Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions, 17908-17916 [05-7046]
Download as PDF
17908
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
Cattle, meat ......
*
*
Cherimoya ........
*
*
Citrus, dried
pulp ...............
Citrus, oil ...........
*
*
Custard, apple ..
Feijoa ................
Fruit, Citrus,
Group 10 .......
Fruit, Pome,
Crop Group
11 ..................
*
*
Goat, kidney .....
Goat, meat ........
*
*
Guava ...............
*
*
Hog, kidney .......
Hog, meat .........
*
*
Horse, kidney ....
Horse, meat ......
*
*
Ilama .................
Jaboticaba ........
*
*
Lettuce, head ....
Lettuce, leaf ......
Mamey sapote ..
Mango ...............
*
*
Papaya ..............
Passion fruit ......
Peach ................
*
*
Sapodilla ...........
*
*
Sheep, kidney ...
Sheep, meat .....
*
*
Soursop ............
*
*
Star apple .........
Starfruit .............
Sugar apple ......
*
*
Vegetable,
Cucurbit,
Group 9 .........
Wax jambu ........
*
*
*
Expiration/
Revocation
Date
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
0.05
*
0.30
*
*
*
7.5
80
*
0.30
0.30
*
4.0
*
0.05
0.05
*
0.30
*
0.05
0.05
*
0.05
0.05
*
0.30
0.30
*
5.0
13.0
0.30
0.30
*
0.30
0.30
9.0
*
0.30
*
0.05
0.05
*
0.30
*
0.30
0.30
0.30
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
None
[OPP–2005–0054; FRL–7701–6]
None
Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerances for
Emergency Exemptions
*
*
Environmental Protection
None Agency (EPA).
None
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
*
None
None
None
None
*
None
None
*
None
*
None
None
*
None
None
*
None
None
*
None
None
None
None
*
None
None
None
*
None
*
None
None
*
None
*
None
None
None
*
0.50
0.30
*
40 CFR Part 180
*
2.5
*
None
None
*
[FR Doc. 05–7066 Filed 4–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:37 Apr 07, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Jkt 205001
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
time-limited tolerances for combined
residues of triflumizole in or on parsley,
leaves; dandelion, leaves; swiss chard;
collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens;
cabbage, chinese, napa; broccoli; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro). 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
parsley; dandelion; swiss chard;
collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens;
cabbage, chinese, napa; broccoli; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro). This
regulation establishes maximum
permissible levels for residues of
triflumizole in these food commodities.
These tolerances will expire and are
revoked on June 30, 2008.
DATES: This regulation is effective April
8, 2005. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 7, 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–
0054. 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:
Libby Pemberton, Registration Division
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9364; e-mail address: Sec-18Mailbox@epamail.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 code 111)
• Animal production (NAICS code
112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed 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,
is establishing time-limited tolerances
for combined residues of the fungicide
triflumizole and its metabolites
containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound, in
or on parsley, leaves at 9.0 parts per
million (ppm); dandelion, leaves at 7.0
(ppm); swiss chard at 7.0 (ppm);
collards at 9.0 ppm; kale at 9.0 ppm;
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
kohlrabi at 9.0 ppm; mustard greens at
9.0 ppm; cabbage, chinese, napa at 9.0
ppm; broccoli at 1.0 ppm; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro) at 9.0 ppm.
These tolerances will expire and are
revoked on June 30, 2008. EPA will
publish a document in the Federal
Register to remove the revoked
tolerances 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
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.’’ EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency
exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
III. Emergency Exemption for
Triflumizole on Various Commodities
and FFDCA Tolerances
Texas has declared a crisis exemption
under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
triflumizole on parsley; dandelion;
swiss chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi;
mustard greens; cabbage, chinese, napa;
broccoli; and coriander, leaves (cilantro)
for control of powdery mildew. Texas
states the effective control of powdery
mildew over the 70 to 90–day growing
season requires two additional
applications of a systemic pesticide
beyond those permitted on the currently
registered alternative labels.
As part of its assessment of this
emergency exemption, EPA assessed the
potential risks presented by residues of
triflumizole in or on parsley; dandelion;
swiss chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi;
mustard greens; cabbage, chinese napa;
broccoli; and coriander, leaves
(cilantro). In doing so, EPA considered
the safety standard in section 408(b)(2)
of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the
necessary time-limited tolerances 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 these
time-limited tolerances without notice
and opportunity for public comment as
provided in section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA. Although these tolerances will
expire and are revoked on June 30,
2008, under section 408(l)(5) of the
FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in
excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerances remaining in or on parsley,
leaves; dandelion, leaves; swiss chard;
collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens;
cabbage, chinese napa; broccoli; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro) 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 these tolerances at the
time of that application. EPA will take
action to revoke these tolerances earlier
if any experience with, scientific data
on, or other relevant information on this
pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
Because these tolerances are being
approved under emergency conditions,
EPA has not made any decisions about
whether triflumizole meets EPA’s
registration requirements for use on
parsley; dandelion; swiss chard;
collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens;
cabbage, chinese napa; broccoli; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro) or whether
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17909
permanent tolerances for this use would
be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe
that these tolerances serve as a basis for
registration of triflumizole 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 Texas
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 triflumizole,
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 triflumizole and to make
a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the
FFDCA, for time-limited tolerances for
combined residues of triflumizole in or
on parsley, leaves at 9.0 parts per
million (ppm); dandelion, leaves at 7.0
(ppm); swiss chard at 7.0 (ppm);
collards at 9.0 ppm; kale at 9.0 ppm;
kohlrabi at 9.0 ppm; mustard greens at
9.0 ppm; cabbage, chinese, napa; at 9.0
ppm; broccoli at 1.0 ppm; and
coriander, leaves at 9.0 ppm. EPA’s
assessment of the dietary exposures and
risks associated with establishing the
tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which no adverse effects
are observed (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
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
17910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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). The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA) added to FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(C) an additional safety factor
to protect children’s health. Where this
additional FQPA safety factor is
retained, 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 x 10-6 or one
in a million). Under certain specific
circumstances, MOE calculations will
be used for the carcinogenic risk
assessment. In this non- 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 triflumizole used for human risk
assessment is shown in the following
Table 1:
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR TRIFLUMIZOLE FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK
ASSESSMENT1
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF
FQPA SF and Endpoint for
Risk Assessment
Acute Dietary (females 13-50
years of age)
NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1X
aPAD = acute RfD/FQPA
SF = 0.1 mg/kg/day
Developmental Toxicity Study - Rat
Developmental LOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day based
on decreased numbers of viable fetuses, increased dead or resorbed fetuses, increased
numbers of late resorptions, decreased fetal
body weight, and increased incidences of
cervical ribs
Acute Dietary (general U.S. population) (including infant and
children)
NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/kg/
day
FQPA SF = 1X
aPAD = acute RfD/FQPA
SF = 0.03 mg/kg/day
Acute Neurotoxicity Study - Rat
LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on functional
observational
battery
findings
(neuromuscular impairment) and decreased locomotor activity
Chronic Dietary (all populations)
NOAEL= 1.5 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
Chronic RfD = 0.015 mg/
kg/day
FQPA SF = 1X
cPAD = chronic/RfD
FQPA SF = 0.015 mg/kg/
day
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
Reproductive LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day based
on increased gestation length in dams of the
F3a interval
Short-Term Oral (1-30 days)
(Residential)
Oral NOAEL = 8.5 mg/kg/
day
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day, based on decreased
body weight gain in pups during lactation
Intermediate-Term Oral (1-6
months)
(Residential)
Oral NOAEL = 8.5 mg/kg/
day
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day, based on decreased
body weight gain in pups during lactation
and decreased body weight and body weight
gain in parental animals
Short-Term Dermal (1-30 days)
(Occupational/Residential)
Oral NOAEL= 8.5 mg/kg/
day (dermal absorption
rate = 3.5%)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Occupational)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day, based on decreased
body weight gain in pups during lactation
Intermediate- and Long-Term
Dermal (1-6 months and 6
month or longer)
(Occupational/Residential)
Oral NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/
day (dermal absorption
rate = 3.5%)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Occupational)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day based on increased
gestation length in the dams of the F3a interval
Exposure Scenario
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Study and Toxicological Effects
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
17911
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR TRIFLUMIZOLE FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK
ASSESSMENT1—Continued
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF
FQPA SF and Endpoint for
Risk Assessment
Short-Term Inhalation (1-30
days)
(Occupational/Residential)
Oral NOAEL= 8.5 mg/kg/
day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Occupational)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day, based on decreased
body weight gain in pups during lactation
Intermediate- and Long-Term Inhalation (1-6 months and 6
month or longer)
(Occupational/Residential)
Oral NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/
day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Occupational)
LOC for MOE = 100
(Residential, includes the
FQPA SF)
Multi-generation Reproduction Study - Rat
LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day based on increased
gestation length in the dams of the F3a interval
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Evidence for non-carcinogenicity for humans
Not applicable
Combined Chronic
Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study - Rat
Carcinogenicity Study - Mouse
No evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice
Exposure Scenario
Study and Toxicological Effects
1UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern.
B. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.476) for the
combined residues of triflumizole, in or
on a variety of raw agricultural
commodities. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary
exposures from triflumizole in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk
assessments are performed for a fooduse 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. The Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMTM)
analysis evaluated the individual food
consumption as reported by
respondents in the USDA 1994–1996
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 for
the acute exposure assessments:
Tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated for all registered and proposed
uses.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
this chronic dietary risk assessment the
DEEMTM analysis evaluated the
individual food consumption as
reported by respondents in the USDA
1994–1996 and 1998 nationwide CSFII
and accumulated exposure to the
chemical for each commodity. The
following assumptions were made for
the chronic exposure assessments: A
refined, chronic dietary exposure
assessment was performed for the
general U.S. population and various
population subgroups using anticipated
residues (ARs) from average field trial
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
residues for apple, grape, pear, cherry,
cucurbit, strawberry, and milk
commodities; registered and proposed
tolerances for all other commodities;
percent crop treated (CT) information
for apple, grape and pear commodities;
and 100% CT information for all other
uses.
iii. Cancer. Triflumizole has been
classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, a
quantitative exposure assessment was
not conducted to assess cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of the 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 chemicals
that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must
pursuant to section 408(f)(1) require 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. Following the initial data
submission, EPA is authorized to
require similar data on a time frame it
deems appropriate. For the present
action, EPA will issue such Data CallIns for information relating to
anticipated residues as are required by
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Such Data Call-Ins will be
required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of this
tolerance.
The Agency used PCT information for
the registered uses on grape, apple, and
pear. EPA based these assumptions on
use data for the period 1996 to 1997 and
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1998. For all other registered uses as
well as these uses, EPA assumed that
100% of the U.S. crop would be treated
with triflumizole.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions previously discussed have
been met. With respect to Condition 1,
PCT estimates are derived from Federal
and private market survey data, which
are reliable and have a valid basis. EPA
uses a weighted average PCT for chronic
dietary exposure estimates. This
weighted average PCT figure is derived
by averaging State-level data for a
period of up to 10 years, and weighting
for the more robust and recent data. A
weighted average of the PCT reasonably
represents a person’s dietary exposure
over a lifetime, and is unlikely to
underestimate exposure to an individual
because of the fact that pesticide use
patterns (both regionally and nationally)
tend to change continuously over time,
such that an individual is unlikely to be
exposed to more than the average PCT
over a lifetime. For acute dietary
exposure estimates, EPA uses an
estimated maximum PCT. The exposure
estimates resulting from this approach
reasonably represent the highest levels
to which an individual could be
exposed, and are unlikely to
underestimate an individual’s acute
dietary exposure. The Agency is
reasonably certain that the percentage of
the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and
3, 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
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
17912
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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 information on the
regional consumption of food to which
triflumizole may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring exposure data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for
triflumizole 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
triflumizole.
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 triflumizole
they are further discussed in the
aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW
models the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of triflumizole for
acute exposures are estimated to be 191
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 0.12 ppb for ground water. The
EECs for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 40 ppb for surface water
and 0.12 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).
Triflumizole is not registered for use
on any sites that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
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.’’
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to
triflumizole and any other substances
and triflumizole 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 triflumizole 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 policy statements
released by EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mechanism on EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) 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 database 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility demonstrated in
the oral prenatal developmental toxicity
studies in rats. Developmental toxicity
resulted in fetal death as compared to
maternal toxicity which included
decreases in body weight gain and food
consumption and increases in placental,
spleen and liver weights at the same
dosages. No quantitative or qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility was
demonstrated in the prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in
rabbits or the multi-generation
reproduction studies in rats. In the
rabbit developmental studies, 24–hour
fetal survival was decreased at the
highest dose tested. This endpoint is not
a recommended guideline parameter
and is generally believed to have limited
value in the assessment of development
toxicity; rather, it is more an indicator
of fetal endurance in the absence of
critical maternal care, following removal
from the uterus. The Hazard
Identification Assessment Review
Committee did not consider this effect
to be a measurement of treatmentrelated effects on fetal viability and,
thus, did not consider it to be relevant
to the assessment of fetal susceptibility.
There was no evidence of quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility in the 2–
generation reproduction study in rats. In
that study, increased gestation length
was observed at the study LOAEL. In
rats, this alteration in normal
reproductive function can result in
equally adverse consequences (i.e.,
mortality) in both dams and offspring.
3. Conclusion. In the Agency’s
previous triflumizole human health risk
assessment, the following toxicity
studies were determined to be data gaps:
A 28–day rat inhalation study Guideline
Number (GLN) 870.3465)), acute rat
neurotoxicity study (GLN 870.6200),
and subchronic rat neurotoxicity study
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(GLN 870.6200). The acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies have been
submitted, reviewed by the Agency and
determined to be acceptable. As a result,
the following has changed: (1) Selection
of an acute endpoint for the general U.S.
population (including infants and
children); and (2) the removal of the 3x
database uncertainty factor (UFDB). All
other aspects of the most recent risk
assessment remain unchanged.
As acceptable acute and sub-chronic
neurotoxicity studies have been
submitted, the Agency has determined
that the 3x UFDB should be removed
from the acute and chronic RfDs. In
addition, the FQPA SFC recommended
a special FQPA SF be reduced to 1x.
The Agency has re-evaluated the quality
of the exposure and hazard data; and,
based on these data, concluded that the
special FQPA SF remain at 1x. The
conclusion is based on the following:
• The toxicity database is complete
for FQPA assessment.
• There was no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the rabbit fetuses
following in utero exposure or the rat
following prenatal and postnatal
exposure in the rat reproduction study.
• There was evidence of qualitative
susceptibility in the developmental rat
study; however, there are no residual
uncertainties, and the use of the
developmental NOAEL and the
endpoint for the acute RfD for females
13 to 50 would be protective of the
prenatal toxicity following an acute
dietary exposure.
• There is no evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
in the rat developmental neurotoxicity
study.
• The acute dietary food exposure
assessment utilizes existing and
proposed tolerance level residues and
100% CT information for all
commodities. By using these screeninglevel assessments, actual exposures/
risks will not be underestimated.
• The chronic dietary food exposure
assessment utilizes ARs and % CT data
verified for several existing uses. For all
proposed use, tolerance-level residue
and 100% CT is assumed. The chronic
assessment is somewhat refined and
based on reliable data and will not
underestimate exposure/risk.
• The dietary drinking water
assessment utilizes water concentration
values generated by model and
associated modeling parameters which
are designed to provide conservative,
health-protective, high-end estimates of
water concentrations which will not
likely be exceeded.
• There are no registered or proposed
uses of triflumizole that would result in
residential exposure.
17913
(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
ground water are less than the
calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes
with reasonable certainty that exposures
to triflumizole 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 triflumizole on drinking
water as a part of the aggregate risk
assessment process.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food to triflumizole will
occupy 6% of the aPAD for the U.S.
population, 9% of the aPAD for females
13 to 49 years old, and 21% of the aPAD
for children 1 to 2 years old, the
population at greatest exposure. In
addition, despite the potential for acute
dietary exposure to triflumizole in
drinking water, after calculating
DWLOCs and comparing them to
conservative model EECs of triflumizole
in surface water and ground water, EPA
does not expect the aggregate exposure
to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown
in the following Table 2:
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 Populated
adjusted dose (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
TABLE 2.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ACUTE EXPOSURE TO TRIFLUMIZOLE
aPAD (mg/
kg)
Population Subgroup
U.S. population (total)
Surface
Water EEC
(ppb)
% aPAD
(Food)
Ground
Water EEC
(ppb)
Acute
DWLOC
(ppb)
0.25
5
191
0.12
8,300
Females, (13–49 years)
0.1
9
191
0.12
2,700
All Infants (<1 year old)
0.25
11
191
0.12
2,200
Children (1–2 years old)
0.25
21
191
0.12
2,000
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
that exposure to triflumizole from food
will utilize 5% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population, 4% of the cPAD for all
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
infants (<1 year old) and 13% of the
cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the
subpopulation at greatest exposure.
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
17914
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
There are no residential uses for
triflumizole that result in chronic
residential exposure to triflumizole. In
addition, despite the potential for
chronic dietary exposure to triflumizole
in drinking water, after calculating
DWLOCs and comparing them to
conservative model EECs of triflumizole
in surface water and ground water, EPA
does not expect the aggregate exposure
to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown
in the following Table 3:
TABLE 3.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC (NON- CANCER) EXPOSURE TO TRIFLUMIZOLE
cPAD mg/
kg/day
Population Subgroup
Surface
Water EEC
(ppb)
% cPAD
(Food)
Ground
Water EEC
(ppb)
Chronic
DWLOC
(ppb)
U.S. population
0.015
5
40
0.12
500
Children (1–2 years old)
0.015
13
40
0.12
130
Infants (<1 year old)
0.015
4
40
0.12
140
3. Short-term and intermediate-term
risk. Short-term and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure assessments take
into account residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). For triflumizole, the
Agency did not perform short-term or
intermediate-term assessments because
there are currently no registered or
proposed uses for homeowner
application and residential postapplication exposures are expected to be
negligible.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Since triflumizole has been
determined not to be carcinogenic, it is
not expected to pose a 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 triflumizole
residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
detector (GC/MSD) method (Morse
Method METH-115, Revision #3)) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Codex, Canadian or
Mexican maximum residue limits
established for triflumizole residues in/
on crop commodities. Therefore, no
compatibility issues exist with regard to
the proposed U.S. tolerances discussed
in this risk assessment.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
C. Conditions
The petitioner should submit
adequate limited field rotational crop
data on wheat at plant-back intervals
longer than 120 days. Alternatively, the
petitioner has the option of submitting
a full set of residue field trials on all
intended rotational crops other than
leafy and root vegetables.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for combined residues of triflumizole
and its metabolites containing the 4chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound, in
or on parsley, leaves at 9.0 ppm;
dandelion, leaves at 7.0 ppm; swiss
chard at 7.0 ppm; collards at 9.0 ppm;
kale at 9.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 9.0 ppm;
mustard greens at 9.0 ppm; cabbage,
chinese, napa at 9.0 ppm; broccoli at 1.0
ppm; and coriander, leaves at 9.0 ppm.
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA,
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 that 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
OPP–2005–0054 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 June 7, 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 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–2005–0054, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch, Information Resources and
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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
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,
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
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,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
17915
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: March 28, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.476 is amended by
adding text to paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
I
§ 180.476 Triflumizole; tolerances for
residues.
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
Time limited tolerances are established
for the residues triflumizole (1-(1-((4chloro-2(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino)-2-
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
17916
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 67 / Friday, April 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole) and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent in connection
with use of the pesticide under section
18 emergency exemptions granted by
EPA. The tolerances are specified in the
following table, and will expire and are
revoked on the dates specified.
Broccoli .............
Cabbage, chinese, napa ....
Collards .............
Coriander,
leaves ............
Dandelion,
leaves ............
Kale ...................
Kohlrabi .............
Mustard greens
Parsley, leaves
Swiss chard ......
*
*
*
Expiration/
revocation
date
Parts per
million
Commodity
1.0
9.0
9.0
6/30/08
6/30/08
9.0
6/30/08
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
7.0
*
6/30/08
6/30/08
6/30/08
6/30/08
6/30/08
6/30/08
6/30/08
*
[FR Doc. 05–7046 Filed 4–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AH44
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population
for Two Fishes (Boulder Darter and
Spotfin Chub) in Shoal Creek,
Tennessee and Alabama
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), in
cooperation with the States of
Tennessee and Alabama and with
Conservation Fisheries, Inc., a nonprofit
organization, plan to reintroduce one
federally listed endangered fish, the
boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti), and
one federally listed threatened fish, the
spotfin chub (Cyprinella (=Hybopsis)
monacha), into their historical habitat
in Shoal Creek (a tributary to the
Tennessee River), Lauderdale County,
Alabama, and Lawrence County,
Tennessee. Based on the evaluation of
species’ experts, these species currently
do not exist in this reach or its
tributaries. These two fish are being
reintroduced under section 10(j) of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:11 Apr 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and would be classified
as a nonessential experimental
population (NEP).
The geographic boundaries of the NEP
would extend from the mouth of Long
Branch, Lawrence County, Tennessee
(Shoal Creek mile (CM) 41.7 (66.7
kilometers (km)), downstream to the
backwaters of the Wilson Reservoir at
Goose Shoals, Lauderdale County,
Alabama (approximately CM 14 (22
km)), and would include the lower 5
CM (8 km) of all tributaries that enter
this reach.
These reintroductions are recovery
actions and are part of a series of
reintroductions and other recovery
actions that the Service, Federal and
State agencies, and other partners are
conducting throughout the species’
historical ranges. This rule provides a
plan for establishing the NEP and
provides for limited allowable legal
taking of the boulder darter and spotfin
chub within the defined NEP area. In
addition, we are changing the scientific
name for spotfin chub, from Cyprinella
(=Hybopsis) monacha to Erimonax
monachus, to reflect a recent change in
the scientific literature, and adding a
map to the regulation for a previously
created NEP including one of these
fishes for the purposes of clarity.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
April 8, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of
this final rule, are available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Tennessee
Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN
38501.
You may obtain copies of the final
rule from the field office address above,
by calling (931) 528–6481, or from our
Web site at https://cookeville.fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Merritt at the above address
(telephone 931/528–6481, Ext. 211,
facsimile 931/528–7075, or e-mail at
timothy_merritt@fws.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
1. Legislative: Under section 10(j) of
the Act, the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior can designate
reintroduced populations established
outside the species’ current range, but
within its historical range, as
‘‘experimental.’’ Based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available, we must determine whether
experimental populations are
‘‘essential,’’ or ‘‘nonessential,’’ to the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
continued existence of the species.
Regulatory restrictions are considerably
reduced under a Nonessential
Experimental Population (NEP)
designation.
Without the ‘‘nonessential
experimental population’’ designation,
the Act provides that species listed as
endangered or threatened are afforded
protection primarily through the
prohibitions of section 9 and the
requirements of section 7. Section 9 of
the Act prohibits the take of an
endangered species. ‘‘Take’’ is defined
by the Act as harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, or
collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct. Service regulations (50 CFR
17.31) generally extend the prohibitions
of take to threatened wildlife. Section 7
of the Act outlines the procedures for
Federal interagency cooperation to
conserve federally listed species and
protect designated critical habitat. It
mandates that all Federal agencies use
their existing authorities to further the
purposes of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of listed
species. It also states that Federal
agencies will, in consultation with the
Service, ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. Section 7 of
the Act does not affect activities
undertaken on private land unless they
are authorized, funded, or carried out by
a Federal agency.
With the experimental population
designation, a population designated is
treated for purposes of section 9 of the
Act as threatened regardless of the
species’ designation elsewhere in its
range. Threatened designation allows us
greater discretion in devising
management programs and special
regulations for such a population.
Section 4(d) of the Act allows us to
adopt whatever regulations are
necessary to provide for the
conservation of a threatened species. In
these situations, the general regulations
that extend most section 9 prohibitions
to threatened species do not apply to
that species, and the special 4(d) rule
contains the prohibitions and
exemptions necessary and appropriate
to conserve that species. Regulations
issued under section 4(d) for NEPs are
usually more compatible with routine
human activities in the reintroduction
area.
For the purposes of section 7 of the
Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened
species when the NEP is located within
a National Wildlife Refuge or National
Park, and section 7(a)(1) and the
E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM
08APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 67 (Friday, April 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17908-17916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7046]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0054; FRL-7701-6]
Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
combined residues of triflumizole in or on parsley, leaves; dandelion,
leaves; swiss chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens; cabbage,
chinese, napa; broccoli; and coriander, leaves (cilantro). 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 parsley; dandelion; swiss
chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens; cabbage, chinese,
napa; broccoli; and coriander, leaves (cilantro). This regulation
establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of triflumizole in
these food commodities. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on
June 30, 2008.
DATES: This regulation is effective April 8, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 7, 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-2005-0054. 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: Libby Pemberton, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-9364; e-mail address: Sec-18-Mailbox@epamail.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 code 111)
Animal production (NAICS code 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed 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, is establishing time-limited tolerances for combined
residues of the fungicide triflumizole and its metabolites containing
the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent
compound, in or on parsley, leaves at 9.0 parts per million (ppm);
dandelion, leaves at 7.0 (ppm); swiss chard at 7.0 (ppm); collards at
9.0 ppm; kale at 9.0 ppm;
[[Page 17909]]
kohlrabi at 9.0 ppm; mustard greens at 9.0 ppm; cabbage, chinese, napa
at 9.0 ppm; broccoli at 1.0 ppm; and coriander, leaves (cilantro) at
9.0 ppm. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on June 30, 2008.
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the
revoked tolerances 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 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.'' EPA has
established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR
part 166.
III. Emergency Exemption for Triflumizole on Various Commodities and
FFDCA Tolerances
Texas has declared a crisis exemption under FIFRA section 18 for
the use of triflumizole on parsley; dandelion; swiss chard; collards;
kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens; cabbage, chinese, napa; broccoli; and
coriander, leaves (cilantro) for control of powdery mildew. Texas
states the effective control of powdery mildew over the 70 to 90-day
growing season requires two additional applications of a systemic
pesticide beyond those permitted on the currently registered
alternative labels.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of triflumizole in or on
parsley; dandelion; swiss chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard
greens; cabbage, chinese napa; broccoli; and coriander, leaves
(cilantro). In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section
408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary time-limited
tolerances 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 these time-limited tolerances without
notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section
408(l)(6) of the FFDCA. Although these tolerances will expire and are
revoked on June 30, 2008, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA,
residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerances remaining in or on parsley, leaves; dandelion, leaves; swiss
chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens; cabbage, chinese napa;
broccoli; and coriander, leaves (cilantro) 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 these tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take
action to revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with,
scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide
indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency
conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether triflumizole
meets EPA's registration requirements for use on parsley; dandelion;
swiss chard; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mustard greens; cabbage, chinese
napa; broccoli; and coriander, leaves (cilantro) or whether permanent
tolerances for this use would be appropriate. Under these
circumstances, EPA does not believe that these tolerances serve as a
basis for registration of triflumizole 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 Texas 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 triflumizole, 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
triflumizole and to make a determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for time-limited
tolerances for combined residues of triflumizole in or on parsley,
leaves at 9.0 parts per million (ppm); dandelion, leaves at 7.0 (ppm);
swiss chard at 7.0 (ppm); collards at 9.0 ppm; kale at 9.0 ppm;
kohlrabi at 9.0 ppm; mustard greens at 9.0 ppm; cabbage, chinese, napa;
at 9.0 ppm; broccoli at 1.0 ppm; and coriander, leaves at 9.0 ppm.
EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (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
[[Page 17910]]
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). The Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA) added to FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) an additional safety
factor to protect children's health. Where this additional FQPA safety
factor is retained, 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 x 10-6 or one in a million).
Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for
the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non- 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 triflumizole used for human risk assessment is shown in
the following Table 1:
Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Triflumizole for Use in Human Risk Assessment\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dose Used in Risk FQPA SF and Endpoint Study and Toxicological
Exposure Scenario Assessment, UF for Risk Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (females 13-50 years of NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Developmental Toxicity
age) UF = 100............... aPAD = acute RfD/FQPA Study - Rat
Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/ SF = 0.1 mg/kg/day. Developmental LOAEL =
day. 35 mg/kg/day based on
decreased numbers of
viable fetuses,
increased dead or
resorbed fetuses,
increased numbers of
late resorptions,
decreased fetal body
weight, and increased
incidences of cervical
ribs
--------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (general U.S. NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Acute Neurotoxicity
population) (including infant and UF = 100............... aPAD = acute RfD/FQPA Study - Rat
children) Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/kg/ SF = 0.03 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day
day. based on functional
observational battery
findings
(neuromuscular
impairment) and
decreased locomotor
activity
--------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (all populations) NOAEL= 1.5 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Multi-generation
UF = 100............... cPAD = chronic/RfD..... Reproduction Study -
Chronic RfD = 0.015 mg/ FQPA SF = 0.015 mg/kg/ Rat
kg/day. day. Reproductive LOAEL =
3.5 mg/kg/day based on
increased gestation
length in dams of the
F3a interval
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Oral (1-30 days) Oral NOAEL = 8.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
(Residential)........................ day (Residential, includes Reproduction Study -
the FQPA SF). Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day,
based on decreased
body weight gain in
pups during lactation
--------------------------------------
Intermediate-Term Oral (1-6 months) Oral NOAEL = 8.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
(Residential)........................ day (Residential, includes Reproduction Study -
the FQPA SF). Rat
LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day,
based on decreased
body weight gain in
pups during lactation
and decreased body
weight and body weight
gain in parental
animals
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Dermal (1-30 days) Oral NOAEL= 8.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
(Occupational/Residential)........... day (dermal absorption (Occupational)......... Reproduction Study -
rate = 3.5%) LOC for MOE = 100...... Rat
(Residential, includes LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day,
the FQPA SF). based on decreased
body weight gain in
pups during lactation
--------------------------------------
Intermediate- and Long-Term Dermal (1- Oral NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
6 months and 6 month or longer) day (dermal absorption (Occupational)......... Reproduction Study -
(Occupational/Residential)........... rate = 3.5%) LOC for MOE = 100...... Rat
(Residential, includes LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day
the FQPA SF). based on increased
gestation length in
the dams of the F3a
interval
--------------------------------------
[[Page 17911]]
Short-Term Inhalation (1-30 days) Oral NOAEL= 8.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
(Occupational/Residential)........... day (inhalation (Occupational)......... Reproduction Study -
absorption rate = LOC for MOE = 100...... Rat
100%) (Residential, includes LOAEL = 21 mg/kg/day,
the FQPA SF). based on decreased
body weight gain in
pups during lactation
--------------------------------------
Intermediate- and Long-Term Oral NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100 Multi-generation
Inhalation (1-6 months and 6 month day (inhalation (Occupational)......... Reproduction Study -
or longer) absorption rate = LOC for MOE = 100...... Rat
(Occupational/Residential)........... 100%) (Residential, includes LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day
the FQPA SF). based on increased
gestation length in
the dams of the F3a
interval
--------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Evidence for non- Not applicable Combined Chronic
carcinogenicity for Toxicity/
humans Carcinogenicity Study
Rat
Carcinogenicity Study -
Mouse
No evidence of
carcinogenicity in
rats and mice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL =
lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference
dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern.
B. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.476) for the combined residues of triflumizole,
in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments
were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from triflumizole in
food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. 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 1-day or
single exposure. The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM\TM\)
analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by
respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 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
for the acute exposure assessments: Tolerance level residues and 100%
crop treated for all registered and proposed uses.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk
assessment the DEEM\TM\ analysis evaluated the individual food
consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
nationwide CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure
assessments: A refined, chronic dietary exposure assessment was
performed for the general U.S. population and various population
subgroups using anticipated residues (ARs) from average field trial
residues for apple, grape, pear, cherry, cucurbit, strawberry, and milk
commodities; registered and proposed tolerances for all other
commodities; percent crop treated (CT) information for apple, grape and
pear commodities; and 100% CT information for all other uses.
iii. Cancer. Triflumizole has been classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore, a quantitative exposure assessment
was not conducted to assess cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the 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 chemicals that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant
to section 408(f)(1) require 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. Following
the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data
on a time frame it deems appropriate. For the present action, EPA will
issue such Data Call-Ins for information relating to anticipated
residues as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized
under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Such Data Call-Ins will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this
tolerance.
The Agency used PCT information for the registered uses on grape,
apple, and pear. EPA based these assumptions on use data for the period
1996 to 1997 and 1998. For all other registered uses as well as these
uses, EPA assumed that 100% of the U.S. crop would be treated with
triflumizole.
The Agency believes that the three conditions previously discussed
have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. EPA uses a weighted average PCT for chronic dietary
exposure estimates. This weighted average PCT figure is derived by
averaging State-level data for a period of up to 10 years, and
weighting for the more robust and recent data. A weighted average of
the PCT reasonably represents a person's dietary exposure over a
lifetime, and is unlikely to underestimate exposure to an individual
because of the fact that pesticide use patterns (both regionally and
nationally) tend to change continuously over time, such that an
individual is unlikely to be exposed to more than the average PCT over
a lifetime. For acute dietary exposure estimates, EPA uses an estimated
maximum PCT. The exposure estimates resulting from this approach
reasonably represent the highest levels to which an individual could be
exposed, and are unlikely to underestimate an individual's acute
dietary exposure. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage
of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to
Conditions 2 and 3, 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
[[Page 17912]]
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
information on the regional consumption of food to which triflumizole
may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for triflumizole 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 triflumizole.
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 triflumizole they are
further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of triflumizole for acute exposures are estimated
to be 191 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.12 ppb for
ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 40 ppb
for surface water and 0.12 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).
Triflumizole is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. 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.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to triflumizole and any other
substances and triflumizole 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 triflumizole 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 policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative/.
C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) 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 database 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility demonstrated in the oral prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in rats. Developmental toxicity resulted
in fetal death as compared to maternal toxicity which included
decreases in body weight gain and food consumption and increases in
placental, spleen and liver weights at the same dosages. No
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was
demonstrated in the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rabbits
or the multi-generation reproduction studies in rats. In the rabbit
developmental studies, 24-hour fetal survival was decreased at the
highest dose tested. This endpoint is not a recommended guideline
parameter and is generally believed to have limited value in the
assessment of development toxicity; rather, it is more an indicator of
fetal endurance in the absence of critical maternal care, following
removal from the uterus. The Hazard Identification Assessment Review
Committee did not consider this effect to be a measurement of
treatment-related effects on fetal viability and, thus, did not
consider it to be relevant to the assessment of fetal susceptibility.
There was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in
the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. In that study, increased
gestation length was observed at the study LOAEL. In rats, this
alteration in normal reproductive function can result in equally
adverse consequences (i.e., mortality) in both dams and offspring.
3. Conclusion. In the Agency's previous triflumizole human health
risk assessment, the following toxicity studies were determined to be
data gaps: A 28-day rat inhalation study Guideline Number (GLN)
870.3465)), acute rat neurotoxicity study (GLN 870.6200), and
subchronic rat neurotoxicity study
[[Page 17913]]
(GLN 870.6200). The acute and sub-chronic neurotoxicity studies have
been submitted, reviewed by the Agency and determined to be acceptable.
As a result, the following has changed: (1) Selection of an acute
endpoint for the general U.S. population (including infants and
children); and (2) the removal of the 3x database uncertainty factor
(UFDB). All other aspects of the most recent risk assessment remain
unchanged.
As acceptable acute and sub-chronic neurotoxicity studies have been
submitted, the Agency has determined that the 3x UFDB should be removed
from the acute and chronic RfDs. In addition, the FQPA SFC recommended
a special FQPA SF be reduced to 1x. The Agency has re-evaluated the
quality of the exposure and hazard data; and, based on these data,
concluded that the special FQPA SF remain at 1x. The conclusion is
based on the following:
The toxicity database is complete for FQPA assessment.
There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility in the rabbit fetuses following in utero
exposure or the rat following prenatal and postnatal exposure in the
rat reproduction study.
There was evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the
developmental rat study; however, there are no residual uncertainties,
and the use of the developmental NOAEL and the endpoint for the acute
RfD for females 13 to 50 would be protective of the prenatal toxicity
following an acute dietary exposure.
There is no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental neurotoxicity
study.
The acute dietary food exposure assessment utilizes
existing and proposed tolerance level residues and 100% CT information
for all commodities. By using these screening-level assessments, actual
exposures/risks will not be underestimated.
The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilizes ARs
and % CT data verified for several existing uses. For all proposed use,
tolerance-level residue and 100% CT is assumed. The chronic assessment
is somewhat refined and based on reliable data and will not
underestimate exposure/risk.
The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water
concentration values generated by model and associated modeling
parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health-
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which will not
likely be exceeded.
There are no registered or proposed uses of triflumizole
that would result in residential exposure.
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 Populated adjusted dose (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 ground water are less than the
calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that
exposures to triflumizole 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
triflumizole on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk
assessment process.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to
triflumizole will occupy 6% of the aPAD for the U.S. population, 9% of
the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old, and 21% of the aPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population at greatest exposure. In
addition, despite the potential for acute dietary exposure to
triflumizole in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing
them to conservative model EECs of triflumizole in surface water and
ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100%
of the aPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:
Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to triflumizole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup aPAD (mg/ % aPAD Water EEC Water EEC Acute DWLOC
kg) (Food) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population (total) 0.25 5 191 0.12 8,300
------------------------------------------------
Females, (13-49 years) 0.1 9 191 0.12 2,700
------------------------------------------------
All Infants (<1 year old) 0.25 11 191 0.12 2,200
------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) 0.25 21 191 0.12 2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
triflumizole from food will utilize 5% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population, 4% of the cPAD for all infants (<1 year old) and 13% of the
cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the subpopulation at greatest
exposure.
[[Page 17914]]
There are no residential uses for triflumizole that result in chronic
residential exposure to triflumizole. In addition, despite the
potential for chronic dietary exposure to triflumizole in drinking
water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative
model EECs of triflumizole in surface water and ground water, EPA does
not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown
in the following Table 3:
Table 3.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non- Cancer) Exposure to Triflumizole
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup cPAD mg/kg/ % cPAD Water EEC Water EEC Chronic
day (Food) (ppb) (ppb) DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 0.015 5 40 0.12 500
------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) 0.015 13 40 0.12 130
------------------------------------------------
Infants (<1 year old) 0.015 4 40 0.12 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure assessments take into account
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). For triflumizole, the
Agency did not perform short-term or intermediate-term assessments
because there are currently no registered or proposed uses for
homeowner application and residential post- application exposures are
expected to be negligible.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Since triflumizole
has been determined not to be carcinogenic, it is not expected to pose
a 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 triflumizole residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry detector (GC/MSD) method (Morse Method METH-115, Revision
3)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
established for triflumizole residues in/on crop commodities.
Therefore, no compatibility issues exist with regard to the proposed
U.S. tolerances discussed in this risk assessment.
C. Conditions
The petitioner should submit adequate limited field rotational crop
data on wheat at plant-back intervals longer than 120 days.
Alternatively, the petitioner has the option of submitting a full set
of residue field trials on all intended rotational crops other than
leafy and root vegetables.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
triflumizole and its metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2-
trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent compound, in or
on parsley, leaves at 9.0 ppm; dandelion, leaves at 7.0 ppm; swiss
chard at 7.0 ppm; collards at 9.0 ppm; kale at 9.0 ppm; kohlrabi at 9.0
ppm; mustard greens at 9.0 ppm; cabbage, chinese, napa at 9.0 ppm;
broccoli at 1.0 ppm; and coriander, leaves at 9.0 ppm.
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, 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 that 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-2005-0054 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 June 7,
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-2005-0054, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
[[Page 17915]]
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, 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: March 28, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
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 180.476 is amended by adding text to paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.476 Triflumizole; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time limited tolerances are
established for the residues triflumizole (1-(1-((4-chloro-2-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino)-2-
[[Page 17916]]
propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole) and its metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent in
connection with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency
exemptions granted by EPA. The tolerances are specified in the
following table, and will expire and are revoked on the dates
specified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per revocation
million date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broccoli...................................... 1.0 6/30/08
Cabbage, chinese, napa........................ 9.0 6/30/08
Collards...................................... 9.0 6/30/08
Coriander, leaves............................. 9.0 6/30/08
Dandelion, leaves............................. 7.0 6/30/08
Kale.......................................... 9.0 6/30/08
Kohlrabi...................................... 9.0 6/30/08
Mustard greens................................ 9.0 6/30/08
Parsley, leaves............................... 9.0 6/30/08
Swiss chard................................... 7.0 6/30/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-7046 Filed 4-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S