22256 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104–4). 

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), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 26, 2010. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration DivisionOffice 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. Section 180.414 is amended by 

alphabetically adding the following 

commodity to the table in paragraph 

(a)(1) to read as follows: 

§180.414 Cyromazine; tolerances for 

residues 

(a)* * * (1)* * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

* * * * * 

Bean, succulent .... 2.0 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–9741 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0162; FRL–8817–3] 

Difenoconazole Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of the fungicide 

difenoconazole in or on: Almond, hulls; 

brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A; 

brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B; 

citrus, dried pulp; citrus, oil; fruit, 

citrus, group 10; grape; grape, raisin; 

nut, tree, group 14; onion, bulb, 

subgroup 3-07A; onion, green, subgroup 

3-07B; pistachio; and vegetable, 

cucurbit, group 9. EPA is also revising 

the difenoconazole crop and animal 

tolerance expressions; deleting all 

section 18 difenoconazole tolerances 

that are no longer needed as a result of 

this action; reinstating tolerances for 

wheat forage, wheat grain, and wheat 

straw, which were inadvertently 

removed when previous tolerances were 

established; correcting the existing 

tolerance for beet, sugar; and deleting 

the grape import superscript. Syngenta 

Crop Protection, Inc. requested the new 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

28, 2010. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 28, 2010, 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: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2009–0162. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

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

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rosemary Kearns, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5611; e-mail address: 

kearns.rosemary@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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to those engaged in the 

following activities: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22257 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

To access the OPPTS Harmonized Test 

Guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppts and select ‘‘Test 

Methods & Guidelines’’ on the left-side 

navigation menu. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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–2009–0162 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or 

before June 28, 2010. 

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 that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit this copy, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2009–0162, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Facility’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket Facility telephone number is 

(703) 305–5805. 

II. Petition for Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of April 8, 

2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL–8407–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 8F7482) by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 

18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.475 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for residues of the fungicide 

difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4- 

chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3- 

dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, 

in or on: Almond, hulls at 7 ppm; 

brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 

1.9 ppm; brassica, leafy green, subgroup 

5B at 30 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at 2.5 

ppm; citrus, oil at 28 ppm; fruit, citrus, 

group 10 at 0.6 ppm; grape at 4 ppm; 

grape, raisin at 14 ppm; nut, tree, group 

14 at 0.03 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 

3-07A at 6 ppm; onion, green, bulb, 

subgroup 3-07B at 0.15 ppm; pistachios 

at 0.03 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 

9 at 0.7 ppm. Although a tree nut group 

tolerance is being established, a separate 

pistachio tolerance is needed because 

pistachios are not currently part of the 

tree nut, group 14. That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, 

Inc., the registrant, which is available to 

the public 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 

increased the proposed tolerance for 

both brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B; 

and onion, green, subgroup 3-07B. EPA 

has decreased the proposed tolerance 

for citrus, dried pulp; citrus, oil; grape, 

raisin; and onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A. 

EPA is also revising the difenoconazole 

crop and animal tolerance expressions; 

deleting all difenoconazole section 18 

tolerances that are no longer needed as 

a result of this action; reinstating 

tolerances for wheat forage, wheat grain, 

and wheat straw, which were 

inadvertently removed when previous 

tolerances were established; deleting the 

grape import superscript designation; 

and correcting the existing tolerance for 

beet, sugar. The reasons for these 

changes are 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 section 408(b)(2)(D) 

of FFDCA, and the factors specified in 

section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for 

tolerances for residues of 

difenoconazole in or on almond, hulls at 

7.0 ppm; brassica, head and stem, 

subgroup 5A at 1.9 ppm; brassica, leafy 

greens, subgroup 5B at 35 ppm; citrus, 

dried pulp at 2.0 ppm; citrus, oil at 25 

ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.60 ppm; 

grape at 4.0 ppm; grape, raisin at 6.0 

ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.03 ppm; 

onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.20 

ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 

6.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.03 ppm; and 

vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 

ppm. EPA’s assessment of exposures 

and risks associated with establishing 

tolerances 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. 

Difenoconazole possesses low acute 

toxicity by the oral, dermal and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22258 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

inhalation routes of exposure. It is not 

considered to be an eye or skin irritant 

and is not a sensitizer. Difenoconazole 

exhibits some evidence of neurotoxicity 

in the database, but the effects are 

transient or occur at doses exceeding the 

limit dose. It is not mutagenic and it is 

not a developmental or reproductive 

toxicant. Chronic effects in rats and 

mice are seen as cumulative decreases 

in body weight gains. 

No evidence of carcinogenicity was 

seen in rats. Evidence for 

carcinogenicity was seen in mice where 

liver tumors were induced at doses 

which were considered to be 

excessively high for carcinogenicity 

testing. Treatment-related nonneoplastic lesions were confined to the 

liver. Difenoconazole is classified as a 

possible human carcinogen. Based on 

excessive toxicity observed at the doses 

at which tumors were seen, the absence 

of tumors at the lower doses, and the 

absence of genotoxic effects, EPA 

considers the cancer effects to be a 

threshold effect. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by difenoconazole as well 

as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document 

‘‘Difenoconazole FQPA Human Health 

Risk Assessment for the Section 3 

Registration of Difenoconazole New 

Uses on Bulb Vegetables, Brassica Leafy 

Vegetables, Cucurbit Vegetables, Citrus 

Fruits, Grapes, Pistachios, and Tree 

Nuts’’ at pages 51–63 in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0162. 

B. Toxicological Endpoints 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, a toxicological point of departure 

(POD) is identified as the basis for 

derivation of reference values for risk 

assessment. The POD may be defined as 

the highest dose at which no adverse 

effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the 

toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment. 

However, if a NOAEL cannot be 

determined, the lowest dose at which 

adverse effects of concern are identified 

(the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose 

(BMD) approach is sometimes used for 

risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety 

factors (UFs) are used in conjunction 

with the POD to take into account 

uncertainties inherent in the 

extrapolation from laboratory animal 

data to humans and in the variations in 

sensitivity among members of the 

human population as well as other 

unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute 

and chronic dietary risks by comparing 

aggregate food and water exposure to 

the pesticide to the acute population 

adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic 

population adjusted dose (cPAD). The 

aPAD and cPAD are calculated by 

dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. 

Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and 

chronic-term risks are evaluated by 

comparing food, water, and residential 

exposure to the POD to ensure that the 

margin of exposure (MOE) called for by 

the product of all applicable UFs is not 

exceeded. This latter value is referred to 

as the level of concern (LOC). 

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 greater than that 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 difenoconazole used for 

human risk assessment can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in document 

‘‘Difenoconazole FQPA Human Health 

Risk Assessment for the Section 3 

Registration of Difenoconazole New 

Uses on Bulb Vegetables, Brassica Leafy 

Vegetables, Cucurbit Vegetables, Citrus 

Fruits, Grapes, Pistachios, and Tree 

Nuts’’ at pages 16–18 in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0162. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to difenoconazole, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing difenoconazole tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.475. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from difenoconazole 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. 

In estimating acute dietary exposure, 

EPA used food consumption 

information from the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

1994–1996 and 1998 nationwide 

Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by 

Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels 

in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level 

residues, 100% crop treated for all the 

registered and proposed crops, and 

default processing factors. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure 

assessment, EPA used the food 

consumption data from the USDA 1994– 

1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue 

levels in food, EPA assumed tolerancelevel residues for some commodities, 

field trial residues for the majority of 

commodities, and 100% crop treated. 

EPA used experimental processing 

factors for some crops and default 

processing factors for the remainder. 

iii. Cancer. A quantitative exposure 

assessment to evaluate cancer risk is 

unnecessary. The cancer NOAEL for 

difenoconazole is higher than the 

NOAEL used as a Point of Departure in 

calculating the chronic RfD. Therefore, 

chronic exposure would be equal to or 

greater than the exposure value used in 

assessing cancer risk, and the chronic 

dietary risk estimate is protective of any 

cancer effects. 

iv. Anticipated residue and percent 

crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did 

not use PCT information in the dietary 

assessment for difenoconazole. EPA did 

use anticipated residues in the chronic 

dietary assessment for difenoconazole; 

field trial residues and experimental 

processing factors were used for some 

commodities. 

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 CallIns 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. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for difenoconazole in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

difenoconazole. 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 using PRZM/EXAMS and 

Screening Concentration in Ground 

Water (SCI-GROW) models, the 

estimated drinking water concentrations 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22259 

(EDWCs) of difenoconazole for acute 

exposures are estimated to be 15.8 parts 

per billion (ppb) for surface water and 

0.0123 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for 

chronic exposures for non-cancer 

assessments are estimated to be 10.4 

ppb for surface water and 0.0123 ppb for 

ground water. 

EDWCs for chronic exposures for 

cancer assessments are estimated to be 

7.62 ppb for surface water and 0.0123 

ppb for ground water. These EDWCs are 

the same or lower than the EDWC for 

chronic non-cancer exposure. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. 

For acute dietary risk assessment, the 

water concentration value of 15.8 ppb 

was used to assess the contribution to 

drinking water. 

For chronic dietary risk assessment, 

the water concentration of value 10.4 

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). 

Difenoconazole is currently registered 

for the following uses that could result 

in residential exposures: ornamentals. 

EPA assessed residential exposure using 

the following assumptions: No new 

residential uses are being requested at 

this time. However, adults and 

adolescents may be exposed to 

difenoconazole from its currently 

registered use on ornamentals. 

4. Cumulative effects from substances 

with a common mechanism of toxicity. 

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

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ Difenoconazole 

is a member of the triazole-containing 

class of pesticides, often referred to as 

the conazoles. EPA is not currently 

following a cumulative risk approach 

based on a common mechanism of 

toxicity for the conazoles. The conazole 

pesticides, as a whole, tend to exhibit 

carcinogenic, developmental, 

reproductive, and/or neurological 

effects in mammals. Additionally, all 

the members of this class of compounds 

are capable of forming, via 

environmental and metabolic activities, 

1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine and/or 

triazolylacetic acid. These metabolites 

have also been shown to cause 

developmental, reproductive, and/or 

neurological effects. Structural 

similarities and sharing a common effect 

does not constitute a common 

mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is 

needed to establish that the chemicals 

operate by the same, or essentially the 

same sequence of major biochemical 

events. Hence, the underlying basis of 

toxicity is the same, or essentially the 

same for each chemical. A number of 

potential events could contribute to the 

toxicity of conazoles (e.g., altered 

cholesterol levels, stress responses, 

altered DNA methylation). At this time, 

there is not sufficient evidence to 

determine whether conazoles share 

common mechanisms of toxicity. 

Without such understanding, there is no 

basis to make a common mechanism of 

toxicity finding for the diverse range of 

effects found. Investigations into the 

conazoles are currently being 

undertaken by EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development. When the results of 

this research are available, the Agency 

will make a determination of whether 

there is a common mechanism of 

toxicity and, therefore, a basis for 

assessing cumulative risk. For 

information regarding EPA’s efforts to 

determine which chemicals have a 

common mechanism of toxicity and to 

evaluate the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s website at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

Triazole-derived pesticides can form 

the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole 

and three triazole conjugates (triazole 

alanine, triazole acetic acid, and 

triazolylpyruvic acid). To support 

existing tolerances and to establish new 

tolerances for triazole-derivative 

pesticides, including prothioconazole, 

EPA conducted a human health risk 

assessment for exposure to 1,2,4- 

triazole, triazole alanine, and triazole 

acetic acid resulting from the use of all 

current and pending uses of any 

triazole-derived fungicide as of 

September 1, 2005. The risk assessment 

is a highly conservative, screening-level 

evaluation in terms of hazards 

associated with common metabolites 

(e.g., use of a maximum combination of 

uncertainty factors) and potential 

dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., 

high end estimates of both dietary and 

non-dietary exposures). In addition, the 

Agency retained the additional 10X 

FQPA safety factor for the protection of 

infants and children. The assessment 

included evaluations of risks for various 

subgroups, including those comprised 

of infants and children. The Agency’s 

September 1, 2005 risk assessment can 

be found in the propiconazole 

reregistration docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (docket ID EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2005–0497). 

In October and December of 2008, 

EPA updated the dietary and aggregate 

risk assessments for exposure to 1,2,4- 

triazole, triazole alanine, triazole acetic 

acid, and triazolylpyruvic acid resulting 

from the use of all current and pending 

uses of any triazole-derived fungicide to 

support existing tolerances and to 

establish new tolerances for new uses of 

metconazole (canola, corn, cotton, and 

sugarcane; PP 7F7221, 7F7292, 08FL03), 

propiconazole (beets, parsley, and 

pineapple; PP 7F7300), prothioconazole 

(wheat and barley; PP 7F7279), and 

tetraconazole (grapes; PP 7E7273). 

These updated dietary and aggregate 

assessments are below the Agency’s 

level of concern. These updated triazole 

risk assessments can be found in the 

rule’s docket (EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0327) and the following associated 

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

D. Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children 

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of 

FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 

an additional tenfold (10X) margin of 

safety for infants and children in the 

case of threshold effects to account for 

prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the database on toxicity 

and exposure unless EPA determines 

based on reliable data that a different 

margin of safety will be safe for infants 

and children. This additional margin of 

safety is commonly referred to as the 

FQPA SF. In applying this provision, 

EPA either retains the default value of 

10X, or uses a different additional safety 

factor when reliable data available to 

EPA support the choice of a different 

factor. 

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

The Agency determined that the 

available studies indicate no increased 

susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in 

utero and/or postnatal exposure to 

difenoconazole. In the prenatal 

developmental toxicity studies in rats 

and rabbits and the two-generation 

reproduction study in rats, toxicity to 

the fetuses/offspring, when observed, 

occurred at equivalent or higher dosed 

than in the maternal/parental animals. 

The developmental toxicity was 

manifested as alterations in fetal 

ossifications at 171 mg/kg/day; the 

developmental NOAEL was 85 mg/kg/ 

day. In a developmental toxicity study 

in rabbits, maternal and developmental 

toxicity were seen at the same dose level 

(75 mg/kg/day). Maternal toxicity in 

rabbits were manifested as decreased in 

body weight gain and decreased in food 

consumption, while developmental 

toxicity was manifested as decreased 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22260 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

fetal weight. In a 2-generation 

reproduction study in rats, there were 

decreases in maternal body weight gain 

and decreases in body weights of F1 

males at the LOAEL of 12.5 mg/kg/day; 

the parental systemic and off spring 

toxicity NOAEL was 1.25 mg/kg/day. 

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined 

that reliable data show the safety of 

infants and children would be 

adequately protected if the FQPA SF 

were reduced to 1X. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for 

difenoconazole is adequate for 

conducting this risk assessment. In 

accordance with 40 CFR part 158 

toxicology data requirements, an 

immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 

Harmonized Guideline 870.7800) is 

required for difenoconazole. In the 

absence of specific immunotoxicity 

studies, EPA has evaluated the available 

difenoconazole toxicity data to 

determine whether an additional 

database uncertainty factor is needed to 

account for potential immunotoxicity. 

There are no indications in the available 

studies that organs associated with 

immune function, such as the thymus 

and spleen, are affected by 

difenoconazole, and difenoconazole 

does not belong to a class of chemicals 

(e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or 

halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) 

that would be expected to be 

immunotoxic. Therefore, EPA does not 

believe that conducting immunotoxicity 

testing will result in a point of departure 

lower than those already selected for 

difenoconazole risk assessment, and an 

additional database uncertainty factor is 

not needed to account for the lack of 

this study. 

ii. Difenoconazole exhibits some 

evidence of neurotoxicity in the 

database, but the effects are transient or 

occur at doses exceeding the limit dose. 

There is no need for a developmental 

neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to 

account for neurotoxicity. 

iii. There is no indication of increased 

susceptibility of rats or rabbits fetuses to 

in utero and/or postnatal exposure in 

the developmental and reproductive 

toxicity data. 

iv. Although some storage stability 

data are still required, tolerances and 

field trial data used in the risk 

assessment are sufficiently high, that 

even if residues degrade in frozen 

storage prior to analysis, the risk 

assessment will be protective. Although 

a confined rotational crop study is still 

required, the plant back interval is 

sufficiently long that no detectable 

residues are expected in rotated 

commodities. Furthermore, conservative 

(protective) acute dietary food exposure 

assessments were performed based on 

100% crop trested and tolerance-level 

residues. Chronic dietary exposure 

assessments were based on tolerancelevel residues for some commodities, 

field trial residues for the majority of 

commodities, and experimental 

processing factor for some crops, and 

100% crop treated. The field trial data 

and experimental processing factors 

from processing studies are based on 

reliable data from the maximum use 

rate, and are unlikely to understate the 

residues. EPA also made conservative 

(protective) assumptions in the ground 

water and surface water modeling used 

to assess exposure to difenoconazole in 

drinking water. EPA used similarly 

conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well 

as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. 

These assessments will not 

underestimate the exposure and risks 

posed by difenoconazole. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic pesticide exposures are safe by 

comparing aggregate exposure estimates 

to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and 

cPAD represent the highest safe 

exposures, taking into account all 

appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the 

aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by 

all applicable UFs. For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the probability of 

additional cancer cases 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 POD to 

ensure that the MOE called for by the 

product of all applicable UFs is not 

exceeded. 

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

acute exposure, EPA has concluded that 

acute exposure to difenoconazole from 

food and water will utilize 16% of the 

cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to difenoconazole 

from food and water will utilize 44% of 

the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. Based on the explanation in 

Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use 

patterns, chronic residential exposure to 

residues of difenoconazole are not 

expected. 

3. Short-term risk. Short-term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

short-term residential exposure plus 

chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). 

Difenoconazole is currently registered 

for ornamentals that could result in 

short-term residential exposure and the 

Agency has determined that it is 

appropriate to aggregate chronic 

exposure through food and water with 

short-term residential exposures to 

difenoconazole. 

Using the exposure assumptions 

described in this unit for short-term 

exposures, EPA has concluded the 

combined short-term food, water, and 

residential exposures aggregated result 

in aggregate MOEs of at least 180. 

Values higher than 100 are not of 

concern. The proposed residential 

scenarios result in exposure only to 

adults. Therefore, short-term aggregate 

assessments were not conducted for 

infants and children. 

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). 

Difenoconazole is not registered for 

any use patterns that would result in 

intermediate-term residential exposure. 

Therefore, the intermediate-term 

aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from 

exposure to difenoconazole through 

food and water, which has already been 

addressed, and will not be greater than 

the chronic aggregate risk. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. As discussed above the 

chronic dietary risk assessment is 

protective of any cancer effects. 

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 

difenoconazole residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate analytical methodology is 

available to enforce the tolerances listed 

under 40 CFR 180.475. Method AG575B (gas chromatography/nitrogenphosphorus detection) is available for 

enforcement in crops, and Method AG676 (gas chromatography/mass selective 

detection) is available for confirmation. 

Method AG-676A is available for 

enforcement and confirmation in canola 

and barley. Method REM 147.07b 

(liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry/mass spectrometry) is 

available for enforcement in livestock 

and methods AG-544A (gas 

chromatography/nitrogen-phosphorus 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22261 

detection) and REM 147.06 (high 

performance liquid chromatography/UV 

detection), which determine 

difenoconazole and CGA 205375, 

respectively, are available for 

confirmation. These methods may be 

requested from: Chief, Analytical 

Chemistry Branch, Environmental 

Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. 

Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone 

number: (401) 305–2905; e-mail address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

Codex Maximum Residue Limits 

(MRLs) for residues of difenoconazole 

per se have been established at 0.3 ppm 

for leek, 0.5 ppm for broccoli, 0.2 ppm 

for Brussels sprouts, 0.2 ppm for 

cabbage, 0.2 ppm for cauliflower, and 

0.1 ppm for grape. Canadian and 

Mexican MRLs have been established 

for difenoconazole; however, no MRLs 

have been established for the requested 

crops. Based on the submitted field trial 

data for brassica vegetables, green 

onions, and grapes, harmonization with 

established Codex MRLs is not possible 

because the MRLs for brassica 

vegetables, leek, and grape are lower 

than residue values seen in U.S. field 

trials. This is a result of differences in 

agricultural practices. 

C. Response to Comments 

There were no public comments 

received. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

1. The existing time-limited section 

18 tolerances in/on almond and almond, 

hulls are 0.05 ppm, and 5.0 ppm, 

respectively. This rule establishes new 

tolerances in/on the nut, tree, group 14 

(which includes almonds); and on 

almond, hulls, at 0.03 ppm and 7.0 

ppm, respectively. As explained below, 

keeping the currently established higher 

section 18 tolerance in/on almond (0.05 

ppm) is not needed and is being 

revoked, and because a new higher 

tolerance for almond, hulls is being 

established at 7.0 ppm, the currently 

established lower section 18 tolerances 

in/on almond, hulls (5.0 ppm) is also 

being revoked. 

The section 18 tolerances were based 

on the same almond field trial study 

used to establish the new section 3 nut, 

tree, group 14 tolerance, and to revise 

the almond, hulls tolerance. The 

original data were submitted by 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR-4) in support of the section 18 and 

then samples were transferred to 

Syngenta where they were re-analyzed 

and the new re-analysis data were 

submitted in support of this section 3 

petition. The differences in the 

analyses/re-analyses data of the same 

almond and almond hulls samples is the 

reason for the differences in section 18 

and section 3 tolerance determinations. 

It should be noted that in the original 

data submitted by IR-4, residues in/on 

all nutmeat samples were determined to 

be <0.05 ppm and so the section 18 

tolerance in/on almonds was set at 0.05 

ppm. 

2. The existing time-limited section 

18 tolerances for cantaloupe, cucumber, 

and watermelon are all 1.0 ppm. This 

rule establishes a new tolerance for 

vegetable, cucurbit group 9 (which 

includes all three crops) at a lower 

tolerance of 0.70 ppm. The section 18 

tolerances are based on translation from 

available fruiting vegetable data using a 

1–day PHI. For this petition, Syngenta 

has provided actual cucurbit vegetable 

data reflecting the section 18 use rate 

and a more conservative 0–day PHI, 

which resulted in a lower tolerance. 

Therefore, separate higher tolerances at 

1.0 ppm are not needed for cantaloupe, 

cucumber, and watermelon, and the 

section 18 tolerances in/on these crops 

are being revoked. 

3. Based upon review of the residue 

data supporting the petition, EPA has 

increased the proposed tolerance for 

brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B from 

30 ppm to 35 ppm. 

4. The registrant requested a tolerance 

for bulb onions, subgroup 3-07A at 6.0 

ppm, and for green onions, subgroup 3- 

07B at 0.15 ppm. These proposed 

tolerances appear to have been 

transposed by the petitioner. Based on 

the submitted residue data, EPA is 

establishing tolerances at 0.20 ppm for 

onions, bulb, subgroup 3-07A and at 6.0 

ppm for onions, green, subgroup 3-07B. 

5. EPA has decreased the proposed 

tolerances for citrus, dried pulp (2.5 

ppm); citrus, oil (28 ppm); and grape, 

raisin (14 ppm). The processing data 

indicate the proposed tolerances for 

processed commodities are too high and 

that tolerances of 2.0 ppm for citrus, 

dried pulp; 25 ppm for citrus, oil; and 

6.0 ppm for grape, raisin are 

appropriate. 

6. EPA is revising the existing 

difenoconazole tolerance expressions in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to clarify 

what needs to be analyzed for tolerance 

compliance. 

7. Tolerances are being reinstated at 

0.1 ppm for wheat forage; wheat grain; 

and wheat straw. These tolerances were 

inadvertently removed from 40 CFR 

180.475(a) as a result of a rulemaking 

that added new difenoconazole 

tolerances but used inaccurate 

terminology as to how the CFR was to 

be amended. (73 FR 1503, January 9, 

2008) (FRL–8343–5). 

8. The petitioner previously requested 

beet, sugar at 0.3 ppm via petition 

6F7115 which published August 22, 

2007. (72 FR 47010) (FRL–8142–5). The 

associated rule for that petition 

published January 9, 2008, and 

erroneously established this tolerance at 

0.01 ppm even though the preamble to 

that rule noted that the petition sought 

a tolerance level 0.3 ppm. (73 FR 1503, 

January 9, 2008). Therefore, the existing 

beet sugar tolerance is being revised 

from 0.01 to 0.3 ppm to correct this 

inadvertent error. 

9. Revising the existing grape 

tolerance and deleting the import 

superscript designation which is no 

longer needed. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of the fungicide, 

difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4- 

chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4methyl-1,3- 

dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, 

in or on almond, hulls at 7.0 ppm; 

brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 

1.9 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, 

subgroup 5B at 35 ppm; citrus, dried 

pulp at 2.0 ppm; citrus, oil at 25 ppm; 

fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.60 ppm; grape 

at 4.0 ppm; grape, raisin at 6.0 ppm; nut, 

tree, group 14 at 0.03 ppm; onion, bulb, 

subgroup 3-07A at 0.20 ppm; onion, 

green, subgroup 3-07B at 6.0 ppm; 

pistachio at 0.03 ppm; and vegetable, 

cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 ppm. This rule 

also revises the crop and animal 

difenoconazole tolerance expressions; 

deletes all section 18 difenoconazole 

tolerances that are no longer needed as 

a result of this action; reinstates 0.1 ppm 

tolerances for wheat forage, wheat grain, 

and wheat straw; corrects the existing 

tolerance for beet, sugar to 0.3 ppm; and 

deletes the grape import superscript 

designation. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 104–4). 

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), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule 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: April 19, 2010. 

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. Section 180.475 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1); revising (a)(2) 

introductory text; and removing and 

reserving paragraph (b). 

§ 180.475 Difenoconazole; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of 

difenoconazole, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in the following table. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring only difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2- 

chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4- 

methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H1,2,4-triazole, in or on the following raw 

agricultural commodities: 

Commodity Parts per million 

Almond, hulls ........................................................................................................... 7.0 

Apple, wet pomace .................................................................................................. 4.5 

Banana1 ................................................................................................................... 0.2 

Barley, grain ............................................................................................................. 0.1 

Barley, hay ............................................................................................................... 0.05 

Barley, straw ............................................................................................................ 0.05 

Beet, sugar .............................................................................................................. 0.3 

Beet, sugar, dried pulp ............................................................................................ 1.9 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A .................................................................. 1.9 

Brassica, leafy green, subgroup 5B ........................................................................ 35 

Canola, seed ............................................................................................................ 0.01 

Citrus, dried pulp ..................................................................................................... 2.0 

Citrus, oil .................................................................................................................. 25

Corn, sweet, forage ................................................................................................. 0.01 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed ................................................. 0.01 

Corn, sweet, stover .................................................................................................. 0.01 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............................................................................................. 0.05 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........................................................................................... 0.05 

Fruit, citrus, group 10 .............................................................................................. 0.60 

Fruit, pome group 11 ............................................................................................... 1.0 

Grape ....................................................................................................................... 4.0

Grape, raisin ............................................................................................................ 6.0 

Nut, tree, group 14 .................................................................................................. 0.03 

Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A .................................................................................. 0.20 

Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B ................................................................................ 6.0 

Papaya1 ................................................................................................................... 0.30 

Pistachio .................................................................................................................. 0.03

Potato, processed waste ......................................................................................... 0.04 

Rye, grain1 ............................................................................................................... 0.1 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ................................................................................... 0.70 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22263 

Commodity Parts per million 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 ..................................................................................... 0.60 

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C ......................................................... 0.01 

Wheat, forage .......................................................................................................... 0.1 

Wheat, grain ............................................................................................................ 0.1 

Wheat, straw ............................................................................................................ 0.1 

1There are no U.S. registrations. 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of difenoconazole, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in the 

commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2- 

chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4- 

methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H1,2,4-triazole, and its metabolite, CGA205375, 1-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-2-[1,2,4]triazol-1-ylethanol, in the following commodities: 

* * * * * 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–9759 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8115] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

Correction 

In rule document 2010–2487 

beginning on page 5890 in the issue of 

February 5, 2010 make the following 

corrections: 

§64.6 [Corrected] 

1. On page 5891, in §64.6, in the table, 

under the ‘‘Current effective map date’’ 

heading, in the first entry, ‘‘Apr. 17, 

2010’’ should read ‘‘Feb. 17, 2010’’. 

2. On the same page, in the same 

section, in the same table, under the 

‘‘Date certain federal assistance no 

longer available in SFHAs’’ heading, in 

the first entry, ‘‘Apr. 17, 2010’’ should 

read ‘‘Feb. 17, 2010’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–2487 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[WT Docket No. 05–265; FCC 10–59] 

Reexamination of Roaming Obligations 

of Commercial Mobile Radio Service 

Providers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

modifies the automatic roaming 

obligation that the Commission adopted 

for voice and related services in 2007 by 

eliminating the home roaming 

exclusion. 

DATES: Effective May 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning this 

proceeding, please contact Peter 

Trachtenberg, Spectrum and 

Competition Policy Division at 202– 

418–7369, Christina Clearwater, 

Spectrum and Competition Policy 

Division at 202–418–1893 or Nese 

Guendelsberger, Spectrum and 

Competition Policy Division at 202– 

418–0634. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s rules 

noted in the Order on Reconsideration 

and Second Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 05–265; 

FCC 10–59, adopted April 21, 2010, and 

released on April 21, 2010. This 

summary should be read with its 

companion document, the Second 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Second FNPRM) summary published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register. The full text of the Order on 

Reconsideration and Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

available for public inspection and 

copying during business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. It 

also may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor at 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554; the 

contractor’s Web site, http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 

378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, or 

e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of 

the public notice also may be obtained 

via the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) by 

entering the docket number, WT Docket 

No. 05–265. Additionally, the complete 

item is available on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the Order on 

Reconsideration Section of the Order 

on Reconsideration and Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

1. In this order, the Commission takes 

action to increase consumers’ access to 

seamless nationwide mobile services, 

wherever and whenever they choose, 

and to promote investment, innovation, 

and competition in mobile wireless 

services. In the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

creates a framework for voice roaming 

that will encourage carriers of all sizes 

to reach reasonable commercial roaming 

agreements, while also encouraging 

these carriers to continue investing in 

the coverage and capacity of their 

networks. The Commission will 

adjudicate any disputes that may arise 

between carriers through a tailored, factbased process. In the Second FNPRM, 

consistent with the recommendation of 

the National Broadband Plan, the 

Commission opens an examination of 

the critical issue of data roaming, by 

seeking comment on the rules that 

should apply to roaming for mobile data 

services such as mobile broadband 

service. 

2. First, in the Order on 

Reconsideration, the Commission 

modifies the automatic roaming 

obligation that the Commission adopted 

for voice and related services in 2007 by 

eliminating the home roaming 

exclusion. With this decision, the 

Commission continues to strive to adopt 

policies that balance competing 

interests, including—promoting 

competition among multiple carriers; 

ensuring that consumers have access to 

seamless coverage nationwide; and 

providing incentives for all carriers to 

invest and innovate by using available 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES