Bicyclopyrone; Pesticide Tolerances, 86960-86966 [2016-29005]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86960-86966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29005]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0560; FRL-9954-63]


Bicyclopyrone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
bicyclopyrone in or on wheat and barley. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. 
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 2, 2016. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 31, 2017, 
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-2015-0560, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document

[[Page 86961]]

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 https://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-2015-0560 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 
January 31, 2017. 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-2015-0560, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

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

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-
9935-29), 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 
5F8374) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, 
NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.682 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, bicyclopyrone: 
4-hydroxy-3-{2-[(2-methoxyethoxy) methyl{time} -6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-
pyridylcarbonyl{time}  bicyclo oct-3-en-2-one, in or on the raw 
agricultural commodities: Barley, bran at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); 
barley, germ at 0.10 ppm; barley, grain, at 0.07 ppm; barley, hay at 
0.3 ppm; barley, straw at 0.50 ppm; wheat, aspirated grain fractions at 
0.50 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.15 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.50 ppm; wheat, 
germ at 0.10 ppm; wheat, grain, at 0.04 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.9 ppm; and 
wheat, straw at 0.50 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the 
petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., the registrant, 
which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There 
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
revised the proposed tolerances to wheat, forage at 0.40 ppm; wheat, 
hay at 0.80 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.07 ppm; grain, aspirated fractions at 
0.30 ppm; and barley, straw at 0.40 ppm. EPA has increased the existing 
tolerances to cattle, meat byproducts at 2.0 ppm; goat, meat byproducts 
at 2.0 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 2.0 ppm; horse, meat byproducts; 
at 2.0 ppm; and hog, meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm. EPA has determined 
that tolerances are not needed to be established for barley, germ and 
wheat, germ. The reason 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 bicyclopyrone including 
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. 
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with bicyclopyrone 
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 effects of bicyclopyrone are indicative of inhibition of 4-
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD). Plasma tyrosine levels were 
consistently elevated in rats, rabbits, and dogs (levels in mice were 
not tested). Consistent with these elevated tyrosine levels, ocular 
effects (corneal opacity, keratitis) were observed for subchronic and 
chronic durations through the oral and dermal routes in rats, which was 
the most sensitive species tested (minor instances in dogs). There were 
also increased incidences of thyroid follicular hyperplasia and a 
chronic progressive nephropathy.
    While minor instances of ocular effects were observed in dogs, 
different toxicological effects were generally observed. For subchronic 
oral exposure, clinical signs (moderate hypoactivity, slightly unsteady 
gait, increased heart rate, regurgitation, and vomiting) were observed, 
and clinical pathological indicators of toxicity occurred in the eye

[[Page 86962]]

and the thymus. Following chronic exposure, there was a dose-dependent 
increase in chromatolysis and swelling of selected neurons in the 
dorsal root ganglia, and degeneration of nerve fibers in the spinal 
nerve roots in both sexes. In one female dog at the high dose, corneal 
opacity and light sensitivity were observed.
    Across the database, there were decreased absolute body weights 
(the only finding in mice for any duration) and food consumption. There 
were no signs of immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity in rodents.
    Bicyclopyrone treatment resulted in developmental toxicity in both 
rats and rabbits, and there was an increased quantitative fetal 
susceptibility in both species tested. In rats, maternal toxicity was 
not observed up to 1,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Fetal 
effects occurred at all doses (>=100 mg/kg/day), and manifested as 
skeletal variations (increased incidences of full or rudimentary 
supernumerary ribs, pelvic girdle malpositioned caudal, costal 
cartilage 11 long). In New Zealand White rabbits, maternal effects 
consisted of mortality/moribundity in conjunction with minimal food 
consumption at 200 mg/kg/day. Fetal effects once again occurred at all 
doses tested (>=10 mg/kg/day). The sole fetal effect at the lowest dose 
tested was the appearance of the 27th presacral vertebrae. There were 
two studies in Himalayan rabbits. In both studies, maternal effects 
consisted of macroscopic findings in the stomach wall and an increased 
incidence of post-implantation loss at the 250 mg/kg/day dose level. In 
the first study, fetal effects occurred starting at 50 mg/kg/day and 
consisted of skeletal variations (increased incidence of the 27th 
prepelvic vertebra and malpositioned pelvic girdle). In the second 
study, the increased quantitative fetal susceptibility was not observed 
due to a change in the dose selection. Fetal effects occurred at 250 
mg/kg/day and consisted of external, visceral, and skeletal 
abnormalities, and visceral variations, skeletal, bone and cartilage 
variations. In total, the effects in these studies are consistent with 
effects of other chemicals in this class.
    In the two-generation reproductive study in rats, ocular toxicity 
occurred in parents and offspring and there was no increased offspring 
susceptibility of any kind. Reproductive effects included changes in 
sperm parameters, and a decrease of precoital interval.
    To determine the mechanism for the thyroid hyperplasia observed in 
the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats, two mode-of-action studies 
were performed. In the in vitro study, bicyclopyrone was negative for 
thyroid peroxidase inhibition. The results from the in vivo study 
suggested that the observed thyroid hyperplasia was the result of 
increased metabolism of thyroid hormones indicated by: (1) Decreased 
plasma T3 and T4 levels, (2) increased thyroid follicular cell 
hypertrophy, (3) increased liver weights associated, and (4) increased 
hepatocellular centrilobular hypertrophy and increased hepatic uridine 
diphosphate glucuronyl transferase (UDPGT) activities. Bicyclopyrone is 
categorized as having low acute lethality via all routes of 
administration. Bicyclopyrone produces minimal eye irritation and mild 
acute inhalation toxicity.
    Two adequate carcinogenicity studies were submitted. One study 
conducted on rats showed the presence of rare ocular tumors in male 
rats only. The corneal tumors observed in male rats are (1) treatment 
related, (2) found at doses that were considered to be adequate and not 
excessive for assessing carcinogenicity, (3) there are no concerns for 
mutagenicity or genotoxicity, and (4) are supported by structure-
activity relationship (SAR) data for another HPPD inhibitor, 
tembotrione. Another study conducted on mice showed lung tumors, which 
are not considered treatment related. Because the tumors are found only 
in one species and only in males, consistent with the Agency guidelines 
for carcinogen risk assessment, the Agency has classified bicyclopyrone 
as ``suggestive evidence of cancer'' and has determined that 
quantification of bicyclopyrone's carcinogenic potential is not 
required. A non-linear approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD)) will 
adequately protect for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity 
that could result from exposure to bicyclopyrone. Using EPA's non-
linear approach, the 1000X combined uncertainty factor used to 
calculate the chronic RfD/chronic population-adjusted dose for the 
chronic dietary assessment, generates a dose which is 10,000-fold lower 
than the dose at which the ocular tumors were not observed and is thus 
protective of their potential formation.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by bicyclopyrone 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 https://www.regulations.gov in document titled ``Bicyclopyrone: Human Health 
Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Action on Cereals (Wheat 
and Barley)'' at pp. 29-34 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0560.

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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. 
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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for 
bicyclopyrone used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. 
B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of April 23, 2015 
(80 FR 22648) (FRL-9926-66).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to bicyclopyrone, EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing bicyclopyrone 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.682. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 
bicyclopyrone 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 bicyclopyrone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food 
consumption information from the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food 
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). The acute dietary analysis was conducted 
for

[[Page 86963]]

bicyclopyrone assuming tolerance level residues, default processing 
factors, and 100% crop treatment (PCT) information.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008 
CSFII. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for 
bicyclopyrone assuming average field trial residues for crops, average 
empirical processing factors, anticipated residues for livestock 
commodities, and PCT estimates for some commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
determined that a separate cancer exposure assessment does not need to 
be conducted.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and 
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in 
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been 
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after 
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, 
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels 
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data 
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary 
risk only if:
     Condition A: The data used are reliable and provide a 
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop 
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition B: The exposure estimate does not underestimate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition C: Data are available on pesticide use and food 
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not 
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any 
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate 
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require 
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: The 
chronic analysis incorporated the following PCT estimates: Field corn, 
40% and sweet/popcorn, 35%. The PCT for livestock commodities is based 
on the PCT estimate value for the livestock feed item used in the 
dietary burden with the highest PCT (field corn, 40%).
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States 
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service 
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use 
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The 
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining 
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging 
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for 
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those 
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum 
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The 
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported 
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey 
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows: The chronic 
analysis incorporated the following PCT estimates: Barley, 5% and 
wheat, 1%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit 
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition A, PCT estimates 
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are 
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that 
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an 
underestimation. As to Conditions B and C, regional consumption 
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations 
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating 
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional 
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment 
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency 
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to 
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than 
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does 
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of 
food to which bicyclopyrone may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for bicyclopyrone in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of bicyclopyrone. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) computer model 
was used to generate surface water Estimated Drinking Water 
Concentrations (EDWCs), while the Pesticide Root Zone Model for 
Groundwater (PRZM-GW) and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water 
(SCI-GROW) models were used to generate groundwater EDWCs. The maximum 
acute, chronic, and cancer surface water EDWCs associated with 
bicyclopyrone use on wheat and barley were 3.43, 1.02, and 0.46 parts 
per billion (ppb), respectively. For groundwater sources of drinking 
water, the maximum acute, chronic and cancer EDWCs of bicyclopyrone in 
shallow groundwater from PRZM-GW were 4.82, 4.2, and 2.1 ppb, 
respectively. EDWCs of 4.82 ppb and 4.2 ppb were used in the acute and 
chronic analyses, respectively.
    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). Bicyclopyrone 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.''
    There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity 
associated with bicyclopyrone's mechanism of toxicity, the inhibition 
of HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment with HPPD inhibitor 
herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the mouse. Monkeys also seem 
to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity induced by HPPD inhibition. 
One explanation for this species-specific response in ocular opacity 
may be related to species differences in the clearance of tyrosine. A 
metabolic pathway exists to remove tyrosine from the blood that 
involves the liver enzyme tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT). In

[[Page 86964]]

contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is observed following exposure 
to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and humans are unlikely to achieve 
the levels of plasma tyrosine necessary to produce ocular opacities 
because the activity of TAT in these species is much greater compared 
to rats.
    HPPD inhibitors (e.g., nitisinone) are used as an effective 
therapeutic agent to treat patients suffering from rare genetic 
diseases of tyrosine catabolism. Treatment starts in childhood but is 
often sustained throughout patient's lifetime. The human experience 
indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg/day dose) of nitisinone has 
an excellent safety record in infants, children, and adults and that 
serious adverse health outcomes have not been observed in a population 
followed for approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular effects are seen in 
patients with high plasma tyrosine levels; however, these effects are 
transient and can be readily reversed upon adherence to a restricted 
protein diet. This observation indicates that an HPPD inhibitor in and 
of itself cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosine-clearance mechanism in 
humans.
    Therefore, exposures to environmental residues of HPPD-inhibiting 
herbicides are unlikely to result in the high blood levels of tyrosine 
and ocular toxicity in humans due to an efficient metabolic process to 
handle excess tyrosine. The EPA continues to study the complex 
relationships between elevated tyrosine levels and biological effects 
in various species. In the future, assessments of HPPD-inhibiting 
herbicides may consider more appropriate models and cross species 
extrapolation methods. Therefore, EPA has not conducted cumulative risk 
assessment with other HPPD inhibitors.

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 Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA 
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional 
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of 
a different factor.
    2. The FQPA SF is retained at 10X for all exposure scenarios based 
on use of a LOAEL for the points of departure. The toxicology database 
for bicyclopyrone is adequate for characterizing toxicity and 
quantification of risk for food and non-food uses; however, a LOAEL 
from the New Zealand white rabbit developmental and chronic/
carcinogenicity rat toxicity studies has been used as the POD for 
several scenarios.
    There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in either of the 
neurotoxicity screening batteries, but there are effects in the chronic 
dog study. The level of concern is low, however, since the study and 
POD chosen for the chronic dietary exposure scenario is protective of 
these effects. There is evidence of increased quantitative fetal 
susceptibility following in utero exposure in both rats and rabbits; 
however, these effects are well characterized and the selected 
endpoints are protective of the observed fetal effects. Lastly, there 
are no residual uncertainties in the exposure database.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this 
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water 
to bicyclopyrone will occupy 4.6% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years 
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
bicyclopyrone from food and water will utilize 90% of the cPAD for 
children <1 years old the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure. There are no residential uses for bicyclopyrone.
    3. Short-term risk. A short-term adverse effect was identified; 
however, bicyclopyrone is not registered for any use patterns that 
would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is 
assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary 
exposure. Because there is no short-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-term risk), no further assessment of short-
term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk 
assessment for evaluating short-term risk for bicyclopyrone.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term adverse effect was 
identified; however, bicyclopyrone is not registered for any use 
patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. 
Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no 
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 intermediate-term 
risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, 
and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating 
intermediate-term risk for bicyclopyrone.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Because the Agency 
has determined that the chronic RfD will be protective of any potential 
cancer risk and there is not a chronic risks do not exceed the Agency's 
level of concern, EPA concludes that there is not a concern for cancer 
risk from exposure to bicyclopyrone.
    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 bicyclopyrone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography-mass 
spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) methods for tolerance 
enforcement have been developed and independently validated. For all 
matrices and analytes, the level of quantification (LOQ), defined as 
the lowest spiking level where acceptable precision and accuracy data 
were obtained, was determined to be 0.01 ppm for each of the common 
moieties, SYN503780 and CSCD686480, for a combined LOQ of 0.02 ppm is 
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701

[[Page 86965]]

Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; 
email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not 
established a MRL for bicyclopyrone.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The requested tolerance levels for some wheat and barley raw 
agricultural commodities (RAC) differ slightly from those being set by 
the EPA. Although both the petitioner and EPA have used the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
calculation procedures to determine tolerance levels, EPA determined 
that some of the field residue trials were not independent, thus 
resulting in different inputs. Using the highest average RAC residues 
and average processing factors, EPA calculated tolerance levels for 
processed commodities that were generally lower than those requested 
and determined that the requested tolerances for residues in/on wheat 
and barley germ are not necessary as the expected residue levels are 
covered by the RAC tolerance levels.
    Consistent with 40 CFR 180.6, EPA is amending existing livestock 
commodity tolerances as necessary. As a result of increased dietary 
burdens resulting from the use on wheat and barley commodities, the 
existing tolerances of 1.5 ppm for residues in/on the meat byproducts 
of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep are increased to 2.0 ppm; and the 
existing tolerance of 0.15 ppm for residues in/on for hog meat 
byproducts is increased to 0.40 ppm.
    In addition, EPA changed the commodity terminology for aspirated 
grain fractions to grain, aspirated fractions in order to conform to 
terms used in the Agency's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary and 
amended the tolerance value for barley, hay from 0.3 ppm to 0.30 ppm to 
conform with the Agency policy to carry tolerance levels out two 
significant figures.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide 
bicyclopyrone in or on barley, bran at 0.15 ppm; barley, grain, at 0.07 
ppm; barley, hay at 0.30 ppm; barley, straw at 0.40 ppm; cattle, meat 
byproducts at 2.0 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 2.0 ppm; grain, 
aspirated fractions at 0.30 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm; 
horse, meat byproducts at 2.0 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 2.0 ppm; 
wheat, bran at 0.07 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.40 ppm; wheat, grain, at 
0.04 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.80 ppm; and wheat, straw at 0.50 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 action 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 action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(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 (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: November 3, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
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. In Sec.  180.682, revise the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 86966]]

Sec.  180.682   Bicyclopyrone; tolerances for residues.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, bran............................................            0.15
Barley, grain...........................................            0.07
Barley, hay.............................................            0.30
Barley, straw...........................................            0.40
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................             2.0
Corn, field, forage.....................................            0.30
Corn, field, grain......................................            0.02
Corn, field, stover.....................................            0.40
Corn, pop, grain........................................            0.02
Corn, pop, stover.......................................            0.40
Corn, sweet, forage.....................................            0.40
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.........            0.03
Corn, sweet, stover.....................................            0.70
Goat, meat byproducts...................................             2.0
Grain, aspirated fractions..............................            0.30
Hog, meat byproducts....................................            0.40
Horse, meat byproducts..................................             2.0
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................             2.0
Sugarcane, cane \1\.....................................            0.02
Wheat, bran.............................................            0.07
Wheat, forage...........................................            0.40
Wheat, grain............................................            0.04
Wheat, hay..............................................            0.80
Wheat, straw............................................            0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. Registration on Sugarcane as of March 13, 2015.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-29005 Filed 12-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P