Quinoxyfen; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions, 4026-4032 [05-1638]
Download as PDF
4026
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding
County, Perry County, Pickaway
County, Pike County, Portage County,
Preble County, Putnam County,
Richland County, Ross County,
Sandusky County (except Martin
Marietta Chemicals), Scioto County,
Seneca County, Shelby County,
Trumbull County, Tuscarawas County,
Union County, Van Wert County,
Vinton County, Warren County,
Washington County, Wayne County,
Williams County, Wood County, and
Wyandot County.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) No Action—EPA is neither
approving nor disapproving the
emission limitations for the following
counties/sources pending further
review: Franklin County, Sandusky
County (Martin Marietta Chemicals),
and Stark County.
*
*
*
*
*
(15) On September 27, 2003, Ohio
submitted maintenance plans for sulfur
dioxide in Cuyahoga County and Lucas
County.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 81—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 81.336 the Ohio-SO2 table is
amended by revising the entry for
Cuyahoga County to read as follows:
I
§ 81.336
Ohio.
OHIO-SO2
Does not meet
primary
standards
Designated area
*
*
*
*
Cuyahoga County .............................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0009; FRL–7695–3]
Quinoxyfen; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
time-limited tolerances for residues of
quinoxyfen in or on vegetable, cucurbit,
subgroup 9A; pumpkin; and squash,
winter. This action is in response to
EPA’s granting of an emergency
exemption under section 18 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing
use of the pesticide on melons, winter
squash, and pumpkins. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible
level for residues of quinoxyfen in these
food commodities. These tolerances will
expire and are revoked on December 31,
2007.
DATES: This regulation is effective
January 28, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
*
........................ ........................
*
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0009. All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6463; e-mail address:
madden.barbara@epa.gov.
Jkt 205001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Cannot be
classified
Better than
national
standards
*
........................
*
*
*
INFORMATION.
[FR Doc. 05–1441 Filed 1–27–05; 8:45 am]
Does not meet
secondary
standards
*
X
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
EPA, on its own initiative, in
accordance with sections 408(e) and 408
(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a,
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
is establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline, in or on
vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A;
pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30
parts per million (ppm). These
tolerances will expire and are revoked
on December 31, 2007. EPA will publish
a document in the Federal Register to
remove the revoked tolerance from the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA
requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance for pesticide
chemical residues in food that will
result from the use of a pesticide under
an emergency exemption granted by
EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such
tolerances can be established without
providing notice or period for public
comment. EPA does not intend for its
actions on section 18 related tolerances
to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 of the FFDCA
and the new safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions. Section
408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to
establish a tolerance or an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance on
its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside
party.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . . .’’
Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes
EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if
EPA determines that ‘‘emergency
conditions exist which require such
exemption.’’ This provision was not
amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 (FQPA). EPA has
established regulations governing such
emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part
166.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
III. Emergency Exemption for
Quinoxyfen on Melons, Winter Squash,
and Pumpkins and FFDCA Tolerances
There are protectant fungicides
registered that are effective in
controlling powdery mildew on the
upper leaf surfaces of melons, winter
squash and pumpkins when the
fungicide is in direct contact with the
pathogen. However, these fungicides do
not provide protection against the
pathogen growing on the undersides of
the leaves. During the 2003 growing
season, resistance of powdery mildew
control from the systemic registered
alternatives (strobilurins and
myclobutanil) was confirmed. The
registered strobilurins and myclobutanil
proved to be ineffective in controlling
powdery mildew in melons, winter
squash and pumpkins. The Agency
believes that under high disease
pressure and disease favorable weather
conditions 20–30 percent yield losses
are likely without the use of quinoxyfen.
EPA has authorized under FIFRA
section 18 the use of quinoxyfen on
melons, winter squash, and pumpkins
for control of powdery mildew in New
York. After having reviewed the
submission, EPA concurs that
emergency conditions exist for this
State.
As part of its assessment of this
emergency exemption, EPA assessed the
potential risks presented by residues of
quinoxyfen in or on cantaloupe,
muskmelon, watermelon, watermelon
juice, winter squash, pumpkin and
pumpkin seed. In doing so, EPA
considered the safety standard in
section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and
EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section
18. Consistent with the need to move
quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine
situation and to ensure that the resulting
food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing
this tolerance without notice and
opportunity for public comment as
provided in section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA. Although this tolerance will
expire and is revoked on December 31,
2007, under section 408(l)(5) of the
FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in
excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerance remaining in or on melon
subgroup 9A, pumpkin and winter
squash after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide is
applied in a manner that was lawful
under FIFRA, and the residues do not
exceed a level that was authorized by
this tolerance at the time of that
application. EPA will take action to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4027
revoke this tolerance earlier if any
experience with, scientific data on, or
other relevant information on this
pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
Because this tolerance is being
approved under emergency conditions,
EPA has not made any decisions about
whether quinoxyfen meets EPA’s
registration requirements for use on
melons, winter squash, and pumpkins
or whether a permanent tolerance for
these uses would be appropriate. Under
these circumstances, EPA does not
believe that these tolerances serve as a
basis for registration of quinoxyfen by a
State for special local needs under
FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these
tolerances serve as the basis for any
State other than New York to use this
pesticide on these crops under section
18 of FIFRA without following all
provisions of EPA’s regulations
implementing FIFRA section 18 as
identified in 40 CFR part 166. For
additional information regarding the
emergency exemption for quinoxyfen,
contact the Agency’s Registration
Division at the address provided under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. For
further discussion of the regulatory
requirements of section 408 of the
FFDCA and a complete description of
the risk assessment process, see the final
rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances
(62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997)
(FRL–5754–7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of the FFDCA, 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 quinoxyfen and to make
a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the
FFDCA, for a time-limited tolerance for
residues of quinoxyfen in or on
vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A;
pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30
ppm. EPA’s assessment of the dietary
exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Endpoints
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. The toxicology
database for quinoxyfen is complete.
EPA has considered available
information concerning the variability
of the sensitivities of major identifiable
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4028
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The nature of the
toxic effects caused by quinoxyfen are
fully discussed in a Federal Register
Notice published on September 29, 2003
(68 FR 55849) that established
tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen on
cherries, grapes and hops. Please refer to
that document for a complete discussion
of the no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) and the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose, typically the NOAEL, from
the toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment is
used to estimate the toxicological
endpoint. However, the lowest dose at
which adverse effects of concern are
identified the LOAEL is sometimes used
for risk assessment if no NOAEL was
achieved in the toxicology study
selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is
applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory
animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members
of the human population as well as
other unknowns. An UF of 100 is
routinely used, 10X to account for
interspecies differences and 10X for
intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other
than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to
calculate an acute or chronic reference
dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where
the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided
by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/
UF). Where an additional safety factor
(SF) is retained due to concerns unique
to the FQPA, this additional factor is
applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD
by such additional factor. The acute or
chronic Population Adjusted Dose
(aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the
RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA
SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments
(other than cancer) the UF is used to
determine the level of concern (LOC).
For example, when 100 is the
appropriate UF (10X to account for
interspecies differences and 10X for
intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100.
To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL
to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE)
= NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and
compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology
(Q*) is the primary method currently
used by the Agency to quantify
carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of cancer risk.
A Q* is calculated and used to estimate
risk which represents a probability of
occurrence of additional cancer cases
(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x10-6 or one
in a million). Under certain specific
circumstances, MOE calculations will
be used for the carcinogenic risk
assessment. In thisnon-linear approach,
a ‘‘point of departure’’ is identified
below which carcinogenic effects are
not expected. The point of departure is
typically a NOAEL based on an
endpoint related to cancer effects
though it may be a different value
derived from the dose response curve.
To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of
departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point
of departure/exposures) is calculated. A
summary of the toxicological endpoints
for Quinoxyfen used for human risk
assessment is shown in the following
Table 1:
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR QUINOXYFEN FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT
Dose Used in Risk Assessment,
UF
Exposure Scenario
FQPA SF* and Level of Concern
for Risk Assessment
Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute dietary (females 13-50 years
of age) and Acute dietary (general population including infants
and children)
Not applicable
Not applicable
There were no toxic effects
attributable to a single
dose.Therefore, an endpoint of
concern was not identified to
quantitateacute-dietary risk to
the general population or to
the subpopulationfemales 1350 years old
Chronic Dietary (All populations)
NOAEL = 20 milligram/kilogram/
day (mg/kg/day)UF = 100
Chronic RfD = 0.20 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1cPAD =
chronic RfD/FQPA SF = 0.20 mg/
kg/day
Combined chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in rat
LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day, based
upon increases in severity
ofchronic progressive
glomerulonephropathy in the
males and minimal
decreasesin body weight and
body weightgain in both sexes
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
Not applicable
No evidence of carcinogenicity
in rats and mice
*The
reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.
B. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.588) for the
residues of quinoxyfen, in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities
including sweet and tart cherries, hops
and grapes. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary
exposures from quinoxyfen in food as
follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative Acute
dietary 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 one day or single exposure. There
were no toxic effects attributable to a
single dose. Therefore, an endpoint of
concern was not identified to quantitate
acute-dietary risk to the general
population or to the subpopulation
females 13–50 years old. As a result, no
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
acute risk is expected from exposure to
quinoxyfen and hence no quantitative
acute dietary risk assessment was
performed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
this chronic dietary risk assessment EPA
used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model software with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEMFCIDTM ) which incorporates food
consumption data as reported by
respondents in the USDA 1994–1996
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
and 1998 nationwide Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) and accumulated exposure to
the chemical for each commodity. The
following assumptions were made: An
unrefined, Tier 1 chronic-dietary
exposure assessment using tolerancelevel residues and assuming 100% CT
for all proposed commodities, and
default DEEM Version 7.76 processing
factors for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Quinoxyfen has been
classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, a
quantitative exposure assessment was
not conducted to assess cancer risk.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring exposure data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for
quinoxyfen in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have
comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates
are made by reliance on simulation or
modeling taking into account data on
the physical characteristics of
quinoxyfen.
The Agency uses the First Index
Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the
Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis
Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to
produce estimates of pesticide
concentrations in an index reservoir.
The Screening Concentrations in
Groundwater (SCI-GROW) model is
used to predict pesticide concentrations
in shallow ground water. For a
screening-level assessment for surface
water EPA will generally use FIRST (a
Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/
EXAMS (a Tier 2 model). The FIRST
model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS
model that uses a specific high-end
runoff scenario for pesticides. While
both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS
incorporate an index reservoir
environment, the PRZM/EXAMS model
includes a percent crop area factor as an
adjustment to account for the maximum
percent crop coverage within a
watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include
consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw
water for distribution as drinking water
would likely have on the removal of
pesticides from the source water. The
primary use of these models by the
Agency at this stage is to provide a
coarse screen for sorting out pesticides
for which it is highly unlikely that
drinking water concentrations would
ever exceed human health levels of
concern.
Since the models used are considered
to be screening tools in the risk
assessment process, the Agency does
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
not use estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) from these
models to quantify drinking water
exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD.
Instead drinking water levels of
comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated
and used as a point of comparison
against the model estimates of a
pesticide’s concentration in water.
DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on
a pesticide’s concentration in drinking
water in light of total aggregate exposure
to a pesticide in food, and from
residential uses. Since DWLOCs address
total aggregate exposure to quinoxyfen
they are further discussed in the
aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW
models the EECs of quinoxyfen for
chronic exposures are estimated to be
0.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 0.006 ppb for ground water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Quinoxyfen is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative exposure to substances
with a common mechanism oftoxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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 does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether
quinoxyfen has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances or how
to include this pesticide in a cumulative
risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides
for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity,
quinoxyfen does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not
assumed that quinoxyfen has 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 the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide
Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26,
1997).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4029
C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of the
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold 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 data base on
toxicity and exposure unless EPA
determines that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and
children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments
either directly through use of a MOE
analysis or through using uncertainty
(safety) factors in calculating a dose
level that poses no appreciable risk to
humans.
2. Developmental toxicity studies. In a
prenatal developmental study in rats the
Maternal and Developmental NOAELs
were 1,000 mg/kg/day and no LOAELs
were identified. In a prenatal
developmental study in rabbits the
Maternal NOAEL was 80 mg/kg/day and
the LOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day based on
inanition, clinical signs, decreased body
weights, body weight gains, and food
consumption and on increased
incidences of abortion. The
Developmental NOAEL is 80 mg/kg/day
and the LOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day based
on increased incidences of abortion.
3. Reproductive toxicity study. In a
reproduction toxicity study in rats the
Parental/Systemic NOAEL was 100 mg/
kg/day and no LOAEL was identified.
The Reproductive NOAEL was 100 mg/
kg/day and no LOAEL was identified.
The Offspring NOAEL was 20 mg/kg/
day and the LOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day
based on a minimal decrease in F1a pup
weights.
4. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no quantitative or qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility of
rat and rabbit fetuses to in utero
exposure in developmental studies.
There is evidence of increased
quantitative susceptibility (minimal
decrease in F1a pup weights) in the rat
multi-generation reproduction study,
but the concern is low since: (1) The
effects in pups are well-characterized
with a clear NOAEL; (2) the pup effects
are minimal at the LOAEL and only
noted in the first-generation offspring;
and, (3) the doses and endpoints
selected for regulatory purposes would
address the concerns of the pup effects
noted in the rat reproduction study.
Therefore, there are no residual
uncertainties for prenatal/postnatal
toxicity in this study.
5. Conclusion. There is a complete
toxicity data base for quinoxyfen and
exposure data are complete or are
estimated based on data that reasonably
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4030
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
accounts for potential exposures. There
are no residual uncertainties for
prenatal/postnatal toxicity. No
additional safety factor is needed for
database uncertainties. No clinical sign
of neurotoxicity or neuropathology was
seen in the data base. A developmental
neurotoxicity study is not required.
Therefore, EPA determined that the 10X
SF to protect infants and children
should be reduced to 1X.
D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
To estimate total aggregate exposure
to a pesticide from food, drinking water,
and residential uses, the Agency
calculates DWLOCs which are used as a
point of comparison against the model
estimates of a pesticide’s concentration
in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water.
DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on
a pesticide’s concentration in drinking
water in light of total aggregate exposure
to a pesticide in food and residential
uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the
Agency determines how much of the
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is
available for exposure through drinking
water e.g., allowable chronic water
exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average
food + chronic non-dietary, nonoccupational exposure). This allowable
exposure through drinking water is used
to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the
toxic endpoint, drinking water
consumption, and body weights. Default
body weights and consumption values
as used by the USEPA Office of Water
are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter
(L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult
female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default
body weights and drinking water
consumption values vary on an
individual basis. This variation will be
taken into account in more refined
screening-level and quantitative
drinking water exposure assessments.
Different populations will have different
DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is
calculated for each type of risk
assessment used: Acute, short-term,
intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and
groundwater are less than the calculated
DWLOCs, OPP concludes with
reasonable certainty that exposures to
quinoxyfen in drinking water (when
considered along with other sources of
exposure for which OPP has reliable
data) would not result in unacceptable
levels of aggregate human health risk at
this time. Because OPP considers the
aggregate risk resulting from multiple
exposure pathways associated with a
pesticide’s uses, levels of comparison in
drinking water may vary as those uses
change. If new uses are added in the
future, OPP will reassess the potential
impacts of quinoxyfen on drinking
water as a part of the aggregate risk
assessment process.
1. Acute risk. An endpoint of concern
was not identified to quantitate acutedietary risk to the general population or
to the subpopulation females 13–50
years old. As a result, no acute risk is
expected from exposure to quinoxyfen.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that exposure to quinoxyfen from food
will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for
the U.S. population, 1% of the cPAD for
all infants (<1 year old) and 2% of the
cPAD for children (1–2 years old), the
children subpopulation at greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses
for quinoxyfen that result in chronic
residential exposure to quinoxyfen. In
addition, there is potential for chronic
dietary exposure to quinoxyfen in
drinking water. After calculating
DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EECs for surface and ground water, EPA
does not expect the aggregate exposure
to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown
in Table 2 of this unit:
TABLE 2.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER) EXPOSURE TO QUINOXYFEN
cPAD mg/
kg/day
Population Subgroup
(Food) Surface Water
EEC (ppb)
% cPAD
Ground
Water EEC
(ppb)
Chronic
DWLOC
(ppb)
U.S. population
0.20
<1%
0.8
0.006
7000
All Infants (<1 year old)
0.20
1%
0.8
0.006
2000
Children (1-2 years old)
0.20
2%
0.8
0.006
2000
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term
risks. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure take into account
non-dietary, non-occupational plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Quinoxyfen is not
registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure.
Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum
of the risk from food and water, which
were previously addressed.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Quinoxyfen has been
classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore,
quinoxyfen is expected to pose at most
a negligible 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
population, and to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to quinoxyfen
residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
IR-4 has proposed a gas
chromatography (GC) method with
mass-selective detection (MSD) entitled
Determination of DE-795 Residues in
Grape Wine, Must, and Pomace
ERC95.26 (and its supplement S1) for
the enforcement of proposed tolerances
for residues of quinoxyfen in/on grapes,
cherries and hops. Method ERC 95.26 is
classified as acceptable and conforms
with the criteria of OPPTS GL 860.1340.
The petitioner has submitted a study
which investigated the behavior of
quinoxyfen through MRMs outlined in
FDA’s Pesticide Analytical Manual
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(PAM), Volume I, Appendix II. The
study summary reported that depending
on spike levels, certain MRM Protocols
(D, E, and F) yielded partial
(incomplete) to complete recoveries of
quinoxyfen in grapes (non-fatty matrix)
and ground beef (fatty matrix).
The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov..
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Mexican, Canadian or
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
established for quinoxyfen on sweet and
tart cherries, grapes, or hops. Therefore,
no compatibility problems exist for
these tolerances.
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-(4fluorophenoxy)quinoline in or on
vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A;
pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30
ppm.
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as
amended by the FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to
reflect the amendments made to the
FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue
to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the
necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA
provides essentially the same process
for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation
for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance issued by EPA under new
section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and
409 of the FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days,
rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an
Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
you must identify docket ID number
OPP–2005–0009 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk
on or before March 29, 2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection
must specify the specific provisions in
the regulation that you object to, and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of
the factual issues(s) on which a hearing
is requested, the requestor’s contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any
evidence relied upon by the objector (40
CFR 178.27). Information submitted in
connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of
the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver
your request to the Office of the Hearing
Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of
the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Office of the Hearing
Clerk is (202) 564–6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition
to filing an objection or hearing request
with the Hearing Clerk as described in
Unit VII..A., you should also send a
copy of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is
described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by the docket ID
number OPP–2005–0009, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001. In person or by courier, bring a
copy to the location of the PIRIB
described in ADDRESSES. You may also
send an electronic copy of your request
via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov.
Please use an ASCII file format and
avoid the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of
electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks
in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file
format. Do not include any CBI in your
electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a
Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted
if the Administrator determines that the
material submitted shows the following:
There is a genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility
that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established resolve
one or more of such issues in favor of
the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual
issues(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify
the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes timelimited tolerances under section 408 of
the FFDCA. The Office of Management
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4031
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
rule has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866 due to its
lack of significance, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). 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., or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104–4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency
action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
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), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a FIFRA
section 18 exemption under section 408
of the FFDCA, 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. In addition, the
Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect
on 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
4032
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This final rule
directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’
as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this 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 this final
rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:20 Jan 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
timothy. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues
of bifenazate in these feed commodities.
Dated: January 14, 2005.
These tolerances will expire and are
Betty Shackleford,
revoked on December 31, 2007.
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
DATES: This regulation is effective
of Pesticide Programs.
January 28, 2005. Objections and
I Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
requests for hearings must be received
amended as follows:
on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
PART 180—AMENDED
objection or hearing request follow the
I 1. The authority citation for part 180
detailed instructions as provided in
continues to read as follows:
Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
docket for this action under docket
I 2. Section 180.588 is amended by
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
adding text to paragraph (b) to read as
0012. All documents in the docket are
follows:
listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/
§ 180.588 Quinoxyfen; tolerances for
/www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
residues.
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
Time-limited tolerances are established
for residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen, material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
5,7-dichloro-4-(4publicly available only in hard copy
fluorophenoxy)quinoline in connection
form. Publicly available docket
with use of the pesticide under section
materials are available either
18 emergency exemptions granted by
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
EPA. The time-limited tolerances will
copy at the Public Information and
expire and are revoked on the date
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
specified in the following table:
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
Expiration/
Parts per
Commodity
revocation
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
million
date
through Friday, excluding legal
Pumpkin ............
0.30
12/31/07 holidays. The docket telephone number
Squash, winter ..
0.30
12/31/07 is (703) 305–5805.
Vegetable,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
cucurbit, subBarbara Madden, Registration Division
group 9A .......
0.30
12/31/07 (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
*
*
*
*
*
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
[FR Doc. 05–1638 Filed 1–27–05; 8:45 am]
(703) 305–6463; e-mail address:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
Madden.Barbara@epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0012; FRL–7696–2]
Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
time-limited tolerances for the
combined residues of bifenazate in or on
timothy hay and timothy forage. This
action is in response to EPA’s granting
of an emergency exemption under
section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
authorizing use of the pesticide on
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
40 CFR Part 180
PO 00000
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Sfmt 4700
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111)
• Animal production (NAICS code
112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 18 (Friday, January 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4026-4032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1638]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0009; FRL-7695-3]
Quinoxyfen; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of quinoxyfen in or on vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A;
pumpkin; and squash, winter. This action is in response to EPA's
granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of
the pesticide on melons, winter squash, and pumpkins. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of quinoxyfen in
these food commodities. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on
December 31, 2007.
DATES: This regulation is effective January 28, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0009. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S.
Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6463; e-mail address: madden.barbara@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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 111)
Animal production (NAICS 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408 (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a,
[[Page 4027]]
is establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen,
5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline, in or on vegetable,
cucurbit, subgroup 9A; pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30 parts per
million (ppm). These tolerances will expire and are revoked on December
31, 2007. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove
the revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 of the FFDCA and the new safety standard to
other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA
to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . .
.''
Section 18 of the FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or
State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that
``emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This
provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency
exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
III. Emergency Exemption for Quinoxyfen on Melons, Winter Squash, and
Pumpkins and FFDCA Tolerances
There are protectant fungicides registered that are effective in
controlling powdery mildew on the upper leaf surfaces of melons, winter
squash and pumpkins when the fungicide is in direct contact with the
pathogen. However, these fungicides do not provide protection against
the pathogen growing on the undersides of the leaves. During the 2003
growing season, resistance of powdery mildew control from the systemic
registered alternatives (strobilurins and myclobutanil) was confirmed.
The registered strobilurins and myclobutanil proved to be ineffective
in controlling powdery mildew in melons, winter squash and pumpkins.
The Agency believes that under high disease pressure and disease
favorable weather conditions 20-30 percent yield losses are likely
without the use of quinoxyfen. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section
18 the use of quinoxyfen on melons, winter squash, and pumpkins for
control of powdery mildew in New York. After having reviewed the
submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for this State.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of quinoxyfen in or on
cantaloupe, muskmelon, watermelon, watermelon juice, winter squash,
pumpkin and pumpkin seed. In doing so, EPA considered the safety
standard in section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the
necessary tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be
consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the
resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance
without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in
section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA. Although this tolerance will expire and
is revoked on December 31, 2007, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA,
residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerance remaining in or on melon subgroup 9A, pumpkin and winter
squash after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is
applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do
not exceed a level that was authorized by this tolerance at the time of
that application. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier
if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant
information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether quinoxyfen
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on melons, winter squash,
and pumpkins or whether a permanent tolerance for these uses would be
appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these
tolerances serve as a basis for registration of quinoxyfen by a State
for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these
tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than New York to use
this pesticide on these crops under section 18 of FIFRA without
following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing FIFRA
section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for quinoxyfen, contact the Agency's
Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, 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
quinoxyfen and to make a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for a time-limited
tolerance for residues of quinoxyfen in or on vegetable, cucurbit,
subgroup 9A; pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30 ppm. EPA's assessment
of the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing the
tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Endpoints
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. The toxicology database for
quinoxyfen is complete. EPA has considered available information
concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable
[[Page 4028]]
subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of
the toxic effects caused by quinoxyfen are fully discussed in a Federal
Register Notice published on September 29, 2003 (68 FR 55849) that
established tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen on cherries, grapes
and hops. Please refer to that document for a complete discussion of
the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose, typically the NOAEL, from the toxicology study identified
as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the
toxicological endpoint. However, the lowest dose at which adverse
effects of concern are identified the LOAEL is sometimes used for risk
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected.
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for
interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the
appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor (SF)
is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor
is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor.
The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a
modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used
to determine the level of concern (LOC). For example, when 100 is the
appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for
intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of
the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is
calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q*
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases
(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x10-6 or one in a million).
Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for
the carcinogenic risk assessment. In thisnon-linear approach, a ``point
of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not
expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an
endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value
derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the
point of departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point of
departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for Quinoxyfen used for human risk assessment is shown in the
following Table 1:
Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Quinoxyfen for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF* and Level of
Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Concern for Risk Study and Toxicological
Assessment, UF Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (females 13-50 years Not applicable Not applicable There were no toxic effects
of age) and Acute dietary (general attributable to a single
population including infants and dose.Therefore, an endpoint
children) of concern was not
identified to
quantitateacute-dietary risk
to the general population or
to the subpopulationfemales
13-50 years old
------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 20 milligram/ FQPA SF = 1cPAD = Combined chronic toxicity/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/ chronic RfD/FQPA SF = carcinogenicity study in rat
day)UF = 100 0.20 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day, based
Chronic RfD = 0.20 mg/ upon increases in severity
kg/day. ofchronic progressive
glomerulonephropathy in the
males and minimal
decreasesin body weight and
body weightgain in both
sexes
------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) classified as not Not applicable No evidence of
likely to be carcinogenicity in rats and
carcinogenic to mice
humans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\The reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.
B. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.588) for the residues of quinoxyfen, in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities including sweet and tart
cherries, hops and grapes. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to
assess dietary exposures from quinoxyfen in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative Acute dietary 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 one day or single exposure. There were no toxic effects
attributable to a single dose. Therefore, an endpoint of concern was
not identified to quantitate acute-dietary risk to the general
population or to the subpopulation females 13-50 years old. As a
result, no acute risk is expected from exposure to quinoxyfen and hence
no quantitative acute dietary risk assessment was performed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\ ) which incorporates
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
[[Page 4029]]
and 1998 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity.
The following assumptions were made: An unrefined, Tier 1 chronic-
dietary exposure assessment using tolerance-level residues and assuming
100% CT for all proposed commodities, and default DEEM Version 7.76
processing factors for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Quinoxyfen has been classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, a quantitative exposure assessment
was not conducted to assess cancer risk.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for quinoxyfen in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of quinoxyfen.
The Agency uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or
the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS)
to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir.
The Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) model is used to
predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water. For a
screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will generally use
FIRST (a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model). The
FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific
high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and PRZM/
EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, the PRZM/EXAMS model
includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the
maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for
which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would
ever exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify
drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point
of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's
concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a
pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate
exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since
DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to quinoxyfen they are further
discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the EECs of quinoxyfen for
chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.8 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.006 ppb for ground 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). Quinoxyfen is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism
oftoxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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 does not have, at this time, available data to determine
whether quinoxyfen has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity,
quinoxyfen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has not assumed that quinoxyfen has 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 the final rule
for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).
C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold 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 data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA
risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or
through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level
that poses no appreciable risk to humans.
2. Developmental toxicity studies. In a prenatal developmental
study in rats the Maternal and Developmental NOAELs were 1,000 mg/kg/
day and no LOAELs were identified. In a prenatal developmental study in
rabbits the Maternal NOAEL was 80 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 200 mg/
kg/day based on inanition, clinical signs, decreased body weights, body
weight gains, and food consumption and on increased incidences of
abortion. The Developmental NOAEL is 80 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL is 200
mg/kg/day based on increased incidences of abortion.
3. Reproductive toxicity study. In a reproduction toxicity study in
rats the Parental/Systemic NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day and no LOAEL was
identified. The Reproductive NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day and no LOAEL was
identified. The Offspring NOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 100
mg/kg/day based on a minimal decrease in F1a pup weights.
4. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat and rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. There is
evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility (minimal decrease in
F1a pup weights) in the rat multi-generation reproduction
study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-
characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the pup effects are minimal at
the LOAEL and only noted in the first-generation offspring; and, (3)
the doses and endpoints selected for regulatory purposes would address
the concerns of the pup effects noted in the rat reproduction study.
Therefore, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal/postnatal
toxicity in this study.
5. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for
quinoxyfen and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on
data that reasonably
[[Page 4030]]
accounts for potential exposures. There are no residual uncertainties
for prenatal/postnatal toxicity. No additional safety factor is needed
for database uncertainties. No clinical sign of neurotoxicity or
neuropathology was seen in the data base. A developmental neurotoxicity
study is not required. Therefore, EPA determined that the 10X SF to
protect infants and children should be reduced to 1X.
D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food,
drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs
which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of
a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper
limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of
total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses.
In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through
drinking water e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) =
cPAD - (average food + chronic non-dietary, non-occupational exposure).
This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a
DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water
consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption
values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate
DWLOCs: 2 liter (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and
1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption
values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into
account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water
exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs.
Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used:
Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the
calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that
exposures to quinoxyfen in drinking water (when considered along with
other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not
result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this
time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple
exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of
comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses
are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of
quinoxyfen on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment
process.
1. Acute risk. An endpoint of concern was not identified to
quantitate acute-dietary risk to the general population or to the
subpopulation females 13-50 years old. As a result, no acute risk is
expected from exposure to quinoxyfen.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
quinoxyfen from food will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population, 1% of the cPAD for all infants (<1 year old) and 2% of the
cPAD for children (1-2 years old), the children subpopulation at
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for quinoxyfen that
result in chronic residential exposure to quinoxyfen. In addition,
there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to quinoxyfen in
drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs
for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in Table 2 of this unit:
Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to Quinoxyfen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Food)
cPAD mg/kg/ Surface Ground Chronic
Population Subgroup day % cPAD Water EEC Water EEC DWLOC (ppb)
(ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 0.20 <1% 0.8 0.006 7000
------------------------------------------------
All Infants (<1 year old) 0.20 1% 0.8 0.006 2000
------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) 0.20 2% 0.8 0.006 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-
term aggregate exposure take into account non-dietary, non-occupational
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Quinoxyfen is not registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from food and water, which were previously
addressed.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Quinoxyfen has been
classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Therefore,
quinoxyfen is expected to pose at most a negligible 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, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to quinoxyfen residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
IR-4 has proposed a gas chromatography (GC) method with mass-
selective detection (MSD) entitled Determination of DE-795 Residues in
Grape Wine, Must, and Pomace ERC95.26 (and its supplement S1) for the
enforcement of proposed tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen in/on
grapes, cherries and hops. Method ERC 95.26 is classified as acceptable
and conforms with the criteria of OPPTS GL 860.1340. The petitioner has
submitted a study which investigated the behavior of quinoxyfen through
MRMs outlined in FDA's Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM), Volume I,
Appendix II. The study summary reported that depending on spike levels,
certain MRM Protocols (D, E, and F) yielded partial (incomplete) to
complete recoveries of quinoxyfen in grapes (non-fatty matrix) and
ground beef (fatty matrix).
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov..
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Mexican, Canadian or Codex Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) established for quinoxyfen on sweet and tart cherries, grapes,
or hops. Therefore, no compatibility problems exist for these
tolerances.
[[Page 4031]]
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-
4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline in or on vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A;
pumpkin; and squash, winter at 0.30 ppm.
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the
FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0009 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before March 29,
2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII..A.,
you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail
your copies, identified by the docket ID number OPP-2005-0009, to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources
and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov.
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes time-limited tolerances under section
408 of the FFDCA. 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). 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., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). 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);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA
section 18 exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, 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. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States,
[[Page 4032]]
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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: January 14, 2005.
Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
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 180.588 is amended by adding text to paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.588 Quinoxyfen; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of the fungicide quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-
(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline in connection with use of the pesticide
under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. The time-limited
tolerances will expire and are revoked on the date specified in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per revocation
million date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumpkin....................................... 0.30 12/31/07
Squash, winter................................ 0.30 12/31/07
Vegetable, cucurbit, subgroup 9A.............. 0.30 12/31/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-1638 Filed 1-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S