Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48391 

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 8, 2009. 

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 § 180.132 paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the fungicide 

thiram (tetramethyl thiuram disulfide) 

in or on raw agricultural commodities as 

follows: 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/revocation date 

Apple ............................................................................................................................................................ 7.0 None 

Banana1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.80 3/31/14 

Peach ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.0 None 

Strawberry .................................................................................................................................................... 7.0 None 

1 No U.S. registrations as of September 23, 2009. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–22520 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

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: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(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 (LD50 >2,000 

milgrams/kilograms body weight (mg/ 

kg/bw)) or dermal (LD50 >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) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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-effectlevel 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 nonoccupational, 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 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 noncarcinogenicity 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: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 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. Section 180.648 is added to subpart 

C to read as follows: 

§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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0003; FRL–8436–7] 

Halosulfuron-methyl; Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of halosulfuronmethyl and its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on soybean, seed. 

Canyon Group, LLC requested this 

tolerance 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–2009–0003. 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: 

Susan Stanton, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5218; e-mail address: 

stanton.susan@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: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES