[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13252-13257]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04559]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0308; FRL-9379-9]

Pyroxasulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyroxasulfone

in or on soybeans. K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc., requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 27, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 29, 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-2012-0308, 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: Kathryn Montague, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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/text-idx?&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-2012-0308 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
April 29, 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-2012-0308, 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.htm.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL-9347-8),
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 2F8005)
by K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., 3185
Madison Hwy., P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. The petition
requested that EPA establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues
of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, 3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethyl-1,2-oxazole, and its metabolites M-3, 5-difluoromethoxy-1-
methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid; M-25, 5-
difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic acid;
and M-28, 3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-
ylthio)ethylamino]-3-oxopropanoic acid, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in or on soybean, seed at
0.07 parts per million (ppm). The petition also requested that
tolerances be established for residues of pyroxasulfone, 3-[(5-
(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4-
ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole, and its
metabolites M-1, 5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-
pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulfonic acid; M-3, 5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3-
trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid; and M-25, 5-
difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in or on
soybean, forage at 1.5 ppm and soybean, hay at 2.0 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by K-I Chemical U.S.A.,
Inc., 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 is
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone and
its metabolites as requested by the petitioner, except that the
tolerance for residues in or on soybean, forage is lowered to 1.0 ppm
and the tolerance for residues in or on soybean, seed is lowered to
0.06 ppm. The reasons for these changes are 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 pyroxasulfone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyroxasulfone
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.
    Pyroxasulfone acute toxicity to mammals is low by all routes of
exposure. Subchronic and chronic oral toxicity testing of pyroxasulfone
in mice, rats, and dogs produced a variety of adverse effects in
several target organs. Effects seen in animal studies included cardiac
toxicity (increased cardiomyopathy in mice and rats), liver toxicity
(centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy, histopathological, and/or
clinical pathological indicators), neurotoxicity characterized by
axonal/myelin degeneration in the sciatic nerve (dog, mouse, and rat)
and spinal cord sections (dog), skeletal muscle myopathy, kidney
toxicity (increased incidence of chronic progressive nephropathy in
dogs and retrograde nephropathy in mice), urinary bladder mucosal
hyperplasia, inflammation, and urinary bladder transitional cell
papillomas (rats). Decreased body weight and enzyme changes were noted
in some studies. Immunotoxicity studies in rats and mice showed no
evidence of immunotoxic effects from pyroxasulfone.
    Pyroxasulfone was moderately toxic to rats following a 4-week
dermal exposure producing local inflammation and systemic effects of
minimal to mild cardiac myofiber degeneration at the limit dose. No
adverse effects were noted in a 28-day inhalation study at the highest-
dose tested.
    Pyroxasulfone did not exhibit developmental toxicity in the rat
developmental toxicity study and exhibited only slight developmental
toxicity in rabbits (reduced fetal weight and resorptions) at the limit
dose. However, developmental effects were noted in post-natal day (PND)
21 offspring in the rat developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study
characterized as decreased brain weight and morphometric changes.
Developmental effects in the rabbit developmental study and DNT study
occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity, indicating potential
increased quantitative susceptibility of offspring. In a reproductive
toxicity in rats reduced pup weight and body weight gains during
lactation occurred at similar or higher doses causing pronounced
maternal toxicity (reduced body weight, body weight gain, and food
consumption and increased kidney weight, cardiomyopathy, and urinary
bladder mucosal hyperplasia with inflammation).
    In cancer studies in mice and rats, renal tubular adenomas were
observed in male mice and urinary bladder transitional cell papillomas
were observed in male rats. The kidney adenomas in male mice were
determined to be spontaneous and not treatment-related based on the
following considerations:
    1. Absence of any cytotoxicity (degeneration or individual cell
necrosis) in studies ranging from 14 days to 18 months at doses up to
15,000 ppm.
    2. Absence of cell regeneration leading to precursor lesions such
as atypical tubular hyperplasia at all time points and doses up to
15,000 ppm.
    3. Lack of exacerbation of chronic progressive nephropathy, a
spontaneous disease in rodents that results in cell regeneration which
can result in renal tubule tumors in chronic studies.
    4. Lack of a clear dose response in the distribution of tumors
between test substance treated groups.
    The urinary bladder tumors seen in male rats were determined to be
a threshold effect. Pyroxasulfone exposure causes the growth of
crystals in the urinary tract with subsequent calculi formation
resulting in cellular damage. Crystal formation in the absence of
calculi is not associated with hyperplasia or urinary bladder tumors;
therefore, the formation of urinary bladder calculi is the prerequisite
for subsequent hyperplasia and neoplasia. In other words, urinary
bladder tumors do not develop at doses too low to produce calculi.
There is also a clear threshold of 1,000 ppm (42.55 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) for development of calculi and tumorigenesis.
The point of departure (POD) of 50 ppm (2.0 mg/kg/day) selected for
chronic risk assessment is not expected to result in urinary bladder
calculi formation, which is a prerequisite for subsequent hyperplasia
and neoplasia. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the
quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., Reference
dose (RfD)) will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to pyroxasulfone.
There is no concern for mutagenicity.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyroxasulfone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Pyroxasulfone Human Health Risk
Assessment for Use on Soybeans,'' p. 34, in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0308.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies the toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For
hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk,
the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference
values for risk assessment. 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 RfD--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For
non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in
terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more information on the

general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyroxasulfone used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register issue of February 29, 2012 (77 FR
12207) (FRL-9334-2).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyroxasulfone, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyroxasulfone
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.659. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyroxasulfone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for pyroxasulfone. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% of the crop was treated with
pyroxasulfone and that residues of the parent and the relevant
metabolites of concern on soybeans are present at tolerance levels.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA made the same assumptions as
in the acute dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a non-linear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to pyroxasulfone. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.i.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for pyroxasulfone. Tolerance level residues for
soybean and 100 PCT were assumed for soybean commodities in the dietary
assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyroxasulfone. 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
pyroxasulfone for acute exposures are estimated to be 17 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of
pyroxasulfone for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 3.2 ppb for surface water and 174 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 210 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 174 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 non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure. Pyroxasulfone 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 pyroxasulfone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyroxasulfone does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyroxasulfone 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 case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (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. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for pyroxasulfone includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, a DNT study in rats, and a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A.,
evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses and offspring was seen
in the DNT study and developmental toxicity study in rabbits following
in utero or postnatal exposure to pyroxasulfone. No increased
susceptibility was seen in the rat developmental or reproduction
toxicity studies. In rabbits, developmental toxicity was only seen at
the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day as reduced fetal weight and increased
fetal resorptions with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day for these effects,
compared to no maternal toxicity at these doses. In a DNT study in
rats, offspring toxicity (decreased brain weight and orphometric
changes on PND 21) was seen at 300 mg/kg/day compared to no maternal
toxicity at 900 mg/kg/day. The degree of concern for the increased
susceptibility seen in these studies is low and there are no residual
uncertainties based on the following considerations:
    i. The increased susceptibility is occurring at high doses.
    ii. NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of
concern, and thus a clear dose response has been well defined.
    iii. The PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the
fetal/offspring effects.
    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 pyroxasulfone is complete.
    ii. Pyroxasulfone is a neurotoxic chemical and there is evidence of
increased susceptibility of offspring with regard to neurotoxic effects
in the rat DNT study. There is also evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses/offspring with regard to non-neurotoxic
effects in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. However, the
concern for the increased susceptibility is low for the reasons stated
in Unit III.D.2., and EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties
after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional uncertainty
factors (UFs) to be used in the risk assessment for pyroxasulfone.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties in the exposure database.
The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT
and tolerance-level residues), and EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to pyroxasulfone in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pyroxasulfone.

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). Short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure
that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to pyroxasulfone will occupy 3.6% of the aPAD for infants less than 1
year 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
pyroxasulfone from food and water will utilize 48% of the cPAD for
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for pyroxasulfone.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, pyroxasulfone is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure; therefore, no further assessment of short-term risk is
necessary.
    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). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
pyroxasulfone is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure; therefore, no further
assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As explained in Unit
III.A., the Agency has determined that the quantification of risk using
a non-linear (i.e., RfD) approach will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to pyroxasulfone. Therefore, based on the results of the
chronic risk assessment discussed in Unit III.E.2., pyroxasulfone is
not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyroxasulfone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (a liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method) 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 pyroxasulfone.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA has revised the tolerance levels for soybean, forage and
soybean, seed as based on analysis of the field trial data using the
tolerance MRL calculator in accordance with the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development's ``MRL Calculator User Guide
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).'' Soybean, forage was decreased
from 1.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm for residues of pyroxasulfone and its
metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 and soybean, seed was decreased from
0.07 ppm to 0.06 ppm for residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites
M-3, M-25, and M-28.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole, and
its metabolites, 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-
pyrazol-4-ylmethanesulfonic acid (M-1); 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M-3); and [5-
(difluoromethoxy)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic
acid (M-25), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
pyroxasulfone, in or on soybean, forage at 1.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 2.0
ppm; and pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-
dimethylisoxazole, and its metabolites, 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M-3); [5-
(difluoromethoxy)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic
acid (M-25); and 3-[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-
ylthio)ethylamino]-3-oxopropanoic acid (M-28), calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of pyroxasulfone in or on soybean, seed at
0.06 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the

Agency. The Office of Management and 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: February 20, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.659:
0
a. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(2).
0
b. Add a new paragraph (a)(3).
    The additions read as follows.

Sec.  180.659  Pyroxasulfone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Soybean, forage.............................................         1.0
Soybean, hay................................................         2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
pyroxasulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole, and
its metabolites, 5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-
pyrazol-4-carboxylic acid (M-3); [5-(difluoromethoxy)-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic acid (M-25); and 3-
[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3-
oxopropanoic acid (M-28), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of pyroxasulfone, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soybean, seed...............................................        0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-04559 Filed 2-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4578]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1490]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0788; FRL-9256-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This SIP revision includes
amendments to Maryland's regulation for Volatile Organic Compounds from
Specific Processes, and meets the requirement to adopt Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) for sources covered by EPA's
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for flat wood paneling coatings.
These amendments will reduce emissions of volatile organic compound
(VOC) from flat wood coating facilities. In the Final Rules section of
this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-0788 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0788, Marilyn Powers, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0788. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings,'' that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: January 5, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-1490 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 47010-47012]
[DOCID:fr22au07-99]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0936; FRL-8142-5]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest, 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'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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the assigned docket ID number
and the pesticide petition number of interest. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the docket without change and may
be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically 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
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

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:
     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 provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 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 at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PP Number                        Docket ID Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6E7074                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6E7120                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0541
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7115                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0541
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7213                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0472
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7230                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0604
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7E7233                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0555
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 6F7123                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7171                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 6E7074. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540-6635, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide fenarimol [alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-5-
pyrimidinemethanol] in or on food commodity hop at 1.0 parts per
million (ppm). Analytical methodologies used for hop are slight
modifications of the basic pesticide analytical manual (PAM) II method
for fenarimol (method R039). Residues are extracted with methanol.
Aqueous sodium chloride (5%) is added and the extract is partitioned
with dichloromethane. Residues are cleaned up on a florisil or alumina
column and detected by gas chromatography with electron capture
detection (GC/ECD). In hop samples, method validation recoveries ranged
from 72% to 94%, and the limit of detection was 0.04 ppm. Contact:
Shaja R. Brothers, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    2. PP 6E7120 and 6F7115. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0541). Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, proposes to
establish a tolerance 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 food commodities fruit, pome,
group 11 at 0.6 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.5 ppm;
vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm; sugar beet
roots at 0.3 ppm; sugar beet tops at 7.0 ppm; and imported whole papaya
fruit at 0.3 ppm.
    i. Food. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., has submitted a practical
analytical method (AG-575B, master record identification (MRID) 428065-
04) for detecting and measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on food
with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that allows monitoring of food with
residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances. EPA has
validated this method and copies have been provided to FDA for
insertion into PAM II. The method is available to anyone who is
interested, and may be obtained from the Field Operations Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
    ii. Livestock. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., has submitted a
practical analytical method (AG-544A, MRID 432924-01) for detecting and
measuring levels of difenoconazole in or on cattle tissues, milk,
poultry tissues and eggs, with a LOQ that allows monitoring of food
with residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances.
EPA has validated this method and copies have been provided to FDA for
insertion into PAM II. The method is available to anyone who is
interested, and may be obtained from the Field Operations Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs. Tolerances in meat, milk, poultry or eggs
were established for enforcement purposes. Contact: Janet Whitehurst,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    3. PP 7E7213. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0472). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540-6635, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide thiobencarb in or on food commodity rice, wild at 0.2 ppm.
Adequate methods are available for enforcement and data collection
purposes for both plant and animal commodities. Successful
radiovalidation of the enforcement methods, using samples from the
metabolism studies, has also been conducted. Residues of thiobencarb
are completely recovered using multi-residue method section 302 (Luke
method; Protocol D), and variably recovered using method section 304
(Mills, Onley, Gaither method; fatty food). Contact: Shaja R. Brothers,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    4. PP 7E7230. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0604). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540-6635, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide dichlobenil, 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile and its metabolite 2,6-
dichlorobenzamide in or on food commodities rhubarb at 0.15 ppm;
caneberry, subgroup 13A and wild raspberry at 0.1 ppm; and bushberry,
subgroup 13B; aronia berry; blueberry, lowbush; buffalo currant;
chilian guava; European barberry; highbush cranberry; honeysuckle;
jostaberry; Juneberry; lingonberry; native currant; salal; and sea
buckthorn at 0.15 ppm. Dichlobenil and 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM) are
extracted with a solution of ethyl acetate in hexane. A cleanup system
utilizes an alumina column. Detection and quantitation are achieved by
a gas chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector. The
lowest limit of method validation for dichlobenil and BAM is 0.05 and
0.01 ppm, respectively. Contact: Susan

Stanton, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    5. PP 7E7233. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0555). Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, proposes to establish a
tolerance for residues of the inert safener, cloquintocet-mexyl,
(acetic acid, [(5-chloro-8-quniolinyl)oxy]-, 1-methylhexyl ester) (CAS
Reg. No. 99607-70-2) and its acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-
quinlinoxyacetic acid, also known as Syngenta Code CGA-153433)] when
used as an inert ingredient (safener) in pesticide formulations
containing either the herbicide clodinafop-propargyl or pinoxaden in a
1:4 ratio of safener to active ingredient in or on food commodities
wheat, forage at 0.20 ppm and wheat, hay at 0.50 ppm. Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., has submitted practical analytical methodology for
detecting and measuring combined levels of cloquintocet-mexyl and its
acid metabolite (5-chloro-8-quinlinoxyacetic acid). The method is based
upon acid hydrolysis extraction, which converts the parent and all
conjugates to the acid metabolite. The acid metabolite is subject to
commodity specific cleanup procedures and high performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) determination with triple stage quadruple mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The LOQ as demonstrated by the lowest
acceptable recovery samples, is 0.01 ppm for grain, and 0.02 ppm for
forage, hay and straw. Contact: Tracy H. Ward, telephone number: (703)
308-9361; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. PP 6F7123 and 7F7171. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539). Bayer CropScience,
P.O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
trifloxystrobin and the free form of its acid metabolite (CGA- 32113)
in or on food commodities in PP 6F7123: Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.4
ppm; citrus, oil at 36.0 ppm; citrus, dry pulp at 1.0 ppm; and in PP
7F7171: Strawberry at 1.1 ppm. A practical analytical methodology for
detecting and measuring levels of trifloxystrobin in or on raw
agricultural commodities has been submitted. The limit of detection
(LOD) for each analyte of this method is 0.08 ng injected, and the LOQ
is 0.02 ppm. The method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures
and determination by gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus
detection. Contact: Janet Whitehurst, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: August 14, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-16561 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S