Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57289 

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 9, 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 § 180.960, alphabetically add the 

following polymer to the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

*******

2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl me ether, 2,2′-(1,2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 5,816 ...................................................................................................................................... 1062609–13–5 

*******

[FR Doc. 2013–22601 Filed 9–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441; FRL–9396–7] 

Difenzoquat; Denial of Objections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Order. 

SUMMARY: In this Denial of Objections 

Order, EPA is denying the objections 

submitted by Amvac Chemical 

Corporation (AMVAC) to a Revocation 

Order EPA issued in May 2013 under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA) revoking all tolerances for 

the pesticide difenzoquat. EPA revoked 

the tolerances, consistent with the terms 

of a previously issued Data Call-In 

Order, because no notices of intent to 

submit the required data were 

submitted, as directed by that Data CallIn Order. In its objections, AMVAC 

requested that EPA delay the effective 

date for revoking the difenzoquat 

tolerances for 41⁄2 years to allow for 

importation of food commodities that 

will be treated with the pesticide in 

Canada over the next 2 years. EPA 

denies AMVAC’s objections because 

AMVAC has not filed a proper objection 

to the Revocation Order. 

DATES: This order is effective September 

18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441, 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. 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). 

II. Introduction 

A. What action is the agency taking? 

In this Denial of Objections Order, 

EPA is denying the objections submitted 

by AMVAC to a Revocation Order 

issued by EPA in the Federal Register 

of May 29, 2013 (Ref. 1), in which EPA 

ordered the revocation of all tolerances 

for the pesticide difenzoquat under 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a. 

EPA revoked the tolerances, consistent 

with the terms of a previously issued 

Data Call-In Order (Ref. 2), because no 

notices of intent to submit the required 

data were received by EPA as directed 

by that Data Call-In Order. In its 

objections (Ref. 3), AMVAC requested 

that EPA delay the effective date for the 

revocation of the difenzoquat tolerances 

for 41⁄2 years to allow for importation of 

food commodities that will be treated 

with the pesticide in Canada over the 

next 2 years. EPA denies AMVAC’s 

objections because AMVAC has not 

filed a proper objection to the 

Revocation Order. The AMVAC 

objections are discussed in Unit IV., and 

EPA’s denial is discussed in Unit V. 

B. What is the agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

The procedure for filing objections to 

tolerance actions and EPA’s authority 

for acting on such objections is 

contained in FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a(g), and 40 CFR part 178. For 

orders issued under FFDCA section 

408(f)(2), the only material issue for 

consideration is whether a submission 

required under a FFDCA section 

408(f)(1)(C) order was made by the time 

specified in that FFDCA section 

408(f)(1)(C) order. 21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(2). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

III. Background 

A. Statutory Background 

1. In general. EPA regulates the use of 

pesticides under the authority of two 

Federal statutes: The Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136–136y, and 

FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a. FIFRA provides 

the basis for the regulation, sale, 

distribution, and use of pesticides in the 

United States, and authorizes EPA to 

review and register pesticides for 

specified uses. EPA also has the 

authority to suspend or cancel the 

registration of a pesticide if subsequent 

information shows that continued use 

would pose unreasonable risks. EPA 

establishes maximum residue limits, or 

‘‘tolerances,’’ for pesticide residues in 

food under FFDCA section 408. Without 

such a tolerance or an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance, a food 

containing a pesticide residue is 

‘‘adulterated’’ under FFDCA section 402 

and may not be legally moved in 

interstate commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331 and 

342. Monitoring and enforcement of 

pesticide tolerances are carried out by 

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

2. Safety standard for pesticide 

tolerances. A pesticide tolerance may 

only be promulgated by EPA if the 

tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

346a(b)(2)(A)(i). ‘‘Safe’’ is defined by the 

statute 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.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). Section 408 of FFDCA 

directs EPA, in making a safety 

determination, to ‘‘consider, among 

other relevant factors . . . available 

information concerning the aggregate 

exposure levels of consumers (and 

major identifiable subgroups of 

consumers) to the pesticide chemical 

residue and to other related substances, 

including dietary exposure under the 

tolerance and all other tolerances in 

effect for the pesticide chemical residue, 

and exposure from other nonoccupational sources.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

346a(b)(2)(D)(vi). 

3. Data required for supporting 

tolerances. In determining whether to 

establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, 

EPA considers data to evaluate whether 

that tolerance meets the FFDCA safety 

standard. Generally, these data are 

provided in support of an application 

for registration of a pesticide under 

FIFRA, and a petition to establish a 

pesticide tolerance under FFDCA. If 

additional data are needed for an 

existing tolerance, EPA’s first recourse 

is to use the broad data call-in authority 

in FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B), 7 U.S.C. 

136a(c)(2)(B). In some situations where 

there is no domestic pesticide 

registration and data cannot be obtained 

under the data call-in authority of 

FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B), or section 4 of 

the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2603, FFDCA section 

408(f)(1)(C) authorizes EPA to require, 

by order, submission of data 

‘‘reasonably required to support the 

continuation of a tolerance. . . .’’ 21 

U.S.C. 346a(f). 

Under FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C), 

EPA can issue a data call-in order 

following notice and a comment period 

of not less than 60 days. 21 U.S.C. 

346a(f)(1)(C). After the comment period 

closes, the Agency will respond to 

comments, if appropriate, and may issue 

a final order requiring the data 

necessary to support the continuation of 

a tolerance. Section 408(f)(1)(C) of 

FFDCA requires that a data call-in order 

contain the following elements: 

i. A requirement that one or more 

persons submit to EPA a notice 

identifying the person(s) who commit to 

submit the data required in the order 

and the date by which such notice(s) 

must be submitted. 

ii. A description of the data necessary 

to support the tolerance, reports 

connected to such data, a requirement to 

submit such data and reports, and the 

date(s) by which such data and reports 

must be submitted. 

iii. An explanation of why the 

required data could not be obtained 

under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) or TSCA 

section 4. 

If EPA issues a FFDCA section 

408(f)(1)(C) data call-in order and any 

submission required by that order is not 

made by the time specified in that order, 

EPA may revoke, by order published in 

the Federal Register, the tolerance that 

is the subject of that data call-in order. 

21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(2). Such revocation 

order is subject to the objection and 

hearing procedure in FFDCA section 

408(g)(2), but the only material issue in 

such a procedure is whether a 

submission required by the order was 

made in a timely fashion. 

4. Procedures for objections. Upon 

issuing an order under FFDCA section 

408(f)(2), any affected party has 60 days 

to file objections with EPA and seek an 

evidentiary hearing on those objections. 

21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2). For FFDCA section 

408(f)(2) orders, the only material issue 

for review of such order is whether a 

submission required by the order was 

made by the time specified in the 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) order. 

5. Channels of trade provision for 

revoked tolerances. The FFDCA 

specifically addresses the legality of 

pesticide residues entering or remaining 

in the channels of trade following 

revocation of the associated tolerance. 

21 U.S.C. 346a(l)(5). Under FFDCA 

section 408(l)(5), any residues of the 

pesticide in or on such food does not 

render the food adulterated so long as it 

is shown to the satisfaction of FDA that: 

i. The residue is present as the result 

of an application or use of the pesticide 

at a time and in a manner that was 

lawful under FIFRA. 

ii. The residue does not exceed the 

level that was authorized at the time of 

the application or use to be present on 

the food under a tolerance or exemption 

from tolerance. Evidence to show that 

food was lawfully treated may include 

records that verify the dates that the 

pesticide was applied to such food. 

B. Regulatory Background 

1. Difenzoquat tolerances. 

Difenzoquat is a herbicide that was 

previously registered under FIFRA for 

sale and distribution in the United 

States. The last FIFRA registration was 

canceled in 2010, although tolerances 

remained for this pesticide on the 

following commodities: Barley, cattle, 

goat, hog, horse, poultry, sheep, and 

wheat (40 CFR 180.369). In August 

2011, in response to AMVAC’s interest 

in maintaining the difenzoquat 

tolerances for import purposes, the 

Agency completed a screening-level 

evaluation for difenzoquat (ScreeningLevel Memorandum) (Ref. 4). As there 

are no domestic registrations for 

difenzoquat products, the evaluation 

was limited to the potential dietary risk 

from exposure to difenzoquat residues 

in imported food commodities. The 

evaluation concluded that, in order to 

determine whether it was appropriate to 

continue the tolerances, additional 

data—a neurotoxicity battery; an 

immunotoxicity study; and residue data 

for barley hay, wheat forage, and wheat 

hay—were needed to conduct a new 

dietary risk assessment on exposure 

from imported food commodities. The 

neurotoxicity battery and 

immunotoxicity study were required in 

accordance with the data requirements 

rule, which was updated in 2007 to add 

these tests (Ref. 5). In addition, EPA 

required, consistent with its guidance 

on applying U.S. data requirements to 

import tolerances (Ref. 6), that field trial 

data on crops mentioned in this unit be 

conducted at the maximum application 

rates and in the countries where the 

pesticide would be used so that EPA 

could evaluate what level of residues 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 57291 

may be present on imported treated food 

commodities (Ref. 4, p. 6). 

2. EPA’s FFDCA section 408(f) Data 

Call-In Order. On July 6, 2012, EPA 

issued in the Federal Register a 

proposed Data Call-In Order under 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(f)(1), proposing to require the 

submission of data for the pesticide 

difenzoquat to support the continuation 

of tolerances associated with that 

pesticide (Ref. 7). The proposed Data 

Call-In Order identified the following 

studies for submission as reasonably 

required to support the difenzoquat 

tolerances: Neurotoxicity screening 

battery (OPPTS 870.6200) (Ref. 8); 

immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 

870.7800) (Ref. 9); and crop field trials 

(OPPTS 860.1500) (Ref. 10) for barley 

hay, wheat forage, and wheat hay (Ref. 

7, p. 39964). The proposed Data Call-In 

Order explained, in accordance with the 

statutory requirements, why the data 

could not be obtained under FIFRA 

section 3(c)(2)(B) or TSCA section 4. In 

addition, the proposed Data Call-In 

Order proposed dates for submission of 

the data and related reports. Finally, the 

proposed Data Call-In Order requested 

comment by September 4, 2012. EPA 

received no comments in response to 

the proposed Data Call-In Order and 

issued a final Data Call-In Order in the 

Federal Register on December 19, 2012 

(Ref. 2). Consistent with the proposed 

Data Call-In Order and statutory 

obligations, the final Data Call-In Order 

included the following elements: 

• EPA required that any person who 

wishes to support the difenzoquat 

tolerances must submit a notice 

identifying that person or persons who 

commit to submit the data and reports 

in accordance with the terms of the final 

Data Call-In Order. EPA explained that 

the notice must be submitted on a Data 

Call-In Response form, how to obtain 

that form, and that the deadline for 

submitting that form was March 19, 

2013. 

• EPA described the data and reports 

that were required to support the 

continuation of the difenzoquat 

tolerances and required them to be 

submitted by certain dates. 

• EPA explained that it would 

proceed to revoke the difenzoquat 

tolerances at 40 CFR 180.369 under 

FFDCA section 408(f) if it did not 

receive by March 19, 2013, a Data CallIn Response form identifying the person 

or persons who commit to submit the 

required data and reports. 

3. International notification of EPA’s 

FFDCA section 408(f) Data Call-In 

Order. Shortly after publishing the 

proposed Data Call-In Order, EPA 

notified the World Trade Organization 

of the proposed order pursuant to its 

obligations under the Agreement on the 

Application of Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Measures, January 1, 1995 

(Refs. 11 and 12). The U.S. notification, 

which referenced and included a link to 

the proposed Data Call-In Order (Ref. 7), 

alerted potential U.S. trading partners to 

EPA’s need for data to support the 

continuation of the difenzoquat 

tolerances and that if no notices of 

intent to submit such data were received 

by the Agency by March 19, 2013, EPA 

would proceed to revoke the 

difenzoquat tolerances, which would 

prohibit the export to the United States 

of food commodities bearing 

difenzoquat residues that did not 

qualify under the channels of trade 

provision (Ref. 12). 

4. EPA’s FFDCA section 408(f) 

Revocation Order. Subsequent to the 

issuance of the final Data Call-In Order, 

EPA received no submissions of the 

Data Call-In Response form within the 

required 90-day period. Therefore, in 

the Federal Register on May 29, 2013 

(Ref. 1), EPA issued an order revoking 

all difenzoquat tolerances (Revocation 

Order) in accordance with the terms of 

its final Data Call-In Order and FFDCA 

section 408(f)(2), which allows EPA to 

revoke by order any tolerances that are 

the subject of a final Data Call-In Order 

for which a submission required by that 

final Data Call-In Order is not received 

by the date specified in that order. The 

Revocation Order was effective upon the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register, which means that food 

commodities bearing difenzoquat 

residues after May 29, 2013, are 

considered adulterated unless the 

commodities qualified under the 

channels of trade provision. The 

Revocation Order explained that it was 

subject to the objection and hearing 

procedure in FFDCA section 408(g)(2) 

and that the only material issue for 

review of the Revocation Order was 

whether a submission required by the 

final Data Call-In Order was made in a 

timely fashion. The Revocation Order 

established July 29, 2013, as the date by 

which objections must be received by 

the Agency. 

IV. AMVAC’s Objections 

On June 24, 2013, AMVAC submitted 

its formal objections to the Revocation 

Order. See AMVAC Objections (Ref. 3). 

Rather than actually challenging the 

revocation itself, AMVAC submitted its 

objections solely for the ‘‘purpose of 

. . . seek[ing] an extension of the 

effective date of the revocation. . . .’’ 

AMVAC makes two specific objections 

to the timing of the Revocation Order. 

First, citing to its recent shipment of 

difenzoquat to Canadian growers for use 

through 2015, AMVAC argues that 

‘‘insufficient time has been afforded to 

foreign growers that continue to rely on 

these tolerances.’’ Second, AMVAC 

asserts that immediate revocation, or 

even revocation in 2015, is unrealistic 

because the FFDCA channels of trade 

provision is ‘‘unworkable in practice.’’ 

In support of this latter claim, AMVAC 

claims that barley and wheat, two crops 

covered by difenzoquat tolerances, 

‘‘may be stored for a protracted period 

and that treated grain might also be 

intermingled with untreated grain while 

in storage.’’ These factors, AMVAC 

asserts, make it ‘‘difficult, if not 

impossible, to provide the information 

concerning the time that these crops 

were treated, which EPA requires as a 

means of providing evidence that the 

food was lawfully treated.’’ Based on its 

expectation that difenzoquat will be 

used in Canada through 2015 and the 

alleged unworkability of the FFDCA 

channels of trade provision, AMVAC 

requests an extension of the revocation 

date until December 31, 2017. 

AMVAC concedes that it did not raise 

these concerns by commenting on the 

proposed Data Call-In Order or 

responding to the final Data Call-In 

Order within the time periods provided. 

Further, AMVAC does not assert that it 

submitted any Data Call-In Response 

form indicating its intent to submit the 

required data by the date specified in 

the final Data Call-In Order. 

V. EPA’s Response to AMVAC’s 

Objections 

EPA denies AMVAC’s objections 

because AMVAC has not filed a proper 

objection to the Revocation Order. 

Section 408(f)(2) of FFDCA restricts the 

substance of objections the Agency may 

consider in reviewing an order issued 

under FFDCA section 408(f)(1) to the 

following limited issue: ‘‘Whether a 

submission required under [an order 

issued under 408(f)(1)(C)] was not made 

by the time specified.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

346a(f)(2). In its objections, AMVAC 

does not contend that it made a timely 

submission of a notice of intent to 

submit data, made any submission of 

data, or intends to submit any required 

data as specified in the final Data CallIn Order. Rather, AMVAC concedes that 

it overlooked the notices and did not 

submit any comments on the proposed 

Data Call-In Order nor any response to 

the final Data Call-In Order. In addition, 

AMVAC does not disagree with the 

revocation of the tolerances, just to the 

timing of the effectiveness of the 

Revocation Order. Because AMVAC has 

not argued that ‘‘a submission required 

[by the final Data Call-In Order] was [ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57292 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 18, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

] made by the time specified,’’ see 21 

U.S.C. 346a(f)(2), its objections do not 

provide a proper basis for review of the 

Revocation Order under FFDCA section 

408(f)(2). 

AMVAC’s arguments concerning the 

need for additional time for Canadian 

farmers to use their recently purchased 

difenzoquat stocks and to simplify 

enforcement of the channels of trade 

provision are, by law, simply not 

relevant at this stage of the revocation 

proceeding under FFDCA section 

408(f)(2). AMVAC or other interested 

parties had two opportunities to raise 

such concerns when EPA issued the 

proposed Data Call-In Order and when 

it issued the final Data Call-In Order. At 

this point, it would be advisable for 

Canadian farmers who have used 

difenzoquat prior to the revocation date 

of the tolerance to document the timing 

of that usage to show compliance with 

the FFDCA’s channels of trade 

provision. EPA has alerted FDA, which 

monitors pesticide residues in imported 

food, of the possibility that food 

qualifying under the channels of trade 

provision may be entering the country 

and will work with FDA to ensure that 

this provision is applied properly. 

Going forward, if Canadian farmers 

choose to use difenzoquat, they—like 

any foreign grower who uses a pesticide 

for which there is no U.S. tolerance— 

will need to take steps to ensure that 

commodities they produce that are 

treated with and contain residues of 

difenzoquat are segregated from 

commodities intended for export to the 

United States. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action, which denies an 

objection to a Revocation Order, is an 

adjudication in the form of an order and 

not a rule. 21 U.S.C. 346a(g)(2)(C). 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), orders are expressly excluded 

from the definition of a rule. 5 U.S.C. 

551(4). Accordingly, the regulatory 

assessment requirements imposed on a 

rulemaking do not apply to this action, 

as explained further in the following 

discussion. 

• Because this order is not a 

‘‘regulatory action’’ as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this order is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, entitled ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

• For the same reason, this order does 

not require Agency considerations 

under Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

Executive Order 13211, entitled 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001); and Executive Order 12898, 

entitled ‘‘Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

• This order does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

• Since this order is not a rule under 

the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)), and does not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do 

not apply. 

• This order does not 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 

order 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 order. In 

addition, this order does not impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538). 

• This order 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 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note). 

• The Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), does not apply to 

this order because it is not a rule for 

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

VII. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this order. The docket for 

this order, which is identified under 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

document, includes these documents 

and other information considered by 

EPA, including documents that are 

referenced within the documents that 

are included in the docket, even if the 

referenced document is not physically 

located in the docket. For assistance in 

locating these other documents, please 

consult the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Difenzoquat; Order Revoking 

Tolerances; Revocation order. Federal 

Register (78 FR 32155, May 29, 2013) 

(FRL–9386–5). 

2. EPA. Difenzoquat; Data Call-in Order for 

Pesticide Tolerances; Final order. 

Federal Register (77 FR 75037, 

December 19, 2012) (FRL–9372–9). 

3. AMVAC. EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0441: 

Objection to Order Revoking Difenzoquat 

Tolerances. June 24, 2013. 

4. Memorandum from Susan Hummel (OPP) 

to Eric Miederhoff (OPP). Difenzoquat 

Methyl Sulfate: Human Health Screening 

Level Document for Maintaining 

Tolerances for Import Use. August 11, 

2011. 

5. EPA. Pesticides; Data Requirements for 

Conventional Chemicals; Final rule. 

Federal Register (72 FR 60934, October 

26, 2007) (FRL–8106–5). 

6. EPA. Pesticides; Guidance on Pesticide 

Import Tolerances and Residue Data for 

Imported Food; Request for Comment; 

Notice. Federal Register (65 FR 35069, 

June 1, 2000) (FRL–6559–3). 

7. EPA. Difenzoquat; Proposed Data Call-in 

Order for Pesticide Tolerance; Proposed 

order. Federal Register (77 FR 39962, 

July 6, 2012) (FRL–9352–9). 

8. EPA. Health Effects Test Guidelines: 

OPPTS 870.6200 Neurotoxicity 

Screening Battery. EPA 712–C–98–238. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

9. EPA. Health Effects Test Guidelines: 

OPPTS 870.7800 Immunotoxicity. EPA 

712–C–98–351. Available at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

10. EPA. Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines: 

OPPTS 860.1500 Crop Field Trials. EPA 

712–C–96–183. Available at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

11. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 

and Phytosanitary Measures, January 1, 

1995. 1867 U.N.T.S. 493. 

12. United States. Notification. G/SPS/N/

USA/2421. July 16, 2012. 

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 5, 2013. 

Steven Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22603 Filed 9–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES