Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63047 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 22, 

2014. 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. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 2, 2014. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart JJ—North Dakota 

■ 2. In § 52.1820, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entries 

for ‘‘33–15–03–04’’ and ‘‘33–15–05–01’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.1820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date EPA Approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

33–15–03 Restrictions of Visible Air Contaminants 

*******

33–15–03–04 ... Exceptions ...................................................... 1/1/13 10/22/14, [Insert Federal Register citation].

*******

33–15–05 Emissions of Particulate Matter Restricted 

33–15–05–01 ... Restrictions of emissions of particulate matter from industrial processes.1/1/13 10/22/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–24996 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0255; FRL–9917–56] 

Metrafenone; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of metrafenone 

in or on multiple commodities that are 

identified and discussed later in 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 

October 22, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 22, 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) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0255, 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), West William 

Jefferson Clinton 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: 

Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DC 20460–0001; main 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. 

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–2013–0255 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 December 22, 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– 

2013–0255, 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 February 

25, 2014 (79 FR 10458) (FRL–9906–77), 

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 3E8211) by IR–4, 

500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.624 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the fungicide metrafenone, 

(3-bromo-6-methoxy-2- 

methylphenyl)(2,3,4-trimethoxy-6- 

methylphenyl)methanone, in or on 

apricot at 0.7 parts per million (ppm); 

cherry subgroup 12–12A at 2.0 ppm; 

fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy 

kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F at 4.5 ppm; 

hop, dried cones at 70 ppm; peach 

subgroup 12–12B at 0.7 ppm; and 

vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.5 ppm. 

The petition also requested to remove 

the existing tolerance in 40 CFR 180.624 

for grape at 4.5 ppm upon establishment 

of the proposed tolerances. That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by BASF, the 

registrant, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments were received on the notice 

of filing. EPA’s response to these 

comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Also, in the Federal Register of May 

23, 2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL–9910–29), 

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 3F8187) by BASF 

Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709, requesting to 

establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 

for residues of metrafenone, (3-bromo-6- 

methoxy-2-methylphenyl)(2,3,4- 

trimethoxy-6-methylphenyl)methanone 

in or on vegetables, fruiting, group 8–10 

at 1.0 ppm. That document referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

BASF, which is available in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. A comment 

was received on the notice of filing that 

was the same as the one submitted for 

petition 3E8211. EPA’s response to this 

comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Lastly, in the Federal Register of 

September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) 

(FRL–9399–7), 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 3F8163) by 

BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 

requesting to establish a tolerance in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

fungicide metrafenone, (3-bromo-6- 

methoxy-2-methylphenyl)(2,3,4- 

trimethoxy-6-methylphenyl)methanone, 

in or on fruits, pome group 11–10 at 1.5 

ppm. That document referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

BASF, which is available in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. No 

comments were received on the notice 

of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

modified the level at which some of the 

tolerances are being established and 

revised some of the commodity 

definitions for the requested crops. 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 FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63049 

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 metrafenone 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with metrafenone 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. 

The liver is the primary target organ 

for metrafenone in mice, rabbits and 

rats. Effects on the liver were seen in 

multiple studies throughout the 

database, including subchronic rat 

studies, the rabbit developmental 

toxicity study, and chronic studies in 

mice and rats. Liver effects observed in 

subchronic studies included increased 

liver weights, periportal cytoplasmic 

vacuolation, increased cholesterol, and 

hepatocellular hypertrophy. Liver 

effects observed in chronic studies 

included those from the subchronic 

studies as well as increased serum 

gamma glutamyl transferase, 

eosinophilic alterations, necrosis, 

polyploid hepatocytes, bile duct 

hyperplasia, liver masses, and 

hepatocellular adenomas. The 

additional effects in the chronic studies 

indicate a progression of toxicity with 

time. The effects on the liver are 

consistent with the results of the 

absorption, distribution, metabolism, 

and excretion (ADME) studies 

indicating that the highest tissue 

concentrations of metrafenone were 

found in the liver and gastrointestinal 

tract and that bile is the primary route 

of excretion. 

Additionally, nephrotoxicity was 

observed following chronic exposure to 

metrafenone in mice and rats. The 

kidney effects observed in the chronic 

studies included subacute/chronic 

interstitial inflammation and chronic/

progressive nephropathy, cysts, brown 

pigment in renal cells, increased urinary 

volume, and increased urinary protein. 

In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in 

rats, there were no dermal or systemic 

effects observed up to the highest dose 

tested of 1,000 mg/kg/day, the limit 

dose. In a 28-day immunotoxicity study 

in female rats, no effect on the immune 

system was observed up to the highest 

dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg/day, the 

limit dose. This is consistent with the 

rest of the database where no effects on 

the immune system were observed in 

any study. 

There was no evidence of qualitative 

or quantitative susceptibility in the 

developmental and reproduction 

toxicity studies. In the developmental 

rat study, no effects were observed in 

dams or fetuses up to the limit dose of 

1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit study, 

liver toxicity (increased liver weights, 

hypertrophy, and hepatocyte 

vacuolation) was observed in the dams 

but no developmental effects were 

observed up to the limit dose of 1,000 

mg/kg/day. 

In the rat reproduction toxicity study, 

there was no evidence of reproductive 

toxicity. Effects in the offspring 

(decreased pup weight) occurred at 

doses similar to those that cause toxicity 

in the parental animals (decreased body 

weight). 

The required battery of mutagenicity 

studies was submitted, including 

bacterial reverse mutation assay, 

mammalian cell mutation (CHO cells), 

in vitro chromosome aberration (CHO 

cells), micronucleus assay and 

unscheduled DNA synthesis in 

mammalian cells in culture. There is no 

evidence that metrafenone is genotoxic. 

In the mouse carcinogenicity study, 

liver tumors (increased incidence of 

hepatocellular adenomas and adenomas 

plus carcinomas) were observed in male 

mice at the highest dose of 1,109 mg/kg/ 

day. In the rat chronic/carcinogenicity 

study, there was an increased incidence 

in hepatocellular adenomas in females 

at the high dose of 1,419 mg/kg/day. 

However, the tumors in the rat females 

were not considered in the weight-ofevidence finding because they were 

associated with excessive toxicity to the 

females, leading to a reduction of the 

dose during the study. The registrant 

submitted mechanistic studies to 

support a mode of action (MOA) for the 

liver tumors, but the studies were 

conducted in rats. Although the MOA 

was considered plausible, the Agency 

concluded the data on rats could not be 

used to support a MOA finding in mice. 

The Agency concluded that 

quantification of cancer risk using a 

non-linear approach would adequately 

account for all chronic toxicity 

(including carcinogenicity) that could 

result from exposure to metrafenone. 

The use of the chronic point of 

departure is protective based on the 

following reasons: 

• A treatment-related increase in 

benign liver tumors was seen only in 

male CD–1 mice at doses that were 

adequate to assess the carcinogenicity. 

• The liver tumors were observed at 

doses significantly higher (44x) than 

those currently used for risk assessment. 

• No treatment-related tumors were 

seen in female mice. 

• No treatment-related tumors were 

seen in male rats and liver tumors in 

female rats were seen only at the Limit 

Dose which was excessively toxic to 

females; no tumors were seen at the next 

dose of 5,000 ppm, which was 

considered adequate to assess 

carcinogenicity. 

• There is no mutagenicity concern 

for metrafenone 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by metrafenone as well 

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 the document 

titled ‘‘Metrafenone. Human Health Risk 

Assessment for the Section 3 

Registration on: Apricot, Cherry (Crop 

Subgroup 12–12A); Fruiting Vegetables 

(Crop Group 8–10); Fruit, Small, Vine 

Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Crop 

Subgroup 13–07F); Hops, Dried Cones; 

Peach (Crop Subgroup 12–12B), Pome 

Fruit (Crop Group 11–10), and 

Vegetable, Cucurbit (Crop Group 9); 

Evaluation of Conditional Data.’’ on 

pages 31–40 in docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2013–0255. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/

Levels of Concern 

Once a pesticide’s toxicological 

profile is determined, EPA identifies 

toxicological points of departure (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. 

PODs are developed based on a careful 

analysis of the doses in each 

toxicological study to determine the 

dose at which no adverse effects are 

observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest 

dose at which adverse effects of concern 

are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ 

safety factors are used in conjunction 

with the POD to calculate a safe 

exposure level—generally referred to as 

a population-adjusted 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 metrafenone used for 

human risk assessment is shown in 

Table 1 of this unit. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR METRAFENONE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT

Exposure/scenario 

Point of departure 

and uncertainty/ 

safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Acute Dietary (General population, including Infants and 

Children and females 13–49).

No appropriate single dose endpoint was identified in the submitted toxicity database. 

Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 24.9 mg/

kg/day 

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

Chronic RfD = 0.249 

mg/kg/day.

cPAD = 0.249 mg/

kg/day.

Chronic/Carcinogenicity—rat LOAEL (mg/kg/day) = 260, based 

on hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity in both sexes. 

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).Quantification of cancer risk using a cancer potency factor is not required; the chronic reference dose is protective of potential cancer risk 

FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = 

milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = 

chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in 

sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to metrafenone, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing metrafenone tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.624. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from metrafenone 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. 

No such effects were identified in the 

toxicological studies for metrafenone; 

therefore, a quantitative acute dietary 

exposure assessment is unnecessary. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the 2003–2008 food 

consumption data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey, What We Eat in 

America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to 

residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 

percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance 

level residues (adjusted to account for 

additional residues of concern). 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that the use of the chronic 

point of departure is appropriate for 

assessing cancer risk to metrafenone. 

Cancer risk was assessed using the same 

exposure estimates as discussed in Unit 

III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure. 

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT 

information. EPA did not use 

anticipated residue and/or PCT 

information in the dietary assessment 

for metrafenone. Tolerance level 

residues and 100 PCT were assumed for 

all food commodities. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for metrafenone in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

metrafenone. 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 Pesticide Root Zone 

Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 

System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide 

Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM 

GW), the estimated drinking water 

concentrations (EDWCs) of total 

metrafenone for chronic exposures are 

estimated to be 14.52 parts per billion 

(ppb) for surface water and 12.3 ppb for 

ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

chronic dietary risk assessment, the 

water concentration of value 14.52 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). 

Metrafenone 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 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA has not found metrafenone to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and 

metrafenone does not appear to produce 

a toxic metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that metrafenone does not have 

a common mechanism of toxicity with 

other substances. 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 Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

cumulative. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63051 

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 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 

There was no evidence of qualitative or 

quantitative susceptibility in the 

developmental and reproduction 

toxicity studies. In the developmental 

rat study, no effects were observed in 

dams or fetuses up to the limit dose of 

1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rabbit study, 

liver toxicity (increased liver weights, 

hypertrophy, and hepatocyte 

vacuolation) was observed in the dams 

but no developmental effects were 

observed up to the limit dose of 1,000 

mg/kg/day. 

In the rat reproduction toxicity study, 

there was no evidence of reproductive 

toxicity. Effects in the offspring 

(decreased pup weight) occurred at 

doses similar to those which cause 

toxicity in the parental animals 

(decreased body weight). 

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 

metrafenone is complete. 

ii. There is no indication that 

metrafenone is a neurotoxic chemical 

and there is no need for a 

developmental neurotoxicity study or 

additional UFs to account for 

neurotoxicity. 

iii. There is no evidence that 

metrafenone results in increased 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in young rats in the 2-generation 

reproduction study. 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100 PCT and 

tolerance-level residues (adjusted to 

account for additional residues of 

concern). EPA made conservative 

(protective) assumptions in the ground 

and surface water modeling used to 

assess exposure to metrafenone in 

drinking water. These assessments will 

not underestimate the exposure and 

risks posed by metrafenone. 

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. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account acute 

exposure estimates from dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. No adverse effect resulting from 

a single oral exposure was identified 

and no acute dietary endpoint was 

selected. Therefore, metrafenone is not 

expected to pose an acute risk. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to metrafenone 

from food and water will utilize 16% of 

the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. There are no residential uses 

for metrafenone. 

3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. 

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate 

exposure takes into account short- and 

intermediate-term residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). A short- and 

intermediate-term adverse effect was 

identified; however, metrafenone is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in short- and/or 

intermediate-term residential exposure. 

Short- and intermediate-term risk is 

assessed based on short- and 

intermediate-term residential exposure 

plus chronic dietary exposure. Because 

there is no short- and intermediate-term 

residential exposure and chronic dietary 

exposure has already been assessed 

under the appropriately protective 

cPAD (which is at least as protective as 

the POD used to assess short- and 

intermediate-term risk), no further 

assessment of short- and intermediateterm risk is necessary, and EPA relies on 

the chronic dietary risk assessment for 

evaluating short- and intermediate-term 

risk for metrafenone. 

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. EPA considers the chronic 

aggregate risk assessment to be 

protective of any aggregate cancer risk. 

5. 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 metrafenone 

residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(Method FAMS 105–01, a gas 

chromatography method with electron 

capture or mass spectrometry detector) 

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. 

The Codex has not established MRLs 

for metrafenone. 

C. Response to Comments 

EPA received a comment to the Notice 

of Filing that made a request to 

reconsider ‘‘loosening tolerances’’ for 

several pesticide petitions, including for 

metrafenone. The commenter points to 

an American Academy of Pediatrics 

Policy statement regarding pesticide 

exposure in children, a Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention report 

on human exposure to environmental 

chemicals, and a President’s Cancer 

Panel regarding reducing environmental 

cancer risks in supporting the request to 

reconsider the tolerance amendments 

proposed for metrafenone. 

The Agency understands the 

commenter’s concerns and recognizes 

that some individuals believe that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
63052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

certain pesticide chemicals should not 

be permitted in our food, or that 

pesticide tolerances should be 

‘‘significantly tightened’’ as the 

commenter notes. However, the existing 

legal framework provided by section 

408 of FFDCA states that tolerances may 

be set when EPA determines that 

aggregate exposure to that pesticide is 

safe, i.e., that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue. When making this 

determination, EPA considers the 

toxicity, including any potential 

carcinogenicity, of the pesticide and all 

anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information. EPA also gives 

special consideration to the potential 

susceptibility and exposures of infants 

and children to the pesticide chemical 

residue when making this 

determination. For metrafenone, the 

Agency has considered all the available 

data, including all available data 

concerning the potential for 

carcinogenicity of metrafenone and its 

metabolites, and concluded after 

conducting a risk assessment, that there 

is a reasonable certainty that no harm 

will result from aggregate human 

exposure to metrafenone and that, 

accordingly, the metrafenone tolerances 

are safe. 

A second comment was received 

stating that ‘‘I do no support use of this 

toxic chemical anywhere on earth.’’ 

Additionally, the commenter wrote that 

‘‘any chemical should be fully 

investigated for its harm before being 

released for use.’’ As noted above, the 

Agency understands the commenter’s 

concerns and recognizes that some 

individuals believe that pesticide 

chemicals should not be permitted in 

our food or for use anywhere. As to 

being investigated for its harm, 

metrafenone has an extensive toxicity 

database that has been fully evaluated 

by EPA. As noted above, the Agency has 

considered all the available data and 

concluded that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate human exposure to 

metrafenone and that, accordingly, the 

metrafenone tolerances are safe. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

EPA has modified some of the 

tolerances that were originally requested 

in the petition. Instead of the requested 

tolerance for cucurbit vegetables at 0.5 

ppm, EPA is establishing the tolerance 

at 0.50 ppm, in order to avoid the 

situation where a field sample 

containing residues significantly above 

the tolerance (0.54 ppm, for example) 

would be considered non-violative. For 

the same reason, EPA is revising the 

requested tolerances of 0.7 ppm in the 

peach subgroup (12–12B) and in apricot 

to 0.70 ppm. 

EPA has also revised the tolerance for 

residues of metrafenone in fruiting 

vegetables from 1.0 ppm to 0.90 ppm 

based on available residue data and 

using the Organisation for Economic 

Cooperation and Development/

Maximum Residue Limit (OECD MRL) 

tolerance calculation procedures. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of metrafenone, including 

its metabolites and degradates, in or on 

apricot at 0.70 ppm; cherry subgroup 

12–12A at 2.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 

11–10 at 1.5 ppm; fruit, small, vine 

climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F at 4.5 ppm; hop, dried 

cones at 70 ppm; peach subgroup 12– 

12B at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, 

group 9 at 0.50 ppm; and vegetable, 

fruiting, group 8–10 at 0.90 ppm. 

In addition, the existing tolerance on 

grapes is being removed as unnecessary 

since a tolerance is being set for crop 

subgroup 13–07F, which includes grape. 

The tolerance for raisins is still required 

and is not being deleted. 

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 

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: October 10, 2014. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 63053 

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 180.624 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘grape’’, and by 

alphabetically adding the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.624 Metrafenone; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Apricot ................................. 0 .70 

Cherry subgroup 12–12A ... 2 .0 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ... 1 .5 

Fruit, small, vine climbing, 

except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F ............ 4 .5 

* * * * * 

Hop, dried cones ................ 70 

Peach subgroup 12–12B .... 0 .70 

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0 .50 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 

8–10 ................................ 0 .90 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–25135 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0217; FRL–9916–97] 

Polyoxyalkylated Sorbitan Fatty Acid 

Esters; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of 

polyoxyalkylated sorbitan fatty acid 

esters with C6 through C22 aliphatic 

alkanoic and/or alkenoic fatty acids, 

branched or linear, the resulting 

polyoxyalkylene sorbitan esters having a 

minimum molecular weight of 1,300 

when used as an inert ingredient in a 

pesticide chemical formulation. Spring 

Trading Company, on behalf of Croda, 

Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance. 

This regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of polyoxyalkylated 

sorbitan fatty acid esters with C6 

through C22 aliphatic alkanoic and/or 

alkenoic fatty acids, branched or linear, 

the resulting polyoxyalkylene sorbitan 

esters having a minimum molecular 

weight of 1,300 on food or feed 

commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 22, 2014. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 22, 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) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0217, 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), West William 

Jefferson Clinton 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: 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Registration 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

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 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. 

C. 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–2014–0217 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 December 22, 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– 

2014–0217, 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. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of September 

5, 2014 (79 FR 53012) (FRL–9914–98), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

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

announcing the receipt of a pesticide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES