### 17436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

28 CFR Part 36

Administrative practice and procedure, Alcoholism, Americans with disabilities, Buildings, Business and industry, Civil rights, Consumer protection, Drug abuse, Handicapped, Historic preservation, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

28 CFR Part 85

Penalties. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 36—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC**  **ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12188(b); Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321.

■ 2. Section 36.504 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:

**§ 36.504 Relief.**

(a) * * * (3) * * * (i) Not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation occurring before September 29, 1999, and not exceeding $55,000 for a first violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and not exceeding $75,000 for a first violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(ii) Not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation occurring before September 29, 1999, and not exceeding $110,000 for any subsequent violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and not exceeding $150,000 for any subsequent violation occurring on or after April 28,

2014.

* * * * *

**PART 85—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES INFLATION ADJUSTMENT** 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 28 U.S.C. 503; Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321.

■ 4. Section 85.3 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§ 85.3 Adjustments to penalties.** The civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the respective components of the Department, as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, are adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in section 5 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101–410, as follows. The adjusted penalties set forth in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this section are effective for violations occurring on or after September 29,

1999.

* * * * *

(b) Civil Rights Division. (1) 18 U.S.C. 248(c)(2)(B), Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (Nonviolent Physical Obstruction):

(i) The civil monetary penalty amount for a first order for nonviolent physical obstruction, initially set at $10,000, is adjusted to $11,000 for a violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and is adjusted to $16,000 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(ii) The civil monetary penalty amount for a subsequent order for nonviolent physical obstruction, initially set at $15,000, is adjusted to $16,500 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(2) 18 U.S.C. 248(c)(2)(B), Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (Other Violations):

(i) The civil monetary penalty amount for a first order other than for nonviolent physical obstruction, initially set at $15,000, is adjusted to $16,500 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(ii) The civil monetary penalty amount for a subsequent order other than for nonviolent physical obstruction, initially set at $25,000, is adjusted to $27,500 for a violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and is adjusted to $37,500 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(3) 42 U.S.C. 3614(d)(1)(C), Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended (Pattern or Practice Violation):

(i) The civil monetary penalty amount for a first order, initially set at $50,000, is adjusted to $55,000 for a violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and is adjusted to $75,000 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(ii) The civil monetary penalty amount for a subsequent order, initially set at $100,000, is adjusted to $110,000 for a violation occurring on or after September 29, 1999, and before April 28, 2014, and is adjusted to $150,000 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

(4) 50 U.S.C. App. 597(b)(3), Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003, as amended:

(i) The civil monetary penalty amount for a first violation, initially set at $55,000, is adjusted to $60,000 for a violation occurring on or after April 28,

2014.

(ii) The civil monetary penalty amount for a subsequent violation, initially set at $110,000, is adjusted to $120,000 for a violation occurring on or after April 28, 2014.

* * * * *

Dated: March 21, 2014. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 2014–06979 Filed 3–27–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4410–13–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0926; FRL–9907–61]**

**S-metolachlor; Pesticide Tolerances**

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

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation amends tolerances for residues of S-metolachlor in or on corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, stover. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective March 28, 2014. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 27, 2014, 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–2012–0926, 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


### 17437 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available

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

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Lois Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 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–2012–0926 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 May 27, 2014. 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– 2012–0926, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http:// www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html

. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/ dockets

. II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL–9375–4), 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 2F8155) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.368 be amended by revising previously established tolerances for residues of the herbicide S-metolachlor, S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy1-methylethyl)acetamide, in or on corn, field, forage at 20 parts per million (ppm); corn, stover at 40 ppm; and corn, sweet, forage at 40 ppm. These tolerances were proposed in order to amend tolerances previously established on these commodities at 6.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 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 revised the proposed tolerance level for corn, field, forage and has corrected the proposed commodity definition, corn stover, to the following commodity designations: Corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; and corn, sweet, stover. 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 S-metolachlor including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with S-metolachlor 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 existing toxicological database is primarily comprised of studies conducted with metolachlor. However, bridging studies indicate that the metolachlor toxicology database can beused to assess toxicity for Smetolachlor. In subchronic (metolachlor and S-metolachlor) and chronic (metolachlor) toxicity studies in dogs and rats, decreased body weight and


### 17438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

body weight gain were the most commonly observed effects. No systemic toxicity was observed when metolachlor was administered dermally. There was no evidence of neurotoxic effects in the available toxicity studies, and there is no evidence of immunotoxicity in the submitted rat immunotoxicity study. Prenatal developmental studies in the rat and rabbit with both metolachlor and S-metolachlor revealed no evidence of a qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in fetal animals. A 2-generation reproduction study with metolachlor in rats showed no evidence of parental or reproductive toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.

Metolachlor has been evaluated for carcinogenic effects in the mouse and the rat. Metolachlor did not cause an increase in tumors of any kind in mice. In rats, metolachlor caused an increase in benign liver tumors in rats, but this increase was seen only at the highest dose tested and was statistically significant compared to controls only in females. There was no evidence of mutagenic or cytogenetic effects in vivo

or in vitro. Based on this evidence, EPA has concluded that metolachlor does not have a common mechanism of carcinogenicity with acetochlor and alachlor, compounds that are structurally similar to metolachlor. Taking into account the qualitatively weak evidence on carcinogenic effects and the fact that the increase in benign tumors in female rats occurs at a dose 1,500 times the chronic reference dose (cRfD), EPA has concluded that the cRfD is protective of any potential cancer effect.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by S-metolachlor as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http:// www.regulations.gov in document: ‘‘SMetolachlor, PP#2F8115. Human Health Risk Assessment for the petition for higher tolerances on Corn, field, forage; Corn, sweet, forage; and Corn stover’’ at pp. 34–46 in docket ID number EPA– HQ–OPP–2012–0926. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide’s toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ riskassess.htm . A summary of thetoxicological endpoints for Smetolachlor used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of September 17, 2010 (75 FR 56897, p. 56899) (FRL–8842–3).
C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to S-metolachlor, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing S-metolachlor tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368. Both the acute and chronic analyses assume tolerance-level residues on all crops with established, pending, or proposed tolerances for metolachlor and/or S-metolachlor. In cases where separate tolerance listingsoccur for both metolachlor and Smetolachlor on the same commodity, the higher value of the two is used in the analyses. Therefore, EPA assessed dietary exposures from S-metolachlor 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 S-metolachlor. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1994–1996 and 1998. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all uses, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities, and default processing factors.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA’s Nationwide CSFII, 1994–1996 and 1998. As to residuelevels in food, EPA assumed tolerancelevel residues for all uses, 100 PCT for all commodities, and default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a non-linear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to S-metolachlor. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for S-metolachlor. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking

water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for S-metolachlor in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical,and fate/transport characteristics of Smetolachlor. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–GROW) models, and the USGA National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program monitoring data, the Agency calculated conservative estimated drinking waterconcentrations (EDWCs) of Smetolachlor and metolachlor originating from ground water and surface watersources. EDWCs for metolachlor and Smetolachlor were calculated for both the parent compound, as well as the ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) and oxanilic acid (OA) degradates.

For surface water, PRZM/EXAMS and FIRST Version1.1.1 models were used for EDWCs for the parent S-metolachlor and the ESA and OA degradates, respectively. The SCI–GROW model was used to predict the maximum acute and chronic concentrations present in shallow groundwater. Current NAWQA monitoring data were also used to determine EDWCs. Based on monitoring and modeling data, total EDWCs for acute and chronic exposures from surface water are 219 parts per billion


### 17439 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(ppb) and 119 ppb, respectively. Groundwater EDWCs are 126 ppb foracute and chronic exposures for noncancer assessments.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 219 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 126 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, andflea and tick control on pets). Smetolachlor is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential lawnsor turf by professional applicators. Smetolachlor is labeled for use on commercial (sod farm) and residentialwarm-season turf grasses and other noncrop land including golf courses, sportsfields, and ornamental gardens. Since Smetolachlor is not registered for homeowner purchase or use, the only potential short-term residential risk scenario anticipated is postapplication hand-to-mouth exposure of children playing on treated lawns. S-metolachlor incidental oral exposure is assumed toinclude hand-to-mouth, object-tomouth, and incidental soil ingestion exposures. No intermediate-term risk scenarios are anticipated for the existing and proposed uses of S-metolachlor.

Small children are the population group of concern. Although the type of site that S-metolachlor may be used on varies from golf courses to ornamental gardens, the scenario chosen for risk assessment (residential turf use) represents what the Agency considers the likely upper-end of possible exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ trac/science/trac6a05.pdf

. 4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider ‘‘available information’’ concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not found S-metolachlor to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and S-metolachlor does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,therefore, EPA has assumed that Smetolachlor does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http:// www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative

. D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increase in susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit or in the reproductive toxicity studies in the rat. Toxicity to offspring was observed at dose levels the same or greater than those causing maternal or parental toxicity. Based on the results of developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, there is not a concern for increased qualitative and/or quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to metolachlor or S-metolachlor.

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 Smetolachlor is complete to evaluate the safety of the tolerance.

The last rule for S-metolachlor, published in the Federal Register of August 15, 2012 (77 FR 48902) (FRL– 9356–9), noted that immunotoxicity and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were required. However, since that time, EPA has reviewed the available hazard and exposure information for S-metolachlor and metolachlor and has determined that based on the weight of the evidence approach the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are no longer required. Additionally, an immunotoxicity study has been submitted to EPA since the last published rule. No signs of immunotoxicity were noted in this study at any dose level.

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

iii. There is no evidence that Smetolachlor 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 based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modelingused to assess exposure to Smetolachlor in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by S-metolachlor. 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.

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietaryexposure from food and water to Smetolachlor will occupy 1.5% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to S-metolachlor from food and water will utilize 11.6% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic


### 17440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

residential exposure to residues of Smetolachlor is not expected.

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

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 680 for children 1–2 years old. Because EPA’s level of concern for S-metolachlor is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of

concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, S-metolachlor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-termrisk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no 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 intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment forevaluating intermediate-term risk for Smetolachlor.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that the cRfD is protective of cancer effects. As previously discussed, the chronic risk assessment indicated that aggregate exposure to S-metolachlor does not pose a risk of concern.

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 childrenfrom aggregate exposure to Smetolachlor residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the tolerance expression, including: a gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorous detector (GC/NPD) method (Method I) for determining residues in or on crop commodities; and a gas chromatography with mass spectroscopy detector (GC/MSD) method (Method II) for determining residues in livestock commodities.

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 S-metolachlor.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

Based on the available forage residue data submitted with the petition, EPA revised the proposed tolerance on corn, field, forage from 20 ppm to 40 ppm. The available data indicate that 20 ppm would not be sufficient to cover likely residues in corn, field, forage at approved application rates; a tolerance at 40 ppm is supported by the available residue data. Additionally, the proposed tolerance for corn stover has been revised to the following commodity entries: Corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; and corn, sweet, stover. This revision was made in order to accurately capture the correct commodity terminology for regulated corn stover commodities. V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are amended for residues of S-metolachlor, S-2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy1-methylethyl)acetamide, from 6.0 ppm to 40 ppm in or on the following commodities: Corn, field, forage; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; and corn, sweet, stover. 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


### 17441 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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: March 21, 2014. 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 § 180.368, revise the following entries in the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

**§ 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for residues.** 

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

Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Corn, field, forage ................. 40 Corn, field, stover ................. 40 Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Corn, pop, stover .................. 40 Corn, sweet, forage .............. 40

* * * * * Corn, sweet, stover ............... 40

* * * * *

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–07006 Filed 3–27–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 300**

**[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9908– 65-Region 5]** 

**National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National**  **Priorities List: Deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund**  **Site**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field Superfund Site (Site) located in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Wisconsin, through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

**DATES :**  This direct final deletion is effective May 27, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 28, 2014. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– SFUND–2005–0011, by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow online instructions for submitting

comments.

• Email: Howard Caine, Remedial Project Manager, at howard.caine@

epa.gov or Susan Pastor, Community Involvement Coordinator, at pastor.susan@epa.gov.

• Fax: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion Process Manager at (312) 886–4071.

• Mail: Howard Caine, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR–6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–9685, or Susan Pastor, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–1325 or (800) 621–8431.

• Hand delivery: Susan Pastor, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– 0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.