Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerance, 13274-13279 [06-2379]
Download as PDF
13274
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 06–2431 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
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.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
the use of the food commodities in this
paragraph when treated in accordance
with the provisions of the experimental
use permit 67979–EUP–4 which is being
issued under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136).
This temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance expires and
is revoked October 15, 2007; however, if
the experimental use permit is revoked,
or if any experience with or scientific
data on this pesticide indicate that the
tolerance is not safe, this temporary
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance may be revoked at any time.
Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6463; e-mail address:
madden.barbara@epa.gov.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0103; FRL–7765–3]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerance
I. General Information
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
AGENCY:
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a
tolerance for combined residues of
triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound in or
on filberts. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended
by the Food Quality Protection Act
of1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 15, 2006. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0103. All documents in the
docket are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site.
(EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public
docket and comment system was
replaced on November 25, 2005, by an
enhancedFederal-wide electronic docket
management and comment system
located at https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the on-line instructions.)
Although listed in the index, some
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g.,
agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112),
e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy
cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311),
e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 on E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the
OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly
to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/
opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of January 18,
2006 (71 FR 2930) (FRL–7757–1), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 3E6535) by IR-4,
681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.476 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for
combined residues of the fungicide
triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2propoxyethyl]-1H-imidazole, and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound in or
on filberts at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm). That notice included a summary
of the petition prepared by Chemtura,
the registrant. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of
filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 FFDCA
and a complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of 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 and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of
FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined
residues of triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound in or
on filbert at 0.05 ppm. EPA’s assessment
of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the toxic effects caused by
triflumizole as well as the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the
lowest observed adverse effect level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/EPAPEST/2002/June/Day-12/p14768.htm
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, 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 level
of concern (LOC). 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
of the human population as well as
other unknowns.
The linear default risk methodology
(Q*) is the primary method currently
used by the Agency to quantify nonthreshold hazards such as cancer. The
Q* approach assumes that any amount
of exposure will lead to some degree of
cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of
the probability of occurrence of
additional cancer cases. More
information can be found on the general
principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/health/human.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for triflumizole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in
Unit VI.A. of the final rule published in
the Federal Register of April 8, 2005 (70
FR 17908) (FRL–7701–6).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.476) for the
combined residues of triflumizole, 1-(1((4-chloro-2(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound, in
or on a variety of raw agricultural
commodities. In addition, tolerances for
livestock commodities have been
established for the combined residues of
triflumizole, the metabolite 4-chloro-2hydroxy-6-trifluoromethylaniline
sulfate, and other metabolites
containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as parent compound, in/on
milk; eggs; meat, fat, and meat
byproducts (mbyp) of cattle, goats, hogs,
horses, and sheep; and in/on meat, and
mbyp of poultry. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary
exposures from triflumizole in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1–day or single
exposure.
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM) (ver. 2.03) analysis
evaluated the individual food
consumption as reported by
respondents in the United States
Department of Agriculture (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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13275
were made for the acute exposure
assessments: tolerance level residues
and 100 percent crop treated (PCT)
information for all registered and
proposed uses.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the DEEM software with the
DEEM-FCIDTM, which incorporates food
consumption data 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 using anticipated
residues (ARs) from average field trial
residues for apple, grape, pear, cherry,
cucurbit, strawberry, and milk
commodities; registered and proposed
tolerance for all other commodities; PCT
information for apples, grapes and pear
commodities; and 100 PCT information
for all other uses.
iii. Cancer. Triflumizole is classified
as a ‘‘Group E’’ (evidence of noncarcinogenicity in humans) chemical
based on adequate studies in two
species of animal. Therefore, a cancer
dietary exposure assessment was not
performed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available
data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide
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.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if the
Agency can make the following
findings: Condition 1, that the data used
are reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain such pesticide residue;
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
13276
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Condition 2, that the exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group; and
Condition 3, if data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic
evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of
the estimate of PCT as required by
section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may
require registrants to submit data on
PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
Apples of 18%, grapes of 13%, pears
of 29%.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic
dietary risk analysis. The average PCT
figure for each existing use is derived by
combining available federal, state, and
private market survey data for that use,
averaging by year, averaging across all
years, and rounding up to the nearest
multiple of five except for those
situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases <1% is
used as the average and <2.5% is used
as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the single
maximum value reported overall from
available federal, state, and private
market survey data on the existing use,
across all years, and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of five. In most cases,
EPA uses available data from USDA/
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market
Surveys, and the National Center for
Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP)
for the most recent 6 years.
This method of projecting PCT for a
new pesticide use, with or without
regard to specific pest(s), produces an
upper-end projection that is unlikely, in
most cases, to be exceeded in actuality
because the dominant pesticide is wellestablished and accepted by farmers.
Factors that bear on whether a
projection based on the dominant
pesticide could be exceeded are whether
the new pesticide is more efficacious or
controls a broader spectrum of pests
than the dominant pesticide, whether it
is more cost-effective than the dominant
pesticide, and whether it is likely to be
readily accepted by growers and
experts. These factors have been
considered for this pesticide new use,
and they indicate that it is unlikely that
actual PCT for this new use will exceed
the PCT for the dominant pesticide in
the next 5 years.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring exposure data to complete a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool and Screening
Concentrations in Groundwater 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 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 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
mechanism on EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for
infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the data base on
toxicity and exposure unless EPA
determines based on reliable data 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. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X when reliable data
do not support the choice of a different
factor, or, if reliable data are available,
EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of
traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as
appropriate.
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 Agency 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
13277
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
equally adverse consequences (i.e.,
mortality) in both dams and offspring.
3. Conclusion. In the Agency’s
previous triflumizole human health risk
assessments (refer to https://
www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2002/June/
Day-12/p14768.htm) the following
toxicity studies were determined to be
data gaps: A 28–day rat inhalation study
(OPPTS Harmonized Guideline Number
870.3465), acute rat neurotoxicity study
(OPPTS Harmonized Guideline
870.6200), and subchronic rat
neurotoxicity study (OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.6200). The
acute and sub-chronic neurotoxicity
studies have been submitted, reviewed
by the Agency and determined to be
acceptable.
The Agency has re-evaluated the
quality of the exposure and hazard data;
and, based on these data, concluded that
the additional 10X FQPA safety factor
should be removed (previously, a 3X
FQPA safety factor was retained). 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.
• The acute dietary food exposure
assessment utilizes existing and
proposed tolerance level residues and
100 PCT 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 PCT 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.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
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 years and older, 11% of the aPAD for
all infants (<1 year old), and 21% of the
aPAD for children 1–2 years old, the
subpopulation at greatest exposure. In
addition, there is potential for acute
dietary exposure to triflumizole in
drinking water. To estimate total
aggregate exposure to a pesticide from
food, drinking water, and residential
uses, the Agency calculates drinking
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs)
which are used as a point of comparison
against EECs. More information on the
use of DWLOCs in dietary aggregate risk
assessments can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/
screeningsop.pdf. After calculating
drinking water level of concentration
DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EECs for surface water and ground
water, EPA does not expect the
aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of
the aPAD, as shown in Table 1 of this
unit:
TABLE 1.—AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ACUTE EXPOSURE TO TRIFLUMIZOLE
aPAD (mg/
kg)
Population Subgroup
U.S. population
Surface
Water EEC/
(ppb)
%aPAD/
(Food)
Ground
Water EEC/
(ppb)
Acute
DWLOC/
(ppb)
0.25
6
191
0.12
8,300
0.1
9
191
0.12
2,700
All infants (<1 year)
0.25
11
191
0.12
2,200
Children (1–2 years old)
0.25
21
191
0.12
2,000
Females (13 years and older)
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 chronic
Population adjusted dose (cPAD) for the
U.S. population, 4% of the cPAD for all
DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EECs for surface water and ground
water, EPA does not expect the
aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of
the cPAD, as shown in Table 2 of this
unit:
infants (<1 year old), and 13% of the
cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the
subpopulation at greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for
triflumizole. There is potential for
chronic dietary exposure to triflumizole
in drinking water. After calculating
TABLE 2.—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)
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
U.S. population
0.015
5
40
0.12
500
All infants (<1 year)
0.015
4
40
0.12
140
Children (1–2 years old)
0.015
13
40
0.12
130
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
13278
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
Triflumizole is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from food and
water, which do not exceed the
Agency’s level of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Triflumizole has been
classified as not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans. Therefore,
triflumizole is expected to pose at most
a negligible cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to triflumizole
residues.
IV. 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 established Codex,
Canadian or Mexican maximum residue
limits (MRLs) for triflumizole in/on
filberts. Therefore, harmonization is not
an issue at this time.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established
for combined residues of triflumizole, 1(1-((4-chloro-2(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its
metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2trifluoromethylaniline moiety,
calculated as the parent compound in or
on filbert at 0.05 ppm.
VI. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as
amended by FQPA, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
Although the procedures in those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
regulations require some modification to
reflect the amendments made to FFDCA
by FQPA, EPA will continue to use
those procedures, with appropriate
adjustments, until the necessary
modifications can be made. The new
section 408(g) of FFDCA provides
essentially the same process for persons
to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new
section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and
409 of FFDCA. However, the period for
filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an
Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
you must identify docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0103 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 May 15, 2006.
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 issue(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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with the Hearing Clerk as described in
Unit VI.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 docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0103, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch, Information Technology and
Resources Management 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. 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
issue(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify
the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance
under section 408(d) of FFDCA in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
13279
cchase on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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 petition
under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. 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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:10 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
VIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801et 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 3, 2006.
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
alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph
(a)(1) to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 180.476 Triflumizole; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. (1) *
*
Commodity
*
Parts per million
*
*
*
Filbert ..............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.05
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–2379 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[WT Docket No. 03–66; RM–10586; FCC 04–
135]
Facilitating the Provision of Fixed and
Mobile Broadband Access,
Educational and Other Advanced
Services in the 2150–2162 and 2500–
2690 MHz Bands
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Correcting amendments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections to the final regulations,
which were published in the Federal
Register on Friday, December 10, 2004,
(69 FR 72020). The Commission
published final rules in the Report and
Order, that renamed the Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS) as the
Educational Broadband Service (EBS)
and renames the Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS)
and the Multipoint Distribution Service
(MDS) as the Broadband Radio Service
(BRS). This document corrects the final
regulations by revising Section 1.1307.
DATES: Effective January 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy J. Brooks, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418–2454 e-mail:
Nancy.Brooks@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final
regulations that are the subject of this
correction relate to final rules in the
Report and Order, which transformed
the rules and policies governing the
licensing of the Instructional Television
Fixed Service (ITFS) the Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS)
and the Multipoint Distribution Service
(MDS), in the 2500–2690 bands.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations
contain errors, which require immediate
correction.
E:\FR\FM\15MRR1.SGM
15MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13274-13279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2379]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0103; FRL-7765-3]
Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2-
propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent
compound in or on filberts. Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
of1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective March 15, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0103. All documents in the
docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. (EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on
November 25, 2005, by an enhancedFederal-wide electronic docket
management and comment system located at https://www.regulations.gov/.
Follow the on-line instructions.) Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This
docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6463; e-mail address: madden.barbara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
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 on E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document,
go directly to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of January 18, 2006 (71 FR 2930) (FRL-7757-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
3E6535) by IR-4, 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ
08902. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.476 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide
triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2-
propoxyethyl]-1H-imidazole, and its metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent
compound in or on filberts at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by Chemtura, the
registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice
of filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
[[Page 13275]]
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 FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of 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 and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of
triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2-
propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent
compound in or on filbert at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by triflumizole as well as the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2002/June/Day-12/p14768.htm
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, 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 level of
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected.
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for triflumizole used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit VI.A. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of April 8, 2005 (70 FR 17908) (FRL-
7701-6).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.476) for the combined residues of triflumizole,
1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2-propoxyethyl)-1H-
imidazole, and its metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2-
trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent compound, in or
on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. In addition, tolerances
for livestock commodities have been established for the combined
residues of triflumizole, the metabolite 4-chloro-2-hydroxy-6-
trifluoromethylaniline sulfate, and other metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as parent compound,
in/on milk; eggs; meat, fat, and meat byproducts (mbyp) of cattle,
goats, hogs, horses, and sheep; and in/on meat, and mbyp of poultry.
Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from
triflumizole in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model - Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID\TM\) (ver. 2.03) analysis evaluated the individual food
consumption as reported by respondents in the United States Department
of Agriculture (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
percent crop treated (PCT) information for all registered and proposed
uses.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM software with the DEEM-FCID\TM\, which
incorporates food consumption data 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 using anticipated residues (ARs) from
average field trial residues for apple, grape, pear, cherry, cucurbit,
strawberry, and milk commodities; registered and proposed tolerance for
all other commodities; PCT information for apples, grapes and pear
commodities; and 100 PCT information for all other uses.
iii. Cancer. Triflumizole is classified as a ``Group E'' (evidence
of non-carcinogenicity in humans) chemical based on adequate studies in
two species of animal. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment
was not performed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1,
that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what
percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such
pesticide residue;
[[Page 13276]]
Condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure
for any significant subpopulation group; and Condition 3, if data are
available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area,
the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population
in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic
evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F)
of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
Apples of 18%, grapes of 13%, pears of 29%.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available federal, state, and private market survey data for that use,
averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the
nearest multiple of five except for those situations in which the
average PCT is less than one. In those cases <1% is used as the average
and <2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute
dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum
value reported overall from available federal, state, and private
market survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded
up to the nearest multiple of five. In most cases, EPA uses available
data from USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and
Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent 6 years.
This method of projecting PCT for a new pesticide use, with or
without regard to specific pest(s), produces an upper-end projection
that is unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded in actuality because
the dominant pesticide is well-established and accepted by farmers.
Factors that bear on whether a projection based on the dominant
pesticide could be exceeded are whether the new pesticide is more
efficacious or controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant
pesticide, whether it is more cost-effective than the dominant
pesticide, and whether it is likely to be readily accepted by growers
and experts. These factors have been considered for this pesticide new
use, and they indicate that it is unlikely that actual PCT for this new
use will exceed the PCT for the dominant pesticide in the next 5 years.
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. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool and Screening
Concentrations in Groundwater 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 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/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data 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. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
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 Agency 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
[[Page 13277]]
equally adverse consequences (i.e., mortality) in both dams and
offspring.
3. Conclusion. In the Agency's previous triflumizole human health
risk assessments (refer to https://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2002/June/Day-
12/p14768.htm) the following toxicity studies were determined to be
data gaps: A 28-day rat inhalation study (OPPTS Harmonized Guideline
Number 870.3465), acute rat neurotoxicity study (OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.6200), and subchronic rat neurotoxicity study (OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.6200). The acute and sub-chronic neurotoxicity
studies have been submitted, reviewed by the Agency and determined to
be acceptable.
The Agency has re-evaluated the quality of the exposure and hazard
data; and, based on these data, concluded that the additional 10X FQPA
safety factor should be removed (previously, a 3X FQPA safety factor
was retained). 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.
The acute dietary food exposure assessment utilizes
existing and proposed tolerance level residues and 100 PCT 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 PCT 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.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
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 years and older, 11% of the aPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), and 21% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the subpopulation at greatest exposure. In addition, there is potential
for acute dietary exposure to triflumizole in drinking water. To
estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking
water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates drinking water
levels of comparison (DWLOCs) which are used as a point of comparison
against EECs. More information on the use of DWLOCs in dietary
aggregate risk assessments can be found at https://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/
trac/science/screeningsop.pdf. After calculating drinking water level
of concentration DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface
water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to
exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in Table 1 of this unit:
Table 1.--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 0.25 6 191 0.12 8,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females (13 years and older) 0.1 9 191 0.12 2,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All infants (<1 year) 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 chronic Population
adjusted dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population, 4% of the cPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), and 13% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the subpopulation at greatest exposure. There are no residential uses
for triflumizole. There is potential for chronic dietary exposure to
triflumizole in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing
them to the EECs for surface water and ground water, EPA does not
expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in
Table 2 of this unit:
Table 2.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All infants (<1 year) 0.015 4 40 0.12 140
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children (1-2 years old) 0.015 13 40 0.12 130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13278]]
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Triflumizole is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the
sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Triflumizole has been
classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Therefore,
triflumizole is expected to pose at most a negligible cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to triflumizole residues.
IV. 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 established Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue
limits (MRLs) for triflumizole in/on filberts. Therefore, harmonization
is not an issue at this time.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
triflumizole, 1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino-2-
propoxyethyl)-1H-imidazole, and its metabolites containing the 4-
chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, calculated as the parent
compound in or on filbert at 0.05 ppm.
VI. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0103 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 May 15,
2006.
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 issue(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 VI.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 docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0103, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology and
Resources Management 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. 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 issue(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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
[[Page 13279]]
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
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. 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 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.
VIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et 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 3, 2006.
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 alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.476 Triflumizole; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Filbert.............................................. 0.05
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2379 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S