[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5002-5004]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01501]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0924; FRL-10439-01-OCSPP]

Stakeholder Engagement Opportunities on Inflation Reduction Act
Programs To Reduce Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated With
Construction Materials and Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
first opportunities for public input on new programs focused on lower
carbon construction materials made possible by a $350 million
investment from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The Agency will hold
three public webinars and is accepting written feedback on establishing
the new grant and technical assistance programs and a carbon labeling
program for construction materials with substantially lower levels of
embodied carbon.

DATES:
    Webinars: March 2, 2023, 2:00-3:30 p.m. EST. Topic: Reducing
Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Construction Materials
Prioritization and Environmental Data Improvement. You must register
online at https://esindustrial.webex.com/weblink/register/r3e2a14dee9e470bbe09e0c27857121b0.
    March 22, 2023, 2:00-3:30 p.m. EST. Topic: Reducing Embodied
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Grants and Technical Assistance for
Environmental Product Declarations. You must register online at https://esindustrial.webex.com/weblink/register/r7672c2c41979f2125343935a12d2ccb6.
    April 19, 2023, 2:00-3:30 p.m. EST. Topic: Reducing Embodied
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Labeling. You must register online at
https://esindustrial.webex.com/weblink/register/rfdbb89ff0328b17c371bf47c74d7bae7.
    Special accommodations: To allow EPA time to process your request
for special accommodations, please submit the request on or before
February 14, 2023. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation for a
disability, please contact Alison Kinn Bennett, listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Written comments: Comments must be received on or before May 1,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Webinars: You must register online using the links listed under
DATES in order to receive the webcast meeting link and audio
teleconference information for the particular webinar.
    Written Comments: Submit your comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0924, through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison Kinn Bennett, Senior Advisor,
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program (7409M), Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This is directed to the public in general. This notice may be of
specific interest to persons who represent industry, program operators,
institutional purchasers, researchers, academia, state, tribal, and
local governments including U.S. territories and the District of
Columbia, other federal agencies, community groups, non-governmental
organizations, the public, and international organizations.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing stakeholder engagement opportunities through
upcoming webinars and a Request for Information (RFI) to help shape
implementation of IRA programs under the IRA sections 60112 and 60116.

C. What should I consider as I prepare my responses for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be 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. Multimedia submissions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on
the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).
    3. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. Please note that once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket.
    4. Request for information and comments. EPA has prepared a Request
for Information (RFI) document that is available in the docket and is
intended to facilitate your consideration and preparation of written
comments. Only comments submitted directly through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov will be accepted.
Electronic submission ensures timely receipt by the EPA and enables the
EPA to make comments immediately available to the public. Comments
posted in the https://www.regulations.gov website can be viewed by
other commenters and interested members of the public.
    Information provided in response to this RFI will inform the
prioritization of work and key design elements of these new programs.
EPA's questions cover the following areas:
     What construction materials/products should EPA prioritize
in implementation of these programs?
     What data accessibility and improvement approaches should
EPA consider?
     What standardization, measurement, verification, and
reporting approaches for use in procurement decision-making should EPA
consider?
     What factors should EPA consider for the Environmental
Product Declaration Assistance program?
     What should be considered for setting thresholds for
``substantially lower levels'' of embodied greenhouse gas emission for
qualifying materials/products under a labeling program?
     What would be the key elements of an effective carbon
labeling program?
    If you elect to comment, you do not need to address every question
and may focus on those where you have relevant expertise or experience.
Please identify the question(s) you are responding to by question
number in the RFI when submitting your comments.

II. Background

    In August 2022, Congress passed and President Biden signed the IRA
into law, creating the largest investment to combat the climate crisis
in United States history. The IRA will bolster U.S. energy security,
help families save money on energy costs and prescription drugs, reduce
the deficit and create

good-paying jobs. EPA received $41.5 billion in appropriations to
develop and support 24 new and existing programs that monitor and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, protect health and
advance environmental justice.
    These new programs funded by the IRA Sections 60112 and 60116 will
provide grants, technical assistance, and tools, including a carbon
label, to advance the President's bold agenda to combat the climate
crisis, protect public health and advance environmental justice. The
new programs will help manufacturers, institutional buyers, real estate
developers, builders and others measure, report and substantially lower
the levels of embodied carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions
associated with the production, use and disposal of construction
materials and products including steel, concrete, asphalt and glass.
Additionally, this work will support President Biden's Buy Clean Task
Force which is developing recommendations for Federal procurement and
federally funded projects that would expand consideration of greenhouse
gas emissions and other pollutants associated with construction
materials.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1310.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-01501 Filed 1-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36414-36416]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0473]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Independence Day Celebration Fireworks, Lake
Ontario, Oswego, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the Independence Day
Celebration Fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards
associated with a fireworks display.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on
July 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0473]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display,
which are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Between 9:15 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2014, a fireworks
display will be held on Lake Ontario in Oswego, NY. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a
gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Independence Day
Celebration Fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced
from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2014. This zone will
encompass all waters of Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY, within an 840-

foot radius of position 43[deg]27'54.25'' N and 76[deg]30'57.75'' W
(NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario on the evening of
July 6, 2014.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security

Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0473 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0473  Safety Zone; Independence Day Celebration
Fireworks, Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario,
Oswego, NY within an 840 FT radius of position 43[deg]27'54.25'' N and
76[deg]30'57.75'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This section is effective and
will be enforced on July 6, 2014, from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of Sec.  165.T09-0473 is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 16, 2014.
B. W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2014-15118 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, May 6, 2022 6:23 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: technical question - offtake gas flowrate

Hello again, Donna Lee.  Just getting back to you on your recent technical question.

The COETF is not aware of any coke plants that measure coke oven gas flow through the offtakes; and, we are not aware of any technology that could be used in that application due to extreme heat, high moisture content, and potential for carbon buildup.  As you know, emissions from offtakes are regulated under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart L.

Contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63047-63053]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25135]

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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,

DC 20460-0001; main 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-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

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-of-evidence 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-observed-adverse-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

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General             No appropriate single dose endpoint was identified in the submitted toxicity
 population, including Infants      database.
 and Children and females 13-49).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 24.9 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.249  Chronic/Carcinogenicity--rat LOAEL
                                    day                   mg/kg/day.           (mg/kg/day) = 260, based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.249 mg/kg/   hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 in both sexes.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-occupational, 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

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
intermediate-term 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:<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 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

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:

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. 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:

Sec.  180.624  Metrafenone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apricot.................................................            0.70
Cherry subgroup 12-12A..................................            2.0
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................            1.5
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                4.5
 subgroup 13-07F........................................

                                * * * * *
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