### 60715 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Custard apple ............................... 0 .60 Date .............................................. 8 .0

* * * * * Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ............. 2 .0 Fruit, small, vine climbing, except

fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13– 07F ............................................ 1 .0

* * * * * Grain, aspirated grain fractions .... 120

* * * * * Herb subgroup 19A, except chive 400

* * * * * Ilama ............................................. 0 .60

* * * * *Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except pea, blackeyed, seed and pea, southern, seed .................. 0 .50

* * * * * Sorghum, grain, forage ................. 15 Sorghum, grain, grain ................... 6.0 Sorghum, grain, stover ................. 20 Sorghum, sweet, forage ............... 15 Sorghum, sweet, grain ................. 6 .0 Sorghum, sweet, stalk .................. 15 Sorghum, sweet, stover ................ 20 Soursop ........................................ 0 .60

* * * * * Sugar apple .................................. 0 .60

* * * * * Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 .... 2.0

* * * * *

* * * * *

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

* * * * *

(d) * * * (2) * * *

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Chive ............................................. 4 .5

* * * * * Rapeseed subgroup 20A .............. 1 .0 Spice subgroup 19B ..................... 4 .5 Sunflower subgroup 20B .............. 1.0

[FR Doc. 2013–24127 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0885; FRL–9397–8]**

**Sedaxane; Pesticide Tolerances**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of sedaxane in or on potato and potato, wet peel. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective October 2, 2013. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 2, 2013, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** ).

**ADDRESSES :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0885, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available

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

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

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

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

_02.tpl. C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– OPP–2012–0885 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 2, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 2012–0885, 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, 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://


### 60716 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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 December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75082) (FRL–9372–6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2F8113) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419–8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.665 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide sedaxane, in or on potato at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) and potato, wet peel at 0.06 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available 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 recommended that a different tolerance be set for potato, wet peel. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.’’ This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .’’

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for sedaxane including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with sedaxane 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. The toxicological effects reported in the submitted animal studies such as mitochondrial disintegration and glycogen depletion in the liver are consistent with the pesticidal mode of action also being the mode of toxic action in mammals. The rat is the most sensitive species tested, and the main target tissue for sedaxane is the liver. Sedaxane also caused thyroid hypertrophy/hyperplasia. In theacute neurotoxicity (ACN) and subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) studies, sedaxane caused decreased activity, decreased muscle tone, decreased rearing and decreased grip strength.

There are indications of reproductive toxicity in rats at the high dose, but these effects did not result in reduced fertility. In the rat, no adverse effects in fetuses were seen in developmental toxicity studies at maternally toxic doses. However, in the rabbit, fetal toxicity was observed at the same doses as the dams. Offspring effects in the reproduction study occurred at the same doses causing parental effects, thus there was no quantitative increase in sensitivity in rat pups. Sedaxane is tumorigenic in the liver in the rat and mouse, and led to tumors in the thyroid and uterus in the rat and was classified as ‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’ Sedaxane was negative in the mutagenicity studies. The 28-day dermal study did not show systemic toxicity at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Sedaxane has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer, causes no skin irritation and only slight eye irritation.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sedaxane 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 20, 2012 (77; FR 36920) (FRL–9345–8). 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 the NOAEL and LOEAL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a populationadjusted 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 sedaxane used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of June 20, 2012 (77 FR 36920) (FRL–9345–8).
C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to sedaxane, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing sedaxane tolerances in 40 CFR 180.665. EPA assessed dietary exposures from sedaxane 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 sedaxane. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003–2008 food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a highly conservative acute dietary risk


### 60717 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

assessment which used tolerance level residues and assumed that 100% of all commodities were treated.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA’s 2003–2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a partially refined chronic dietary risk assessment which used anticipated residues and assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities except for soybean, wheat, and potato, where average PCT estimates of 51, 32, and 67, respectively, were used, and modeled drinking water estimates were included.

iii. Cancer. EPA assessed exposure for the purpose of estimating cancer risk assuming anticipated residues and 100 PCT for all commodities except for soybean, wheat, and potato, where average percent crop treated estimates of 51, 32, and 67, respectively, were used, and modeled drinking water estimates were included.

iv. Anticipated residue PCT 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 call-ins 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. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

• Condition A: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

• Condition B: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

• Condition C: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:

For chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessment, 100% was assumed for all commodities except for soybeans (51%) and wheat (32%), which incorporated average PCT estimates. Average PCT estimates were also used for the proposed use on potato (67%).

In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition A, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions B and C, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA’s computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA’s risk assessment process ensures that EPA’s exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which sedaxane may be applied in a particular area.

EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the acute dietary assessment for sedaxane. However, for the chronic and cancer dietary assessments, anticipated residues were used along with 100 PCT for all food commodities except for soybean, wheat, and potato, where average PCT estimates of 51, 32, and 67, respectively, were used, and modeled drinking water estimates were included.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking

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

Based on the Tier I Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Tier IIpesticide root zone model PRZMGroundwater (PRZM–GW Version 1.0, 12/11/2012), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sedaxane for acute exposures are estimated to be 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 15.1 ppb for ground water. The water exposures for the chronic dietary and cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.2 ppb for surface water and 13 ppb for ground

water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 15.1 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic and cancer dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 13 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking

water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used inthis document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sedaxane is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential

exposure.

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


### 60718 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

cumulative effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not found sedaxane to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sedaxane 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 evidence for increased susceptibility following prenatal and/or postnatal exposures to sedaxane based on effects seen in developmental toxicity studies in rabbits or rats. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in a 2-generation reproduction study in rats following prenatal or postnatal exposure to sedaxane. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects seen in the 2- generation reproduction study. The dose-response relationship for the effects of concern is well characterized. The NOAEL used for the acute dietary risk assessment (30 mg/kg/day), based on effects observed in the ACN study, is protective of the developmental and offspring effects seen in rabbits and rats (NOAELs of 100–200 mg/kg/day).

In addition, there is no evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system from the available toxicity studies conducted with sedaxane.

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 toxicity database for sedaxane is complete.

ii. The sedaxane toxicology database did not demonstrate evidence of neurotoxicity. Although sedaxane caused changes in endpoints such as decreased activity, decreased muscle tone, decreased rearing and decreased grip strength in the ACN study and reduced locomotor activity in the SCN study, EPA believes these effects do not support a finding that sedaxane is a neurotoxicant. The observed effects in the ACN and SCN studies were likely secondary to inhibition of mitochondrial energy production, which is the pesticidal mode of action for sedaxane. Furthermore, there was no corroborative neuro-histopathology demonstrated in any study, even at the highest doses tested (i.e., 2,000 mg/kg/ day). Therefore, based on its chemical structure, its pesticidal mode of action,and lack of evidence of neurohistopathology in any acute and repeated-dose toxicity study, sedaxane does not demonstrate potential for neurotoxicity. Since sedaxane did not demonstrate increased susceptibility to the young or specific neurotoxicity, a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is not required.

iii. There is no evidence that sedaxane 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 dietary food exposure assessments were performed as screening-level (acute) or partially-refined (chronic) assessments. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sedaxane in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sedaxane. 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 PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (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.

Sedaxane is a member of the pyrazole carboxamide fungicides. Metabolic processes involving cleavage of the linkage between the pyrazole and phenyl rings of these compounds have the potential to produce common pyrazole-metabolites. Indeed, confined rotational crops studies for sedaxane and isopyrazam demonstrate that low levels of three common metabolites form. However, due to the low levels of these compounds in rotational crops (<=0.01 ppm), and low concerns about their potential toxicity relative to parent molecules, any risks from aggregation of exposures to common metabolites across chemicals will be insignificant.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to sedaxane will occupy <1% of the aPAD for all populations.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to sedaxane from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for all populations. There are no residential uses for sedaxane.

3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, sedaxane is not registered for any use patterns thatwould result in short- or intermediateterm residential exposures. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for sedaxane.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has classified sedaxane as ‘‘Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ based on significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. Accordingly, a cancer dietary risk assessment was conducted, indicating a risk estimate of

1 × 10

¥ 6 for the U.S. population. EPA considers risks in the range of 1 × 10

¥ 6 to be negligible.

5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that


### 60719 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to sedaxane residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. A modification of the Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe (QuEChERS) method was developed for the determination of residues of sedaxane (as its isomers SYN508210 and SYN508211) in/on various crops. A successful independent laboratory validation (ILV) study was also conducted on the modified QuEChERS method using samples of wheat green forage and wheat straw fortified with SYN508210 and SYN508211 at 0.005 and 0.05 ppm. The analytical standard for sedaxane, with an expiration date of June 30, 2014, is currently available in the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository. 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 not established MRLs for sedaxane.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

The Agency determined that the tolerance level for potato, wet peelshould be changed from the petitionedfor 0.06 ppm to 0.075 ppm based upon EPA’s examination of the level of residues that may remain on potatoes following application of sedaxane at the maximum label rate and the average degree of sedaxane residue concentration in wet potato peel.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sedaxane, including its metabolites and degradates in or on potato; and potato, wet peel at 0.02 and 0.075 ppm respectively. 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: September 17, 2013. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

**PART 180—[AMENDED]**

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

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

■ 2. In § 180.665, add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

**§ 180.665 Sedaxane; tolerances for residues.** 

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Potato ................................. 0 .02 Potato, wet peel .................. 0.075

* * * * *


### 60720 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013–23941 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0332; FRL–9401–3]**

**Methyl Parathion; Removal of Expired Tolerances** 

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is removing listings in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for already expired tolerances for methyl parathion, for the purpose of clarity and in accordance with current EPA practice.

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective October 2, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0332, 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 :**  Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 308–8037; email address: nevola.joseph@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 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 40tab

_02.tpl

. II. Background A. What action is the agency taking?

In this final rule, EPA is removing listings in the CFR for already expired tolerances for methyl parathion in § 180.121(e). In the Federal Register of January 5, 2001 (66 FR 1242) (FRL– 6752–6), EPA promulgated a final rule revoking methyl parathion uses in commodities for which methyl parathion use was unlawful after December 31, 1999. The final rule listed these expired tolerances in § 180.121(e). However, some people have inaccurately read § 180.121(e) to mean that there are active methyl parathion tolerances for these commodities. In order to eliminate confusion, EPA is removing paragraph (e) in its entirety. EPA is not making any change in the status of these expired tolerances, just removing an informational listing that the Agency believes is no longer needed and that may be misleading if not read correctly.

EPA is issuing a final rule for this purpose without notice and opportunity to comment. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that notice and comment is not necessary ‘‘when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ EPA finds good cause here because removing the listings does not affect the legal status of the already expired tolerances. B. What is the agency’s authority for taking this action?

EPA is not taking any action that substantively changes a tolerance. EPA is only taking administrative action to remove the informational listing in § 180.121(e). C. When do these actions become effective?

As stated in the **DATES** section, this final rule is effective October 2, 2013. The methyl parathion tolerances expired more than 13 years ago and the Agency believes that the informational listing in § 180.121(e) is no longer needed. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

In this final rule, EPA is removing a listing of already expired tolerances. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action 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 due to its lack of significance, 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). 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. ), or 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. ). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present removal of listings for already expired tolerances that would change EPA’s analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect