Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72223 

3.5 percent minimum investment 

requirement. 

C. Conclusion 

Accordingly, HUD interprets NHA 

section 203(b)(9)’s ‘‘prohibited sources’’ 

provision in subsection (C) as not 

including funds provided directly by 

Federal, State, or local governments, or 

their agencies and instrumentalities in 

connection with their respective 

homeownership programs. 

D. Solicitation of Comment 

This interpretive rule represents 

HUD’s interpretation of section 

203(b)(9)(C) and is exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Nevertheless, HUD 

is interested in receiving feedback from 

the public on this interpretation, 

specifically with respect to clarity and 

scope. 

Dated: November 29, 2012. 

Helen R. Kanovsky, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29361 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0202; FRL–9371–6] 

Clodinafop-Propargyl; Pesticide 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation reduces the 

established tolerance for residues of 

clodinafop-propargyl in or on wheat, 

grain. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC 

requested this tolerance change under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 5, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 4, 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–2012–0202, 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: 

Mindy Ondish, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 605–0723; email address: 

ondish.mindy@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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/ 

text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ 

Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the 

OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this 

document electronically, please go to 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select 

‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

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–2012–0202 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 February 4, 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– 

2012–0202, 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 

Confidential Business Information (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.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 October 17, 

2012 (77 FR 63782) (FRL–9366–2), 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 1F7955) by Syngenta Crop 

Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, 

Greensboro, NC 27419–8300. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.559 

be amended by lowering the established 

tolerance for residues of the herbicide 

clodinafop-propargyl in or on wheat, 

grain from 0.1 to 0.02 parts per million 

(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. 

Comments were received on the notice 

of filing. EPA’s response to these 

comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Finally, EPA is revising the tolerance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72224 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

expression for the reasons explained in 

Unit IV.D. 

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and 

Determination of Safety 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue * * *.’’ 

Consistent with 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 clodinafoppropargyl including exposure resulting 

from the tolerance established by this 

action. EPA’s assessment of exposures 

and risks associated with clodinafoppropargyl follows. 

In the Federal Register of June 22, 

2000 (65 FR 38765) (FRL–6590–7), EPA 

published a final rule establishing 

tolerances for combined residues of the 

herbicide clodinafop-propargyl and its 

acid metabolite in or on wheat (forage, 

grain, hay, and straw) based upon EPA’s 

conclusion that aggregate exposure to 

clodinafop-propargyl is safe for the 

general population, including infants 

and children. Since 2000, there have 

been no additional tolerance actions for 

clodinafop-propargyl. 

This action decreases the established 

tolerance for residues of clodinafoppropargyl in or on the commodity 

wheat, grain from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm, 

based upon a change to an enforcement 

method (Method MS 247) with a lower 

limit of quantitation (LOQ) on wheat 

grain than the current methods. Since 

an established tolerance is being 

reduced, which is expected to have no 

significant exposure effect, no new 

dietary exposure assessment, drinking 

water exposure assessment, or nondietary exposure assessment was 

conducted. 

Except as supplemented by the 

information described in this unit, EPA 

is relying on the safety finding in the 

2000 rulemaking and the risk 

assessment underlying that action in 

amending the tolerance for wheat grain. 

Further information regarding the safety 

finding for the last rulemaking can be 

found in the Federal Register of June 

22, 2000, at http://www.epa.gov/ 

fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/June/Day-22/ 

p15715.htm. Although significant new 

data have been received since the 2000 

rulemaking, as discussed in this unit, 

these data do not indicate that risk from 

exposure to clodinafop-propargyl were 

understated. To the contrary, these new 

data suggest that EPA’s prior risk 

assessment overstated clodinafoppropargyl risks. Further information 

about EPA’s risk assessment and 

determination of safety for this action 

can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document 

‘‘Clodinafop-propargyl. Human Health 

Risk Assessment for Clodinafoppropargyl to Reduce the Established 

Tolerance on Wheat Grain’’ in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0202. 

For the 2000 rulemaking, the toxicity 

database for clodinafop-propargyl was 

considered incomplete. Acute 

neurotoxicity, subchronic neurotoxicity, 

developmental neurotoxicity, and in 

vitro cytogenetic studies were required. 

The absence of these studies, along with 

quantitative and qualitative evidence of 

increased susceptibility, and evidence 

of potential endocrine disruption, led 

EPA to retain an additional safety factor 

for the protection of infants and 

children as provided by FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(C) (i.e., 10X for acute risk for 

females 13+ and chronic risk; 3X for 

acute risk for infants and children). 

With the exception of the cytogenetic 

studies, the required studies have since 

been submitted and found acceptable. 

Studies were submitted which removed 

mutagenicity concerns and thus the 

cytogenetic studies were no longer 

required. 

In all likelihood, the submission of 

these data will lead EPA to remove the 

additional safety factor for the 

protection of infants and children when 

it formally revises the clodinafoppropargyl risk assessment. The absence 

of these data was the primary reason for 

retaining that additional factor. 

Currently, there is a data gap for an 

immunotoxicity study. In 2007 changes 

to 40 CFR part 158 imposed new data 

requirements for immunotoxicity testing 

(OPPTS Guideline 870.7800) for 

pesticide registration. This study has 

not been submitted for clodinafoppropargyl. The absence of this study is 

unlikely to result in retention of an 

additional safety factor. EPA has only 

retained an additional safety factor 

when there is a data gap for 

immunotoxicity where the database 

shows clear evidence of immunotoxicity 

and immunotoxic effects were seen at 

the LOAEL that defined the point of 

departure (POD). For clodinafoppropargyl, there is evidence in the 

current toxicological database that 

clodinafop-propargyl may perturb 

immune function but this evidence is 

not strong and it did not affect the 

choice of the POD. In the subchronic 

oral toxicity study in rats, treatmentrelated effects were observed (37% 

decrease in thymus weight and 

increased thymic atrophy). Thymus 

effects were observed only in males at 

the highest treatment-dose (71 mg/kg/ 

day), and were fully reversed after a 4- 

week recovery period. No thymus 

effects were observed in the chronic 

toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats. 

No other indicators of structural 

immunotoxicity were observed in the 

current database. While an 

immunotoxicity study is required to 

complete the database, the absence of 

this study is not expected to alter the 

aRfD or cRfD for clodinafop-propargyl. 

Hence, by relying on the 2000 risk 

assessment and the additional safety 

factors retained in that assessment, EPA 

has taken a conservative approach that 

is likely to overstate the estimated risk 

of clodinafop-propargyl. 

The EPA has determined that the 

results of the neurotoxicity studies 

adequately elucidate the hazard but do 

not affect EPA’s derivation of 

clodinafop-propargyl’s acute reference 

dose (aRfD) or chronic reference dose 

(cRfD). The NOAELs for adverse effects 

seen in the neurotoxicity studies are 

well above the NOAELs in the studies 

used as PODs. Thus, the PODs used in 

the risk assessment for the 2000 

rulemaking for clodinafop-propargyl, as 

well as the aRfD and the cRfD derived 

from those PODs, are protective of all 

effects, including neurotoxicity, 

observed in the neurotoxicity studies. 

Previously, EPA considered 

clodinafop-propargyl as likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans based on 

increased incidences of prostate tumors 

in male rats, ovarian adenomas in 

female rats, liver tumors in male and 

female mice, and blood vessel tumors in 

female mice and estimated cancer risk 

using a linear (non-threshold) approach. 

Since that time, additional data have 

been submitted, including a reevaluation of the proliferative lesions in 

the rat ovary and prostate as well as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 72225 

mode of action data for mouse liver 

tumors. In 2006, EPA revised its cancer 

determination on clodinafop-propargyl 

concluding that the evidence was no 

greater than suggestive of carcinogenic 

potential and thus did not support the 

finding that clodinafop-propargyl was 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans. 

That conclusion was based on the 

following: 

1. Prostate tumors (driven mainly by 

adenomas) were seen in one sex (male) 

of one species (rat) at the high dose 

only. 

2. There is no mutagenicity concern 

for clodinafop-propargyl. 

3. The weight-of-evidence supports 

activation of peroxisome proliferatoractivated receptor alpha (PPAR’’) as the 

mode of action for clodinafop-induced 

hepatocarcinogenesis in mice. While the 

PPAR mode of action for liver tumors in 

mice is theoretically plausible in 

humans, hepatocarcinogenesis by this 

mode of action is quantitatively 

implausible and unlikely to take place 

in humans based on quantitative species 

differences in PPAR’’ activation and 

toxicokinetics. 

4. Ovarian tumors in the rat and 

vascular tumors in the mouse were not 

considered to be treatment-related in the 

Second Report of the Cancer 

Assessment Review Committee. 

Given this limited evidence of 

carcinogenic effects in animals or effects 

unlikely to be relevant to humans, the 

use of a linear (non-threshold) approach 

for assessing cancer risk is no longer 

appropriate. Instead, EPA has 

determined that the chronic thresholdbased risk assessment (i.e., the cRfD 

approach) will be protective of any 

cancer risk. 

Based upon the 2000 rulemaking and 

the other information discussed in this 

unit, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population and to 

infants and children from aggregate 

exposure to clodinafop residues. EPA 

relies upon those risk assessments and 

the findings made in the Federal 

Register document in support of this 

action. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method using highperformance liquid chromatography 

with tandem mass spectrometry 

detection (LC/MS/MS), Enviro-Test 

Laboratories Report No. MS 247 

(Method MS 247) was submitted in 

support of reducing the tolerance for 

wheat grain. 

This LC/MS/MS method has a lower 

LOQ than the current HPLC–UV 

methods (REM 138.01 for clodinafoppropargyl and REM 138.10 for 

clodinafop) for the determination of 

residues of clodinafop-propargyl (CGA– 

184927) and its metabolite clodinafop 

(CGA–193469) in or on wheat 

commodities. Method MS 247 was 

adequately validated using fortified 

samples of wheat grain, forage, and 

straw. 

The current enforcement methods 

(REM 138.01 for clodinafop-propargyl 

and REM 138.10 for clodinafop) can 

serve as confirmatory methods for 

Method MS 247 on wheat grain since 

they use a different detection system. 

Therefore, the LC/MS/MS Method MS 

247 is adequate as an enforcement 

analytical method for determination of 

residues of clodinafop-propargyl and its 

metabolite clodinafop in wheat grain at 

0.02 ppm (0.01 ppm for each analyte). 

The methods referenced in this unit 

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 clodinafop-propargyl in or on any 

commodities. 

C. Response to Comments 

EPA received an anonymous 

comment in response to the Notice of 

Filing that objected to the proposed 

tolerance petition. The commenter 

stated that the objection was to the 

‘‘Syngenta application to increase [the 

tolerance] from .01 to .02 ppm’’. 

Because this action is to decrease the 

tolerance from 0.1 to 0.02 ppm, it is 

assumed that the commenter 

misinterpreted the proposed petition 

and would have no objections 

otherwise. The commenter made 

additional comments proposing to 

eliminate tolerances and pesticides 

altogether. The Agency understands the 

commenter’s concerns and recognizes 

that some individuals believe that 

certain pesticide chemicals should not 

be permitted in our food. However, the 

existing legal framework provided by 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that 

tolerances may be set when persons 

seeking such tolerances or exemptions 

have demonstrated that the pesticide 

meets the safety standard imposed by 

that statute. When new or amended 

tolerances are requested for residues of 

a pesticide in food or feed, the Agency, 

as is required by section 408 of the 

FFDCA, estimates the risk of the 

potential exposure to these residues. 

The Agency has concluded after this 

assessment that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate human exposure to 

clodinafop-propargyl. 

EPA received a second anonymous 

comment in response to the Notice of 

Filing which urged that regulations in 

general be stopped because they are 

killing small businesses. This comment 

is considered irrelevant to this action 

because the safety standard for 

approving tolerances under section 408 

of FFDCA focuses on potential harm to 

human health and does not permit 

consideration of effects on any type of 

businesses. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for 

Tolerances 

Finally, the EPA is revising the 

tolerance expression to: 

1. Clarify that, as provided in FFDCA 

section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers 

metabolites and degradates of 

clodinafop-propargyl not specifically 

mentioned; and 

2. Clarify that compliance with the 

specified tolerance levels is to be 

determined by measuring only the 

specific compounds mentioned in the 

tolerance expression. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, the established tolerance 

for residues of clodinafop-propargyl in 

or on wheat, grain is reduced from 0.1 

to 0.02 ppm. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
72226 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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: November 27, 2012. 

G. Jeffrey Herndon, 

Acting 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 § 180.559, in paragraph (a), 

revise the introductory text; and in the 

table, revise the entry for ‘‘Wheat, grain’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.559 Clodinafop-propargyl; 

tolerances for residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for clodinafop-propargyl, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the following table. Compliance with 

the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table is to be determined by 

measuring only clodinafop-propargyl 

[(2R)-2-[4-[(5-chloro-3-fluoro-2- 

pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, 

2-propynyl ester] and its metabolite 

clodinafop [(2R)-2-[4-[(5-chloro-3- 

fluoro-2- 

pyridinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid]. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*****

Wheat, grain ......................... 0.02 

*****

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–29248 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0458; FRL–9370–8] 

Picoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of picoxystrobin 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & 

Company requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 5, 2012. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before February 4, 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–2010–0458, 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: 

Grant Rowland, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–0254; email address: 

rowland.grant@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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with