncertainty factor for 
subchronic-to-chronic extrapolation, with the NOAEL of 1.5 mg/kg bw/day 
from the 90-day toxicity study in dogs yields an effective NOAEL of 0.5 
mg/kg bw/day for meptyldinocap. EPA concludes that reliable data 
support this FQPA SF based upon the following considerations:
    i. The adjusted NOAEL for meptyldinocap is virtually identical to 
the NOAEL used for the (cRfD) for dinocap (0.4 mg/kg bw/day). Use of a 
larger SF for meptyldinocap would yield a lower point of departure than 
that for dinocap, which would be inappropriate, given that 
meptyldinocap is a significantly less toxic chemical than dinocap. 
Evidence showing the lower toxicity of meptyldinocap include:
    Meptyldinocap is one of six isomers contained in dinocap. 
Toxicological studies have isolated the teratogenic isomer in dinocap, 
and it is not meptyldinocap.
    Meptyldinocap is considered less toxic than dinocap based on the 
lack of developmental and ocular toxicities with meptyldinocap at 
approximately 5X the doses contained in dinocap.
    A comparison of subchronic studies in the mouse for dinocap with 
similar studies for meptyldinocap indicated that dinocap caused liver 
toxicity and death (JMPR 1998), whereas toxicity was absent with 
meptyldinocap following treatment for 28 days at a higher dose.
    Unlike dinocap, there is no evidence of offspring susceptibility 
with meptyldinocap in any of four developmental toxicity studies across 
three species tested. Unlike dinocap, there was no evidence of 
neurotoxicity or neuropathology in any of the submitted studies for 
meptyldinocap.
    Unlike dinocap, there was no effect of treatment on mortality, 
clinical signs, ophthalmological examinations, or select gross or 
microscopic pathology in dogs treated for 1 year with meptyldinocap. 
The dinocap cRfD was based on a chronic study in dogs.
    ii. Evidence from the meptyldinocap dog study indicates that 
extending exposure from subchronic to chronic would not have produced a 
lower NOAEL. As indicated above, the extension of the meptyldinocap dog 
study for an additional 9 months did not result in effects on 
mortality, clinical signs, ophthalmological examinations, or select 
gross or microscopic pathology as it did with dinocap. Moreover, while 
levels of serum hepatic enzymes in dogs in the meptyldinocap study were 
increased significantly over controls throughout the 90-day exposure 
period, the serum hepatic enzyme levels did not become more severe over 
time.
    iii. Although EPA does not have toxicology studies conducted with 
meptyldinocap to fulfill all data requirements, EPA concludes that 
between the dinocap and meptyldinocap studies it has a complete 
database. The dinocap database was incomplete due to a lack of a 
developmental neurotoxicity study but such a study is not needed for 
meptyldinocap because there was no evidence of neurotoxicity or 
neuropathology in any of the submitted studies for meptyldinocap. These 
results contrast with those of dinocap in which minor neuropathology 
was noted in dogs treated with dinocap as a positive control for 90 
days. EPA began requiring acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing of 
all food and non-food use pesticides on December 26, 2007. Since this 
requirement went into effect after the tolerance petition was 
submitted, these studies are not yet available for meptyldinocap. In 
the absence of specific neurotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the 
available toxicity data to determine whether an additional database 
uncertainty factor is needed to account for potential neurotoxicity. 
Given the lack of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in any meptyldinocap 
studies, EPA does not believe that conducting acute or subchronic 
neurotoxicity testing will result in a NOAEL less than 1.5 mg/kg/day 
already established for the cRfD for meptyldinocap, and an additional 
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for the lack of these data. 
Immunotoxicity testing is also required as a result of changes made to 
the pesticide data requirements in December of 2007. An immunotoxicity 
study has not been conducted with meptyldinocap. However, an in vivo 
immunotoxicity study with additional in vitro measurements (Smialowicz, 
et al., 1992) has been conducted with dinocap in mice and published in 
the open literature. Immune function, cellularity, organ weights, and 
histopathology were measured over several doses in the study. 
Immunotoxicity was observed at a thirtyfold higher dose than the 
effective NOAEL used to calculate the cRfD for meptyldinocap. Because a 
well conducted immunotoxicity study with dinocap was performed 
previously, and

[[Page 48395]]

since meptyldinocap is considered less toxic than dinocap, the 
requirement for an immunotoxicity study with meptyldinocap has been 
satisfied by the literature study with dinocap.
    iv. There is no evidence of offspring susceptibility with 
meptyldinocap in any of four developmental toxicity studies across 
three species tested.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
database for meptyldinocap. The dietary food exposure assessments were 
performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues as well as a 
very conservative assumption of what meptyldinocap exposure could occur 
from use of dinocap. No exposure to meptyldinocap in drinking water or 
from residential use is expected because neither meptyldinocap or 
dinocap is registered for use in the United States. The exposure 
assessment will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by 
meptyldinocap.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are 
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. 
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into 
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by 
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA 
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases 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 POD to ensure that the MOE called for 
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure 
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 
meptyldinocap is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
meptyldinocap from food will utilize 35% of the cPAD for (children 1 to 
2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest exposure. 
There are no proposed or existing residential uses of meptyldinocap, 
and exposure through drinking water is not expected. Therefore, dietary 
risk represents the aggregate risk and does not exceed the Agency's 
LOC.
    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).
    Meptyldinocap is not registered for any use patterns that would 
result in residential exposure and exposure through drinking water is 
not expected. Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk is the sum of 
the risk from exposure to meptyldinocap in food which does not exceed 
the Agency's LOC.
    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).
     Meptyldinocap is not registered for any use patterns that would 
result in intermediate-term residential exposure and exposure through 
drinking water is not expected. Therefore, the intermediate-term 
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to meptyldinocap in 
food which does not exceed the Agency's LOC.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on structural 
similarities and the demonstrated lower toxicity of meptyldinocap as 
compared to dinocap, the cancer classification of Group E--Evidence of 
non-carcinogenicity in humans for dinocap was extended to 
meptyldinocap.
    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 meptyldinocap residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass 
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)) 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; e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#344651475d5041515951405c5b5047745144551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f1d0a1c060b1a0a020a1b07000b1c2f0a1f0e41080019">[email protected]</span></a>.

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no currently established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican 
maximum residue limits for meptyldinocap on grapes. Therefore, 
harmonization is not an issue.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is not establishing tolerances on grape juice and wine 
because dinocap grape processing studies indicated that residues are 
reduced in juice and wine (0.15X). The Agency believes that due to 
structural similarities, dinocap and meptydinocap will partition in a 
similar manner during processing. Therefore, separate grape juice and 
wine tolerances are unnecessary.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of 
meptyldinocap, 2-(1-methylheptyl)-4,6-dinitrophenyl (2E)-2-butenoate 
and 2,4-DNOP, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl)phenol expressed as 
meptyldinocap in or on grapes at 0.20 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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 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 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

[[Page 48396]]

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. 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) (Public Law 104-4).
    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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note).

VII. 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 final rule in the Federal 
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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


    Dated: September 9, 2009.
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticides Program.


0
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. Section 180.648 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec. 180.648  Meptyldinocap; tolerances for residues.

     (a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues 
of the fungicide meptyldinocap, 2-(1-methylheptyl)-4,6-dinitrophenyl 
(2E)-2-butenoate and 2,4-DNOP, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methylheptyl)phenol 
expressed as meptyldinocap in or on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commodity                        Parts Per Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grape                                       0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
     (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
     (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E9-22523 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>