Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 40017 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This action does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 3, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

This action approving the DDOE’s 

negative declaration for HMIWI units 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Aluminum, 

Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental 

relations, Paper and paper products 

industry, Phosphate, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Sulfur acid plants, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

Dated: June 13, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows: 

PART 62—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS 

FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. Section 62.2150 is amended by 

designating the existing paragraph as (a) 

and adding paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 62.2150 Identification of plan—negative 

declaration. 

* * * * * 

(b) Letter from the District Department 

of the Environment, submitted to EPA 

on July 26, 2012, certifying that there 

are no known existing HMIWI units in 

the District of Columbia. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15874 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0303; FRL–9391–7] 

Ethalfluralin; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of ethalfluralin 

in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A and 

sunflower subgroup 20B. This 

regulation additionally removes the 

established tolerances in or on mustard, 

seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; 

and sunflower, seed, as they will be 

superseded by the tolerances 

established by this final rule. 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR–4) requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

3, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 3, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0303, 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: 

Laura Nollen, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7390; email address: 

nollen.laura@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 OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

40018 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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–2012–0303 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 September 3, 2013. Addresses for 

mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0303, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at 

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

contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Summary of Petitioned-For 

Tolerance 

In the Federal Register of July 25, 

2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL–9353–6), 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 2E8007) by IR–4, 500 

College Rd. East, Suite 201 W., 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the herbicide ethalfluralin, 

N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6- 

dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine, 

in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A and 

sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.05 parts 

per million (ppm). That document 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared on behalf of IR–4 by Dow 

AgroSciences, the registrant, which is 

available in the docket, http:// 

www.regulations.gov. There were no 

comments received in response to the 

notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has revised 

the tolerance expression for all 

established commodities to be 

consistent with current Agency policy. 

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 ethalfluralin 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with ethalfluralin follows. 

A. Reliance on Previous Rulemaking 

Safety Finding and Risk Assessment 

In the Federal Register of December 5, 

2007 (72 FR 68529) (FRL–8342–2), EPA 

published a final rule (2007 rulemaking) 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the herbicide ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N- 

(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine, in or on 

dry and fresh dill leaves, mustard seed, 

potato, and rapeseed, seed at 0.05 ppm, 

based on EPA’s conclusion that 

aggregate exposure to ethalfluralin is 

safe for the general population, 

including infants and children. Since 

2007, there have been no additional 

tolerance actions for ethalfluralin. The 

toxicity profile of ethalfluralin has not 

changed since the 2007 rulemaking. 

Except as supplemented by the 

information described in this unit, EPA 

is relying on the risk assessment 

underlying the 2007 rulemaking to 

establish tolerances of ethalfluralin in or 

on rapeseed subgroup 20A and 

sunflower subgroup 20B. Further 

information about EPA’s risk assessment 

and determination of safety supporting 

the 2007 rulemaking can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

document entitled: ‘‘Ethalfluralin: 

Human Health Risk Assessment for (IR– 

4) Proposed Uses on Dill and Potato,’’ 

document ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2005–0195–0003. The final rule for the 

2007 rulemaking can be found in 

document ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2005–0195–0002. Currently, there are 

tolerances established for residues of 

ethalfluralin in or on the representative 

commodities of crop subgroups 20A 

(rapeseed) and 20B (sunflower seed). 

These tolerances were based on 

adequate residue field trial data. The 

results of these residue data indicate 

that no ethalfluralin residues were 

detected in or on rapeseed and 

sunflower; therefore, tolerances were 

established at the limit of quantitation 

(LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for these 

commodities. Additionally, ethalfluralin 

tolerances are established at the LOQ of 

0.05 ppm for mustard seed (subgroup 

20A) and safflower seed (subgroup 20B). 

The ‘‘no detected residues’’ finding is 

further supported by review of the 

Pesticide Database Program (PDP), 

where no residues of ethalfluralin were 

found on any crop from 2007 to 2010. 

Since the proposed use rates for all 

commodities in crop subgroup 20A and 

20B are the same as what is currently 

permitted for application to rapeseed 

and sunflower seed under the existing 

registrations, the Agency expects similar 

ethalfluralin residues to be present on 

other commodities in subgroups 20A 

and 20B. 

Moreover, rapeseed and sunflower 

seed, in addition to safflower seed, are 

by far the most consumed commodities 

in crop subgroups 20A and 20B; other 

commodities in crop subgroup 20A and 

20B have low rates of consumption, as 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 40019 

supported by the fact that all members 

of subgroups 20A and 20B except 

sesame, safflower, and mustard are not 

included in the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey/‘‘What 

We Eat in America’’ (NHANES/WWEIA) 

dietary survey. EPA does not expect that 

adding sesame exposures to the 

ethalfluralin risk assessment to change 

the overall risk since consumption of 

sesame and exposure to ethalfluralin 

residues on sesame are expected to be 

so minor compared to all the 

representative crops. As a result, EPA 

does not expect the establishment of 

tolerances for the rapeseed subgroup 

20A and the sunflower subgroup 20B to 

increase food exposure from what was 

assessed in the 2007 risk assessment. 

Further, residues from drinking water 

are not expected to change from the 

2007 risk assessment because the 

application rate for subgroup 20A and 

20B will be the same as the currently 

registered application rate for rapeseed 

and sunflower. As a result, the addition 

of the new crops in subgroups 20A and 

20B would not change the estimated 

drinking water concentrations used in 

the 2007 risk assessment. In addition, 

since the 2007 risk assessment relied on 

monitoring data for the cancer 

assessment, EPA has reviewed the most 

recent water monitoring data to ensure 

that the conclusions of 2007 risk 

assessment are still valid. Data from the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) PDP and U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program (USGS/NAWQA) 

still show that there have been no 

detectable or very limited detectable 

residues of ethalfluralin in sampled 

drinking water and surface/ground 

water. PDP sampled 3,515 samples of 

drinking water between 2006 and 2011, 

and there were no detects at a limit of 

detection (LOD) between 30 and 400 

parts per trillion (ppt). Likewise, there 

has been a very low detection frequency 

(0.8%) of ethalfluralin in the USGS/ 

NAWQA monitoring data in the last 

search. Therefore, the assumptions in 

the 2007 risk assessment regarding 

drinking water are still valid. 

Since the dietary risk depends on 

both consumption (which the Agency 

does not expect to vary significantly 

from the 2007 risk assessment) and 

residue levels (which the Agency 

expects to remain the same as the 2007 

risk assessment), the Agency does not 

expect the risk from ethalfluralin to 

change from the 2007 risk assessment. 

B. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 

1. 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 Ptotection Act (FQPA) 

Safety Factor (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. In the preamble to the 2007 

rulemaking, EPA explained the decision 

to reduce the FQPA SF to 1X based on 

reliable data. For this action, EPA is 

reducing the FQPA SF to 1X for the 

following reasons: 

a. For the 2007 rulemaking, the 

toxicity database was considered 

complete. However, changes to 40 CFR 

part 158 since the 2007 rulemaking 

imposed new data requirements for 

immunotoxicity testing and acute and 

subchronic neurotoxicity testing for 

pesticide registration. In 2012, EPA 

determined that the acute and 

subchronic neurotoxicity studies are not 

required for ethalfluralin based on a 

weight-of-evidence approach, 

considering all of the available hazard 

and exposure information. However, the 

immunotoxicity study remains a data 

requirement at this time. 

Although an immunotoxicity study 

has not been received by the Agency, 

there is relatively little concern as there 

are no indications of immunotoxicity in 

the toxicology database; it does not 

appear that ethalfluralin directly targets 

the immune system. Additionally, 

ethalfluralin does not belong to a class 

of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy 

metals, halogenated aromatic 

hydrocarbons) that would be expected 

to be immunotoxic. Therefore, the 

Agency does not believe that conducting 

an immunotoxicity study will result in 

a lower point of departure (POD) than 

that currently used for overall risk 

assessment, and the 10X FQPA SF (in 

the form of a database uncertainty factor 

(UFDB)) is not needed to account for the 

lack of the study. 

b. EPA has fully evaluated the toxicity 

database of ethalfluralin with respect to 

the potential for special sensitivity of 

infants and children, and concludes that 

there is low concern for pre- and 

postnatal susceptibility for infants and 

children. The FQPA SF has been 

reduced to 1X because: 

i. The toxicity database is adequate to 

characterize potential pre- and postnatal 

risk for infants and children. 

ii. No reproductive or developmental 

effects were observed in rats. 

iii. Although there were slight 

developmental effects observed (skeletal 

malformations) in rabbits (fetuses), they 

were seen in the presence of maternal 

toxicity. Additionally, the dose chosen 

for acute dietary risk assessment is 

protective of the slight developmental 

effects observed in the rabbit 

developmental toxicity studies. 

c. Based on the discussion in Unit 

III.A., EPA does not expect dietary 

exposure to ethalfluralin or residues in 

drinking water to be underestimated. 

C. Conclusion 

Based upon the findings supporting 

the 2007 rulemaking and the 

information discussed in Unit III., EPA 

concludes that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result to the 

general population, and to infants and 

children, from aggregate exposures to 

ethalfluralin residues as a result of 

establishing the tolerances for rapeseed 

subgroup 20A and sunflower subgroup 

20B. Refer to the 2007 rulemaking, 

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

for a detailed discussion of the aggregate 

risk assessments and determination of 

safety. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodologies, 

two gas chromatography with electron 

capture detection (GC/ECD) methods, 

are available to enforce the tolerance 

expression. These methods are available 

in the Pesticide Analytical Manual 

Volume II, section 180.416. 

B. International Residue Limits 

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA 

seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with 

international standards whenever 

possible, consistent with U.S. food 

safety standards and agricultural 

practices. EPA considers the 

international maximum residue limits 

(MRLs) established by the Codex 

Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). 

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 

United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization/World Health 

Organization food standards program, 

and it is recognized as an international 

food safety standards-setting 

organization in trade agreements to 

which the United States is a party. EPA 

may establish a tolerance that is 

different from a Codex MRL; however, 

FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that 

EPA explain the reasons for departing 

from the Codex level. 

The Codex has not established a MRL 

for ethalfluralin. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES

40020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The Agency has revised the tolerance 

expression to clarify: 

1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 

408(a)(3), the tolerance covers 

metabolites and degradates of 

ethalfluralin not specifically mentioned. 

2. That compliance with the specified 

tolerance levels is to be determined by 

measuring only the specific compounds 

mentioned in the tolerance expression. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of the herbicide 

ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2- 

propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)-benzenamine, in or on 

rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.05 ppm and 

sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.05 ppm. 

This regulation additionally removes 

established tolerances in or on mustard, 

seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; 

and sunflower, seed. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

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: June 21, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.416: 

■ i. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a). 

■ ii. Remove the commodities, 

‘‘Mustard, seed;’’ ‘‘Rapeseed, seed;’’ 

‘‘Safflower, seed;’’ and ‘‘Sunflower, 

seed’’ from the table in paragraph (a). 

■ iii. Add alphabetically the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.416 Ethalfluralin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the herbicide 

ethalfluralin, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on the 

commodities in the following table. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified in the following table is to be 

determined by measuring only the 

residues of ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2- 

methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4- 

(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Rapeseed subgroup 20A ...... 0.05 

* * * * * 

Sunflower subgroup 20B ...... 0.05 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–15710 Filed 7–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0520; FRL–9390–5] 

Fenbuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fenbuconazole 

in or on pepper. Dow AgroSciences LLC 

requested these tolerances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

3, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 3, 2013, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES