69562 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

703 Nonprofit Standard Mail and 

Other Unique Eligibility 

* * * * * 

2.0 Oversea Military Mail 

* * * * * 

2.6 Priority Mail Express Military 

Service (PMEMS) 

* * * * * 

[Revise the heading and text of 2.6.6 

as follows:] 

2.6.6 To APO/FPO and DPO 

Destinations 

Under PMEMS, items mailed to APO/ 

FPO and DPO destinations (from the 

United States) are available for delivery 

at the destination APO/FPO or DPO Post 

Office by 3 p.m. on the designated 

delivery day unless the designated 

delivery day is a weekend or holiday; in 

such cases, the item is available for 

delivery on the next business day. 

[Revise the heading and text of 2.6.7 

as follows:] 

2.6.7 From APO/FPO and DPO 

Destinations 

Under PMEMS, items mailed from 

APO/FPO and DPO locations (going to 

the United States) are delivered to an 

addressee within the delivery area of the 

destination Post Office by 3 p.m. on the 

designated delivery day. 

2.6.8 Mailing Label 

[Revise the first sentence of 2.6.8 as 

follows:] 

For each PMEMS item, the mailer 

must complete mailing Label 11–B or 

Label 11–F. * * * 

* * * * * 

705 Advanced Preparation and 

Special Postage Payment Systems 

* * * * * 

2.0 Manifest Mailing System 

* * * * * 

2.4 Authorization 

2.4.1 Application 

[Revise the text of 2.4.1 as follows:] 

The mailer must submit an MMS 

application and supporting 

documentation as specified on the 

application to the postmaster of each 

Post Office where mailings will be 

deposited and under the publications as 

follows: 

a. Publication 401, Guide to the 

Manifest Mailing System, contains an 

application to mail using an MMS. 

b. Publication 205, Electronic 

Verification System Technical Guide, 

provides the eVS application 

procedures for mailers. Customers using 

an Electronic Manifesting Solution for 

Parcels must also establish a user 

account and mailer agreement with 

USPS in the Business Customer 

Gateway at https://gateway.usps.com. 

* * * * * 

2.6 Priority Mail Express Manifesting 

Agreements 

* * * * * 

2.6.2 What May Be Manifested 

[Revise the first sentence of 2.6.2 as 

follows:] 

PMEM may be used to pay postage for 

Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 

Express Military Service to qualifying 

APO/FPO and DPO addresses. * * * 

* * * * * 

2.8 Applications, Agreement 

Renewals, Modifications, Suspensions, 

and Cancellations 

* * * The application for PMEM 

must be accompanied by the following: 

[Revise item 2.8.1b as follows:] 

b. A copy of Form 5639 showing that 

a USPS Corporate Account has been 

established. 

* * * * * 

18.0 Priority Mail Express Open and 

Distribute and Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute 

18.1 Prices and Fees 

18.1.1 Basis of Price 

The basis of price for Priority Mail 

Express and Priority Mail Open and 

Distribute is as follows: 

[Revise the first sentence of item 

18.1.1a as follows:] 

a. Priority Mail Express postage is 

based on the zone and weight of the 

contents of the Open and Distribute 

shipment. * * * 

* * * * * 

[Revise the first sentence of item 

18.1.1c as follows:] 

c. Except as provided above, Priority 

Mail postage is based on the zone and 

weight of the contents of the Open and 

Distribute shipment. 

* * * * * 

[Delete 19.0, Express Mail Reshipment 

Service, in its entirety. Renumber 705.20 

through 705.26 as 705.19 through 

705.25.] 

* * * * * 

708 Technical Specifications 

* * * * * 

10.0 Postal Zones 

* * * * * 

10.4 Specific Zones 

* * * * * 

10.4.2 Nonlocal Zone 

Nonlocal zones are defined as: 

* * * * * 

[Add new item 10.4.2i as follows:] 

h. Zone 9 includes the destinations 

listed in DMM 608.2.2 (Republic of 

Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, 

and Republic of the Marshall Islands). 

* * * * * 

Index and Appendices 

* * * * * 

Forms Glossary 

[Delete the following forms:] 

PS Form 1509, Sender’s Application 

for Recall of Mail 

PS Form 5541, Pickup Service 

Statement—PME, GXG, PM, or Standard 

Post 

PS Form 5625, Priority Mail Express 

Custom Designed Service Receipt 

PS Form 5637, USPS Corporate 

Account/Custom Designed Agreement 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy and Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27728 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0899; FRL–9902–44] 

Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fenpropathrin 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. This regulation additionally 

removes several permanent tolerances 

as they will be superseded by the 

tolerances established by this document. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 20, 2013. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 21, 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) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69563 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0899, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (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. To access the OPPTS 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–2012–0899 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 January 21, 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– 

2012–0899, 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 

Tolerances 

In the Federal Register of February 

15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL–9378–4), 

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 2E8107) by IR– 

4,500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W., 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.466 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the insecticide 

fenpropathrin, alpha-cyano-3- 

phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3- 

tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in 

or on barley, grain at 0.04 parts per 

million (ppm); barley, hay at 3.0 ppm; 

barley, straw at 2.0 ppm; berry, lowgrowing, subgroup 13–07G at 2.0 ppm; 

bushberry subgroup 13–07B at 3.0 ppm; 

fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 2.0 ppm; 

fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 5.0 ppm; 

fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy 

kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F at 5.0 ppm; 

and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 

1.0 ppm. The petition additionally 

requested the removal of the following 

established tolerances in 40 CFR 

180.466 for fenpropathrin as they will 

be superseded by new tolerances, if 

established: Fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, 

pome, group 11; bushberry subgroup 

13B; grape; juneberry; salal; strawberry; 

and vegetable, fruiting, group 8. 

That document referenced a summary 

of the petition prepared on behalf of IR– 

4 by Valent USA Corporation, 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 

determined that the established 

tolerance for lingonberry will also be 

removed. The reason for this change is 

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 fenpropathrin 

including exposure resulting from the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69564 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with fenpropathrin 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. 

Fenpropathrin is a member of the 

pyrethroid class of insecticides. 

Pyrethroids have historically been 

classified into two groups, Type I and 

Type II, based on chemical structure 

and toxicological effects. Type I 

pyrethroids, which lack an alpha-cyano 

moiety, induce in rats a syndrome 

consisting of aggressive sparring, altered 

sensitivity to external stimuli, 

hyperthermia, and fine tremor 

progressing to whole-body tremor and 

prostration (T-syndrome). Type II 

pyrethroids, which contain an alphacyano moiety, produce in rats a 

syndrome that includes pawing, 

burrowing, salivation, hypothermia, and 

coarse tremors leading to 

choreoathetosis (CS-syndrome). 

Fenpropathrin is a mixed-type 

pyrethroid because the biochemical 

responses and resulting clinical signs of 

neurotoxicity are intermediate between 

those of Type I and Type II pyrethroids. 

The adverse outcome pathway shared 

by pyrethroids involves the ability to 

interact with voltage-gated sodium 

channels in the central and peripheral 

nervous systems, leading to changes in 

neuron firing and, ultimately, 

neurotoxicity. 

Fenpropathrin exhibits high acute 

toxicity via the oral and dermal routes 

but low toxicity via the inhalation route 

of exposure. Fenpropathrin is a mild eye 

irritant, but does not cause dermal 

irritation or skin sensitization. 

Toxicological effects characteristic of 

pyrethroids were seen in most of the 

experimental toxicology studies 

including the acute, subchronic, and 

developmental neurotoxicity studies, 

subchronic studies in the rat and dog, 

the chronic carcinogenicity study in the 

rat, the developmental studies in the rat 

and rabbit, and in the 3-generation 

reproduction study in rats. Tremors 

were the most common indication of 

neurotoxicity; however, ataxia, 

increased sensitivity (e.g., heightened 

response) to external stimuli, 

convulsions, and increased auditory 

startle response were also observed. 

In developmental toxicity studies in 

rats and rabbits, maternal toxicity 

included neurological effects such as 

ataxia, sensitivity to external stimuli, 

tremors in the rat, and flicking of 

forepaws in the rabbit. Developmental 

effects were limited to incomplete or 

asymmetrical ossification of sternebrae 

at the maternally toxic dose in the rat. 

There were no developmental effects in 

the rabbit. In a 3-generation 

reproduction study in the rat, maternal 

and offspring effects were observed at 

the mid- and high-dose. At the high 

dose, maternal effects included 

increased deaths and clinical signs of 

toxicity (tremors, muscle twitches, and 

increased sensitivity) during lactation. 

Pup deaths were noted at this level. At 

the mid-dose, minimal signs of 

treatment-related effects were observed 

for both adults and pups, reducing 

concern for quantitative or qualitative 

sensitivity. There were no indications of 

immunotoxicity in any of the guideline 

studies, including the immunotoxicity 

study in rats. 

There was no evidence of 

carcinogenicity in either the rat or 

mouse long-term dietary studies, nor 

was there any mutagenic activity in 

bacteria or cultured mammalian cells. 

Fenpropathrin has been classified as 

‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans.’’ Specific information on the 

studies received and the nature of the 

adverse effects caused by fenpropathrin 

as well as the toxicological points of 

departure (POD) derived from the BMDL 

(statistical lower confidence limit on the 

dose at the benchmark dose) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document 

‘‘Fenpropathrin. Human Health Risk 

Assessment for the Proposed Section 3 

Registration on Barley and the Request 

to Update Several Existing Crop Groups 

with Revised Crop Grouping 

Definitions’’ starting at p. 12, in docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0899. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological 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. For fenopropathrin, the 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study; a benchmark dose 

analysis was conducted to derive the 

BMDL. Uncertainty/safety factors are 

used in conjunction with the POD to 

calculate a safe exposure level— 

generally referred to as a populationadjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose 

(RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure 

(MOE). For non-threshold risks, the 

Agency assumes that any amount of 

exposure will lead to some degree of 

risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in 

terms of the probability of an occurrence 

of the adverse effect expected in a 

lifetime. For more information on the 

general principles EPA uses in risk 

characterization and a complete 

description of the risk assessment 

process, see http://www.epa.gov/

pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for fenpropathrin used for 

human risk assessment is discussed in 

Unit III.B. of the final rule published in 

the Federal Register of November 28, 

2012 (77 FR 70902) (FRL–9366–1). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to fenpropathrin, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing fenpropathrin tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.466. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from fenpropathrin 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 fenpropathrin. In estimating acute 

dietary exposure, EPA used food 

consumption information from the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 2003–2008 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, What We 

Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As 

to residue levels in food, EPA utilized 

percent crop treated (PCT) estimates and 

tolerance level residues, distributions of 

field trial values, and distributions of 

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 

monitoring data. 

Residue distributions were used for 

the commodities that made the most 

significant contributions to the risk 

estimates (i.e., the ‘‘risk drivers’’). 

Monitoring data were used for risk 

drivers when they were available; 

however, field trial data were used for 

the remaining risk drivers. Distributions 

of monitoring data values were used for 

the following risk drivers: Apple juice, 

apples, blackberries, blueberries, 

broccoli, cauliflower, Chinese mustard 

cabbage, grape juice, grapes, 

huckleberries, oranges, pears, 

raspberries, squash, strawberries, 

tangerines, and watermelon. Monitoring 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69565 

data from the years 2007 through 2010, 

inclusive, were used. Broccoli PDP data 

were translated to Chinese mustard 

cabbage and cauliflower. Orange PDP 

data were translated to tangerines. 

Blueberry PDP data were translated to 

blackberries, huckleberries, and 

raspberries. Finally, strawberry PDP 

data were translated to cranberries. 

Distributions of field trial data were 

used for apricot juice, apricots, Brussels 

sprouts, cabbage, cherries, cherry juice, 

Chinese napa cabbage, cucumbers, 

grapefruit, grapefruit juice, guava, 

mango, mango juice, nectarines, olives, 

papaya, papaya juice, passion fruit, 

passion fruit juice, peach juice, peaches, 

plums, prune plum juice, prune plums, 

tomato juice, and tomatoes. For most 

processed commodities, DEEM (Dietary 

Exposure Evaluation Model) default 

processing factors were used for those 

commodities for which they were 

available. In some cases, empirical 

processing factors were used. 

ii. Chronic exposure. Based on the 

data summarized in Unit III.A., there is 

no increase in hazard from repeated 

exposures to fenpropathrin; the acute 

dietary exposure assessment is 

protective for chronic dietary exposures 

because acute exposure levels are higher 

than chronic exposure levels. 

Accordingly, a dietary exposure 

assessment for the purpose of assessing 

chronic dietary risk was not conducted. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that fenpropathrin does not 

pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, 

a dietary exposure assessment for the 

purpose of assessing cancer risk is 

unnecessary. 

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT 

information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of 

FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available 

data and information on the anticipated 

residue levels of pesticide residues in 

food and the actual levels of pesticide 

residues that have been measured in 

food. If EPA relies on such information, 

EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 

years after the tolerance is established, 

modified, or left in effect, demonstrating 

that the levels in food are not above the 

levels anticipated. For the present 

action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 

as are required by FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 

FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be 

required to be submitted no later than 

5 years from the date of issuance of 

these tolerances. 

Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states 

that the Agency may use data on the 

actual percent of food treated for 

assessing dietary risk only if: 

• Condition a: The data used are 

reliable and provide a valid basis to 

show what percentage of the food 

derived from such crop is likely to 

contain the pesticide residue. 

• Condition b: The exposure estimate 

does not underestimate exposure for any 

significant subpopulation group. 

• Condition c: Data are available on 

pesticide use and food consumption in 

a particular area, the exposure estimate 

does not understate exposure for the 

population in such area. 

In addition, the Agency must provide 

for periodic evaluation of any estimates 

used. To provide for the periodic 

evaluation of the estimate of PCT as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), 

EPA may require registrants to submit 

data on PCT. 

The Agency estimated the PCT for 

existing uses as follows: Apples, 15%; 

apricots 2.5%; blueberries, 2.5%; 

broccoli, 2.5%; Brussels sprouts, 10%; 

cabbage, 2.5%; cauliflower, 2.5%; 

cherries, 5%; cotton, 2.5%; cucumbers, 

2.5%; grapefruit, 35%; grapes, 10%; 

nectarines, 2.5%; oranges, 35%; 

peaches, 2.5%; pears, 10%; plums, 

2.5%; prune plums, 2.5%; squash, 

2.5%; strawberries, 50%; tangerines, 

15%; tomatoes, 10%; and watermelons, 

2.5%. 

In most cases, EPA uses available data 

from United States Department of 

Agriculture/National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), 

proprietary market surveys, and the 

National Pesticide Use Database for the 

chemical/crop combination for the most 

recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average 

PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. 

The average PCT figure for each existing 

use is derived by combining available 

public and private market survey data 

for that use, averaging across all 

observations, and rounding to the 

nearest 5%, except for those situations 

in which the average PCT is less than 

one. In those cases, 1% is used as the 

average PCT and 2.5% is used as the 

maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum 

PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The 

maximum PCT figure is the highest 

observed maximum value reported 

within the recent 6 years of available 

public and private market survey data 

for the existing use and rounded up to 

the nearest multiple of 5%. 

The Agency believes that the three 

conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. 

have been met. With respect to 

Condition a, PCT estimates are derived 

from Federal and private market survey 

data, which are reliable and have a valid 

basis. The Agency is reasonably certain 

that the percentage of the food treated 

is not likely to be an underestimation. 

As to Conditions b and c, regional 

consumption information and 

consumption information for significant 

subpopulations is taken into account 

through EPA’s computer-based model 

for evaluating the exposure of 

significant subpopulations including 

several regional groups. Use of this 

consumption information in EPA’s risk 

assessment process ensures that EPA’s 

exposure estimate does not understate 

exposure for any significant 

subpopulation group and allows the 

Agency to be reasonably certain that no 

regional population is exposed to 

residue levels higher than those 

estimated by the Agency. Other than the 

data available through national food 

consumption surveys, EPA does not 

have available reliable information on 

the regional consumption of food to 

which fenpropathrin may be applied in 

a particular area. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for fenpropathrin in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

fenpropathrin. 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), Screening 

Concentration in Ground Water (SCI– 

GROW) models, the estimated drinking 

water concentrations (EDWCs) of 

fenpropathrin for acute exposures are 

estimated to be 10.3 parts per billion 

(ppb) for surface water and 0.005 ppb 

for ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

acute dietary risk assessment, the water 

concentration value of 10.3 ppb was 

used to assess the contribution to 

drinking water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Fenpropathrin is not registered for any 

specific use patterns that would result 

in residential exposure. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69566 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

The Agency is required to consider 

the cumulative risks of chemicals 

sharing a common mechanism of 

toxicity. The Agency has determined 

that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins, 

including fenpropathrin, share a 

common mechanism of toxicity. The 

members of this group share the ability 

to interact with voltage-gated sodium 

channels, ultimately leading to 

neurotoxicity. The cumulative risk 

assessment for the pyrethroids/

pyrethrins was published in the Federal 

Register of November 9, 2011 (76 FR 

69726) (FRL 8888–9), and is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0746. 

Further information about the 

determination that pyrethroids and 

pyrethrins share a common mechanism 

of toxicity may be found in document ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0489– 

0006. 

Fenpropathrin was included in the 

cumulative risk assessment for 

pyrethrins and pyrethroids. The 

proposed new uses of fenpropathrin 

will not significantly impact the 

cumulative assessment because, in the 

cumulative assessment, residential 

exposure was the greatest contributor to 

the total exposure. As there are no new 

residential uses for the fenpropathrin, 

the proposed new uses will have no 

impact on the residential component of 

the cumulative risk estimates. 

Dietary exposures make a minor 

contribution to total pyrethroid 

exposure. The dietary exposure 

assessment performed in support of the 

pyrethroid cumulative was much more 

highly refined than that performed for 

the single chemical. The dietary 

exposure assessment for the single 

chemical included conservative 

assumptions, using field trial data for 

many commodities, including the 

proposed new uses with the assumption 

of 100 PCT, and the most sensitive 

apical endpoint in the fenpropathrin 

hazard database was selected to derive 

the POD. Additionally, the POD selected 

for fenpropathrin is specific to the 

fenpropathrin, whereas the POD 

selected for the cumulative assessment 

was based on common mechanism of 

action data that are appropriate for all 

20 pyrethroids included in the 

cumulative assessment. 

For information regarding EPA’s 

efforts to evaluate the risk of exposure 

to pyrethroids, refer to http://

www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/

pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html. 

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. 

The fenpropathrin toxicity database 

includes developmental toxicity studies 

in the rat and rabbit, a 3-generation 

reproduction study in the rat, and a 

developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) 

study in rats. There was no evidence of 

increased qualitative or quantitative 

susceptibility noted in any of these 

studies. This lack of susceptibility is 

consistent with the results of the 

guideline pre- and postnatal testing for 

other pyrethroid pesticides. 

High-dose LD50 studies (studies 

assessing what dose results in lethality 

to 50% of the tested population) in the 

scientific literature indicate that 

pyrethroids can result in increased 

quantitative sensitivity in the young, 

specifically in the form of neurotoxicity. 

Examination of pharmacokinetic and 

pharmacodynamic data indicates that 

the sensitivity observed at high doses is 

related to pyrethroid age-dependent 

pharmacokinetics—the activity of 

enzymes associated with the 

metabolism of pyrethroids. With 

otherwise equivalent administered 

doses for adults and juveniles, 

predictive pharmacokinetic models 

indicate that the differential adultjuvenile pharmacokinetics will result in 

a 3X greater dose at the target organ in 

juveniles compared to adults. No 

evidence of increased quantitative or 

qualitative susceptibility was seen in 

the pyrethroid scientific literature 

related to pharmacodynamics (the effect 

of pyrethroids at the target tissue) with 

regard to differences between juveniles 

and adults. Specifically, there are in 

vitro pharmacodynamic data and in vivo 

data indicating similar responses 

between adult and juvenile rats at low 

doses and data indicating that the rat is 

a conservative model compared to the 

human based on species-specific 

pharmacodynamics of homologous 

sodium channel isoforms in rats and 

humans. 

3. Conclusion. EPA is reducing the 

FQPA SF to 3X for infants and children 

less than 6 years of age. For the general 

population, including children greater 

than 6 years of age, EPA is reducing the 

FQPA SF to 1X. The decisions regarding 

the FQPA SFs being used are based on 

the following considerations: 

i. While the database is considered to 

be complete with respect to the 

guideline toxicity studies for 

fenpropathrin, EPA lacks additional 

data to fully characterize the potential 

for juvenile sensitivity to neurotoxic 

effects of pyrethroids. In light of the 

literature studies indicating a possibility 

of increased sensitivity in juvenile rats 

at high doses, EPA identified a need, 

and requested proposals for, additional 

non-guideline studies to evaluate the 

potential for sensitivity in juvenile rats. 

A group of pyrethroid registrants is 

currently conducting those studies. 

Pending the results of those studies, 

however, the available toxicity studies 

for fenpropathrin can be used to 

characterize toxic effects including 

potential developmental and 

reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, 

and neurotoxicity. Acceptable 

developmental toxicity studies in rats 

and rabbits, reproduction studies in rats, 

neurotoxicity studies (acute, 

subchronic, and developmental) in rats, 

and immunotoxicity studies in rats are 

available. In addition, a route-specific 

dermal toxicity study is available, and 

the inhalation study has been waived. 

ii. After reviewing the extensive body 

of data and peer-reviewed literature on 

pyrethroids, the Agency has reached a 

number of conclusions regarding fetal 

and juvenile sensitivity for pyrethroids, 

including the following: 

• Based on an evaluation of over 70 

guideline toxicity studies for 24 

pyrethroids submitted to the Agency, 

including prenatal developmental 

toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and 

pre- and postnatal multi-generation 

reproduction toxicity studies and DNTs 

in rats in support of pyrethroid 

registrations, there is no evidence that 

pyrethroids directly impact developing 

fetuses. None of the studies show any 

indications of fetal toxicity at doses that 

do not cause maternal toxicity. 

• Increased susceptibility was seen in 

offspring animals in the DNT study with 

the pyrethroid zeta-cypermethrin 

(decreased pup body weights) and DNT 

and reproduction studies with another 

pyrethroid beta-cyfluthrin (decreased 

body weights and tremors). However, 

the reductions in body weight and the 

other non-specific effects occur at 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69567 

higher doses than neurotoxicity, the 

effect of concern for pyrethroids. The 

available developmental and 

reproduction guideline studies in rats 

with zeta-cypermethrin did not show 

increased sensitivity in the young to 

neurotoxic effects. Overall, findings of 

increased sensitivity in juvenile animals 

in pyrethroid studies are rare. Therefore, 

the residual concern for the postnatal 

effects is reduced. 

• High-dose LD50 studies (studies 

assessing what dose results in lethality 

to 50% of the tested population) in the 

scientific literature indicate that 

pyrethroids can result in increased 

quantitative sensitivity to juvenile 

animals. Examination of 

pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic 

data indicates that the sensitivity 

observed at high doses is related to 

pyrethroid age-dependent 

pharmacokinetics—the activity of 

enzymes associated with the 

metabolism of pyrethroids. 

Furthermore, a rat physiologically-based 

pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model predicts 

a 3-fold increase of pyrethroid 

concentration in juvenile brain 

compared to adults at high doses. 

• In vitro pharmacodynamic data and 

in vivo data indicate that adult and 

juvenile rats have similar responses to 

pyrethroids at low doses and therefore 

juvenile sensitivity is not expected at 

relevant environmental exposures. 

Further, data also show that the rat is a 

conservative model compared to the 

human based on species-specific 

pharmacodynamics of homologous 

sodium channel isoforms. 

iii. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

Although the acute dietary exposure 

estimates are refined, as described in 

Unit III.C.1.i., the exposure estimates 

will not underestimate risk for the 

established and proposed uses of 

fenpropathrin. The residue levels used 

are based on distributions of residues 

from field trial data, monitoring data 

reflecting actual residues found in the 

food supply, and tolerance-level 

residues for several commodities; the 

use of estimated PCT information; and, 

when appropriate, processing factors 

measured in processing studies or 

default high-end factors representing the 

maximum concentration of residue into 

a processed commodity. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to fenpropathrin 

in drinking water. These assessments 

will not underestimate the exposure and 

risks posed by fenpropathrin. 

Taking all of this information into 

account, EPA has reduced the FQPA SF 

for women of child-bearing age because 

there is no evidence in the over 70 

guideline toxicity studies submitted to 

the Agency that pyrethroids directly 

impact developing fetuses. 

Additionally, none of the studies show 

any indications of fetal toxicity at doses 

that do not cause maternal toxicity. 

Because there remains some uncertainty 

as to juvenile sensitivity due to the 

findings in the high-dose LD50 studies, 

EPA is retaining a 3X FQPA SF for 

infants and children less than 6 years of 

age. By age 6, the metabolic system is 

expected to be at or near adult levels 

thus reducing concerns for potential 

age-dependant sensitivity related to 

pharmacokinetics; therefore for children 

over 6, 1X is appropriate. Although EPA 

is seeking additional data to further 

characterize the potential neurotoxicity 

for pyrethroids, EPA has reliable data 

that show that reducing the FQPA SF to 

3X will protect the safety of infants and 

children less than 6 years old. These 

data include: 

a. Data from developmental, 

reproductive, and DNT guideline 

studies with fenpropathrin that show no 

sensitivity. 

b. Data showing that the potential 

sensitivity at high doses is likely due to 

pharmacokinetics. 

c. A rat PBPK model predicting a 

3-fold increase of pyrethroid 

concentration in juvenile brain 

compared to adults at high doses due to 

age-dependent pharmacokinetics. 

d. Data indicating that the rat is a 

conservative model compared to the 

human based on species-specific 

pharmacodynamics of homologous 

sodium channel isoforms. 

For several reasons, EPA concludes 

these data show that a 3X factor is 

protective of the safety of infants and 

children less than 6 years of age. First, 

it is likely that the extensive guideline 

studies with pyrethroids, which 

indicate that increased sensitivity in 

juvenile animals in pyrethroid studies is 

rare, better characterize the potential 

sensitivity of juvenile animals than the 

LD50 studies. The high doses that 

produced juvenile sensitivity in the 

literature studies are well above normal 

dietary or residential exposure levels of 

pyrethroids to juveniles and lower 

levels of exposure anticipated from 

dietary and residential uses are not 

expected to overwhelm the juvenile’s 

ability to metabolize pyrethroids, as 

occurred with the high doses used in 

the literature studies. The fact that a 

greater sensitivity to the neurotoxicity of 

pyrethroids is not found in guideline 

studies following in utero exposures 

(based on 76 studies for 24 pyrethroids) 

supports this conclusion, despite the 

relatively high doses used in the 

studies. Second, in vitro data indicate 

similar pharmacodynamic response to 

pyrethroids between juvenile and adult 

rats. Finally, as indicated, 

pharmacokinetic modeling only predicts 

a 3X difference between juveniles and 

adults. Therefore, the FQPA SF of 3X is 

protective of potential juvenile 

sensitivity. 

Further information about the 

reevaluation of the FQPA SF for 

pyrethroids may be found in document 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0746– 

0011. 

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 dietary 

exposure from food and water to 

fenpropathrin will occupy 93% of the 

aPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure from the dietary assessment 

for infants and children less than 6 

years old; and 20% of the aPAD for 

children 6 to 12 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure from the dietary assessment 

for the general population other than 

children less than 6 years old. 

2. Chronic risk. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., there is no 

increase in hazard with increasing dose 

duration. Therefore, the acute aggregate 

assessment is protective of potential 

chronic aggregate exposures. 

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). A short-term adverse 

effect was identified; however, 

fenpropathrin is not registered for any 

use patterns that would result in shortterm residential exposure. Short-term 

risk is assessed based on short-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

dietary exposure. Because there is no 

short-term residential exposure and 

acute dietary exposure has already been 

assessed under the appropriately 

protective aPAD (which is at least as 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

protective as the POD used to assess 

short-term risk), no further assessment 

of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA 

relies on the acute dietary risk 

assessment for evaluating short-term 

risk for fenpropathrin. 

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). 

Because no intermediate-term adverse 

effect was identified, fenpropathrin is 

not expected to pose an intermediateterm risk. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in two 

adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, 

fenpropathrin is not expected to pose a 

cancer risk to humans. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to 

fenpropathrin residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

utilizing gas chromatography with 

electron capture detector (GC/ECD), 

Residue Method Numbers RM–22–4 

(plants) and RM–22A–1 (animals), is 

available to enforce the tolerance 

expression. 

The method may be requested from: 

Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, 

Environmental Science Center, 701 

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; 

telephone number: (410) 305–2905; 

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. 

Codex has established MRLs for 

tomatoes, sweet peppers, dried chili 

peppers, eggplant, grapes, and pome 

fruits. The MRLs for tomatoes, sweet 

peppers, grapes, and pome fruits are 

harmonized with the U.S. tolerances for 

the corresponding crop groups or 

subgroups. Codex MRLs for dried chili 

peppers (10 ppm) and eggplant (0.2 

ppm) cannot be harmonized with the 

U.S. tolerance for the fruiting vegetable 

crop group (1.0 ppm), of which those 

commodities are a part. The Codex MRL 

for eggplant is lower than the 

recommended corresponding U.S. 

tolerance. Because the permitted 

domestic use on eggplant in accordance 

with the approved pesticide label 

results in residue levels higher than the 

Codex MRLs, the U.S. tolerance cannot 

be harmonized (lowered) since doing so 

would result in residues in excess of the 

approved tolerance in spite of use 

consistent with label directions. 

Concerning dried chili peppers, EPA, 

under its Residue Chemistry Test 

Guidelines (OPPTS 860.1000), does not 

set tolerances for dried chili peppers. 

Rather, residues on dried chili peppers 

would be covered under tolerances for 

non-bell peppers, which, for this 

chemical, are captured by the fruiting 

vegetable crop group tolerance. Under 

that U.S. tolerance, residues of 

fenpropathrin on dried chili peppers 

would be covered up to 1.0 ppm; 

residues in excess of that level would 

only be covered if EPA established a 

separate tolerance for them. At this 

time, however, EPA does not have data 

to support establishing a tolerance for 

dried chili peppers at 10 ppm. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

Based on the data submitted with the 

petition, EPA is also removing the 

established tolerance for lingonberry. 

The Agency is removing this tolerance 

because it will be superseded by the 

new tolerance for bushberry subgroup 

13–07B, established by this document. 

The removal does not substantively 

affect whether residues of fenpropathrin 

may be present on lingonberry. The new 

bushberry subgroup 13–07B tolerance is 

at the same level as the lingonberry 

tolerance being removed—3.0 ppm. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of fenpropathrin, alphacyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3- 

tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in 

or on barley, grain at 0.04 ppm; barley, 

hay at 3.0 ppm; barley, straw at 2.0 

ppm; berry, low-growing, subgroup 13– 

07G at 2.0 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13– 

07B at 3.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10– 

10 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 

at 5.0 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, 

except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F 

at 5.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8–10 at 1.0 ppm. Additionally, 

this document removes the established 

tolerances of fenpropathrin in or on 

fruit, citrus, group 10; fruit, pome, group 

11; bushberry subgroup 13B; grape; 

juneberry; lingonberry; salal; strawberry; 

and vegetable, fruiting, group 8. 

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 tolerances 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 69569 

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 7, 2013. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

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 § 180.466: 

■ a. Remove the entries for ‘‘Bushberry 

subgroup 13B,’’ ‘‘Fruit, citrus, group 

10,’’ ‘‘Fruit, pome, group 11,’’ ‘‘Grape,’’ 

‘‘Juneberry,’’ ‘‘Lingonberry,’’ ‘‘Salal,’’ 

‘‘Strawberry,’’ and ‘‘Vegetable, fruiting, 

group 8’’ from the table in paragraph (a). 

■ b. Add alphabetically the following 

entries to the table in paragraph (a). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.466 Fenpropathrin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Barley, grain ........................... 0 .04 

Barley, hay .............................. 3 .0 

Barley, straw ........................... 2 .0 

Berry, low growing, subgroup 

13–07G ............................... 2 .0 

* * * * * 

Bushberry subgroup 13–07B .. 3 .0 

* * * * * 

Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ....... 2 .0 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ....... 5 .0 

Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F ...................... 5 .0 

* * * * * 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8– 

10 ........................................ 1 .0 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–27680 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0005: 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AZ28 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Jemez Mountains 

Salamander 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, designate critical 

habitat for the Jemez Mountains 

salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (Act), as amended. In total, we are 

designating as critical habitat for this 

species approximately 90,716 acres 

(36,711 hectares) in Los Alamos, Rio 

Arriba, and Sandoval Counties, New 

Mexico. The effect of this regulation is 

to conserve the Jemez Mountains 

salamander’s habitat under the Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm and 

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

No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0005. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in 

preparing this final rule, are available 

for public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 

2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 

87113; telephone 505–346–2525; or 

facsimile 505–346–2542. 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this critical habitat designation and 

are available at http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0005, and at the 

New Mexico Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). Any additional tools or 

supporting information that we 

developed for this critical habitat 

designation are also available at the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Web site and Field 

Office set out above, and may also be 

included in the preamble of this rule or 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 

Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by 

telephone 505–346–2525; or by 

facsimile 505–346–2542. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), any 

species that is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species 

requires critical habitat to be designated, 

to the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

We listed the Jemez Mountains 

salamander as an endangered species on 

September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55599). This 

is a final rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Jemez Mountains 

salamander. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

states that the Secretary shall designate 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

The critical habitat areas we are 

designating in this rule constitute our 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES