Myclobutanil; Pesticide Tolerance, 15930-15937 [E8-6205]
Download as PDF
15930
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
and adding introductory text after the
table heading; and revising the entry,
‘‘63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g),
(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)–(h)(5)(iii),
(h)(v)(v), (h)(6)–(h)(9)’’ to read as
follows:
Table 1 to Subpart QQQQQQ of Part 63–
Applicability of General Provisions to
Subpart QQQQQQ
As required in § 63.11432, you must
comply with the requirements of the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) as shown in the
following table.
Citation
Subject
Applies to subpart
QQQQQQ?
Explanation
*
*
63.6(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)–(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1),
(h)(2), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i)–(h)(5)(iii), (h)(5)(v),
(h)(6)–(h)(9).
*
*
......................................
*
No ................................
*
*
Subpart QQQQQQ does not require a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan or contain emission or opacity limits.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–6184 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0107; FRL–8356–2]
Myclobutanil; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for combined residues of
myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite
in or on artichoke, globe; black sapote;
canistel; cilantro, leaves; leafy greens,
subgroup 4A, except spinach; mamey
sapote; mango; okra; papaya; sapodilla;
star apple; and fruiting vegetable group
8, except tomato. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA
is also deleting several established
myclobutanil tolerances that are no
longer needed.
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 26, 2008. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 27, 2008, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION ).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0107. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
the docket ID number where indicated
and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
*
*
website to view the docket index or
access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available in
regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), 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 those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 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 to provide 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?
In addition to accessing an electronic
copy of this Federal Register document
through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s pilot
e-CFR site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any
person may file an objection to any
aspect of this regulation and may also
request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0107 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
as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before May 27, 2008.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0107, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 4,
2007 (72 FR 16352) (FRL–8119–2), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of
pesticide petitions (PP 3E6562 and
6E7138) by IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. These
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.443
be amended by establishing tolerances
for combined residues of the fungicide
myclobutanil alpha-butyl-alpha-(4chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1propanenitrile and its alcohol
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
metabolite (alpha-(3-hydroxybutyl)alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4triazole-1-propanenitrile (free and
bound), in or on Black sapote, canistel,
mamey sapote, mango, papaya,
sapodilla, and star apple at 3.0 parts per
million (ppm) (PP 3E6562); and Fruiting
vegetables, crop group 8, except tomato
at 4.5 ppm; leafy vegetables, crop
subgroup 4A, except spinach at 11.0
ppm; globe artichoke at 0.9 ppm;
cilantro at 11.0 ppm; and okra at 4.5
ppm in (PP 6E7138). That notice
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Dow Agrosciences LLC, the
registrant, which is available to the
public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has revised
some of the commodity definitions and
tolerance levels for certain commodities.
The reason for these changes is
explained in Unit IV.C.
EPA is also deleting several
established tolerances in § 180.443(b)
that are no longer needed. The tolerance
deletions under § 180.443(b) are timelimited tolerances established under
section 18 emergency exemptions. The
time-limited tolerances for artichoke,
globe and pepper are superceded by the
establishment of general tolerances for
myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite
under § 180.443(a) as a result of this
action. The time-limited tolerances for
sugar beet dried pulp, sugar molassess,
refined sugar, roots, and tops are being
deleted since they have expired.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue....’’ These provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15931
were added to FFDCA by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for combined residues of
myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite
on artichoke, globe at 0.90 ppm; canistel
at 3.0 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 9.0 ppm;
leafy greens, crop subgroup 4A, except
spinach at 9.0 ppm; mango at 3.0 ppm;
okra at 4.0 ppm; papaya at 3.0 ppm;
sapodilla at 3.0 ppm; sapote, black at 3.0
ppm; sapote, mamey at 3.0 ppm; star
apple at 3.0 ppm; and vegetable,
fruiting, group 8, except tomato at 4.0
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.
Myclobutanil has low acute toxicity
with the exception for ocular irritation.
In rat subchronic and chronic toxicity
studies, the primary target organs are
liver and testes. Liver effects, following
subchronic exposure, include
hypertrophy, hepatocellular necrosis
and increased liver weight. Chronic
exposure to the rat also results in
hepatocellular vacuolization and
additional testicular effects, which
include bilateral aspermatogenesis,
increased incidences of hypospermia
and cellular debris in the epididymides
and increased incidences of arteritis/
periarteritis in the testes. With the
exception of testicular effects,
subchronic and chronic exposures in
the mouse result in a toxicity profile
similar to the rat. The mouse, following
chronic exposure, has, in addition,
increased Kupffer cell pigmentation,
periportal punctate vacuolation, and
individual cell necrosis of the liver.
There is no evidence of carcinogenic
potential in either the rat or mouse. In
the subchronic dog study, there are
hepatocellular hypertrophy, increased
relative and absolute liver weight and
increased alkaline phosphatase. In the
chronic dog study, liver toxicity is
similar with the addition of ‘‘ballooned’’
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
15932
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
hepatocytes and increases in serum
glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT)
and gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT).
Signs of toxicity observed in the rat 28–
day dermal studies are limited to dermal
irritation. There is no evidence of
systemic toxicity in either study. There
is no evidence of increased
susceptibility in either of the
developmental toxicity studies or the
reproduction study. There is no concern
for mutagenic activity. Myclobutanil
was determined to be not carcinogenic
in two acceptable animal studies.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by myclobutanil as well
as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies are discussed in the
final rule published in the Federal
Register of May 10, 2000 (65 FR 29963)
(FRL–6555–5) (https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/May/Day-10/
p11571.htm).
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC) is derived from the highest dose
at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk
assessment. However, if a NOAEL
cannot be determined, the lowest dose
at which adverse effects of concern are
identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes
used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/
safety factors (UFs) are used in
conjunction with the LOC to take into
account 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. Safety is assessed for acute
and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to
the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-,
and long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the
LOC to ensure that the margin of
exposure (MOE) called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk and
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of occurrence of additional adverse
cases. Generally, cancer risks are
considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for myclobutanil used for
human risk assessment can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in document
Myclobutanil. Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Use on Section
3 Requests for Use on Snap Bean, Mint,
Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry,
Bell and Non-Bell Pepper, Head and
Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke at page 7 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
0107.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to myclobutanil, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing myclobutanil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.443. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from myclobutanil 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. An acute dietary exposure
assessment was performed for females
13 to 49 years old. No acute endpoint
was identified for the general U.S.
population or any other population
subgroup.
In estimating acute dietary exposure,
EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994–1996
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed all
foods for which there are tolerances
were treated andcontain tolerance-level
residues.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998
CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA
used USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP) monitoring data for apple juice,
bananas (not plantains) and milk.
Tolerance level residues were used for
all other registered and proposed uses.
Average percent cropped treated (PCT)
information was used for some
commodities and 100 PCT information
was used for all other registered and
proposed uses.
iii. Cancer. Based on the results of
carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice,
myclobutanil has been classified as
‘‘Not likely to be carcinogenic to
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
humans.’’ Consequently, a quantitative
cancer exposure and risk assessment is
not appropriate for myclobutanil.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA
to use available data and information on
the anticipated residue levels of
pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have
been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must pursuant to
FFDCA 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. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of 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:
a. The data used are reliable and
provide a valid basis to show what
percentage of the food derived from
such crop is likely to contain such
pesticide residue.
b. The exposure estimate does not
underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
c. Data are available on pesticide use
and food consumption in a particular
area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population
in such area. In addition, the Agency
must provide for periodic evaluation of
any estimates used. To provide for the
periodic evaluation of the estimate of
PCT as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows: 40% apples (except juice); 15%
almonds; 25% apricots; 55% artichokes;
5% asparagus; 1% green beans; 15%
blackberries; 1% broccoli; 10%
cantaloupes; 5% cauliflower; 35%
cherries; 1% cucumber; 25% grapes;
65% hops; 1% mint; 10% nectarines;
10% peaches; 10% plums; 15%
pumpkins; 25 % raspberries; 1%
soybeans; 10% squash; 35%
strawberries; 1% sugar beets; 5%
tomatoes; and 5% watermelons.
The Agency used projected percent
crop treated (PPCT) information for
peppers estimating 46% of peppers are
treated.
EPA estimates PPCT for myclobutanil
use on peppers by assuming that the
PCT during the pesticide’s initial 5
years of use on a specific use site will
not exceed the average PCT of the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dominant pesticide (i.e., the one with
the greatest PCT) on that site over the
three most recent surveys. Comparisons
are only made among pesticides of the
same pesticide types (i.e., the dominant
insecticide on the use site is selected for
comparison with a new insecticide).
The PCTs included in the average may
be each for the same pesticide or for
different pesticides since the same or
different pesticides may dominate for
each year selected. Typically, EPA uses
USDA/NASS as the source for raw PCT
data because it is publicly available and
does not have to be calculated from
available data sources. When a specific
use site is not surveyed by USDA/
NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and
calculates the estimated PCT.
This estimated PPCT, based on the
average PCT of the market leader is
appropriate for use in the chronic
dietary risk assessment. This method of
estimating a PPCT for a new use of a
registered pesticide or a new pesticide
produces a high-end estimate that is
unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded
during the initial 5 years of actual use.
The predominant factors that bears on
whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded are whether the new pesticide
use is more efficacious or controls a
broader spectrum of pests than the
dominant pesticides, whether there are
concerns with pest pressures as
indicated in emergency exemption
requests or other readily available
information, and whether the
pathogenicity of the pest is prevalent in
other states. All information currently
available has been considered for
myclobutanil, and it is the opinion of
EPA that it is unlikely that actual PCT
for myclobutanil will exceed the
estimated PPCT during the next 5 years.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions listed in Unit III.C.1.vi. have
been met. With respect to Condition a,
PCT estimates are derived from Federal
and private market survey data, which
are reliable and have a valid basis. The
Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not
likely to be an underestimation. As to
Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
myclobutanil may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for
myclobutanil 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 environmental fate characteristics of
myclobutanil. 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 (FIRST) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
myclobutanil for acute exposures are
estimated to be 120.1 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 2.83 ppb for
ground water. The estimated
environmental concentrations for
chronic exposures are estimated to be
46.3 ppb for surface water and 2.83 ppb
for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 120.1 ppb was
used to access the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration
value of 46.3 ppb was used to access the
contribution to drinking 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).
Myclobutanil is currently registered
for use on the following residential nondietary sites: turf, ornamentals, and
home garden uses on vegetables, fruit
trees, nut trees, berries and mint. The
risk assessment was conducted using
the following residential exposure
assumptions:
For adults, there is potential for shortterm dermal and inhalation handler
exposure, and short-term dermal postapplication exposures from the
residential uses of myclobutanil,
including ‘‘pick your own’’ orchards,
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15933
home fruit and vegetable gardens, and
treated turf. Since myclobutanil is
applied at 7- to 14–day intervals, only
short-term exposure is expected for the
residential handler. For children/
toddlers, short-term dermal and nondietary oral post-application exposures
may result from dermal contact with
treated turf as well as non-dietary
ingestion/hand-to-mouth transfer of
residues from turf grass. Intermediateterm post-application exposures may
result for adults from dermal contact
with treated fruits and vegetables at
‘‘pick your own’’ gardens, treated home
fruit and vegetable gardens and treated
turf. For toddlers, intermediate-term
dermal and non-dietary oral postapplication exposures may result from
dermal contact with treated turf as well
as non-dietary ingestion/hand-to-mouth
transfer of residues from turf grass.
Based on the current use patterns, no
chronic residential exposures are
expected.
The current use patterns and labeling
indicate that a variety of application
equipment could be used by the
homeowner to apply myclobutanil to
ornamental plants, shrubs, fruit trees,
home garden vegetables and lawns.
Therefore, the following scenarios were
assessed:
i. Aerosol spray can application to
ornamentals and fruit trees;
ii. Hose end sprayer application to
ornamentals and fruit trees;
iii. Low-pressure (LP) handwand
application to ornamentals;
iv. LP handwand application to
vegetables;
v. Ready to use (RTU) sprayer
application to vegetables;
vi. Hose end sprayer application to
vegetables;
vii. Hose end sprayer - mix your own
- application to turf;
viii. Hose end sprayer - ready to use
- application to turf;
ix. Belly grinder application to turf;
x. Broadcast spreader application to
turf.
Unit exposure data were either taken
from Pesticide Handler’s Exposure
Database (PHED) study data or from the
home garden and turf application
studies that were sponsored by the
Outdoor Residential Exposure Task
Force (ORETF).
Home garden post-application
exposures can occur when home
gardeners perform tasks such as
weeding, pruning or hand harvesting
following application of myclobutanil.
In order to address these risks, the postapplication exposure to home gardens
and orchard scenarios were assessed
based upon the Residential Standard
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
15934
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Operating Procedures (SOP) 3.0 for
Garden Plants and SOP 4.0 for Trees.
Two dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR)
studies on grapes in California were
used to assess the home garden
exposures. The studies were performed
using airblast sprayers while the
proposed home garden applications
would be made with LP handwand or
hose end sprayers. Based upon
experience with other fungicides,
however, it is anticipated that DFRs
resulting from handwand applications
would be similar to DFRs from airblast
applications. The initial DFR was
assumed to be 23% of the application
rate.
‘‘Pick your own’’ exposures can occur
at commercially operated ‘‘pick your
own’’ strawberry farms and orchards
where myclobutanil has been applied.
To address these risks, post-application
exposure for pick your own strawberries
and tree fruit were assessed based upon
the Residential SOP 15.0 for ‘‘pick your
own’’ strawberries. The DFR data that
were used for the home gardener postapplication risks were also used to
assess ‘‘pick your own’’ exposures. The
exposure estimates used for pick your
own exposures are considered
conservative because that scenario is
based upon a screening-level transfer
coefficient (TC) and a dermal absorption
factor of 50%.
The following exposure scenarios
were assessed for residential postapplication risks:
• Toddlers playing on treated turf;
• Adults performing yard work on
treated turf;
• Adults playing golf on treated turf.
A total radioactive residue (TTR)
study was used to assess the turf
exposures. The field portion of this
study was in North Carolina and
California. The initial TTR for dermal
exposures was assumed to be 2.4% of
the application rate and was based upon
an average of the days after treatment
(DAT) of 0 and DAT of 3 for the
California site. The maximum
application rate for turf of 0.62 to 0.68
lb active ingredient/Acre was use to
assess the turf exposures.
Additional information on residential
exposure assumptions can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the
document ‘‘Myclobutanil. HumanHealth Risk Assessment for Proposed
Use on Section 3 Requests for Use on
Snap Bean, Mint, Papaya, Gooseberry,
Currant, Caneberry, Bell and Non-Bell
Pepper, Head and Leaf Lettuce, and
Artichoke,’’ in docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0107.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.’’
Myclobutanil is a member of the
triazole-containing class of pesticides.
Although conazoles act similarly in
plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol
biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal
activity and their mechanism of toxicity
in mammals. Structural similarities do
not constitute a common mechanism of
toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish
that the chemicals operate by the same,
or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles,
however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found. Some
are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic
in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in
rats. Some induce developmental,
reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles
produce a diverse range of biochemical
events, including altered cholesterol
levels, stress responses, and altered
DNA methylation. It is not clearly
understood whether these biochemical
events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is
currently no evidence to indicate that
conazoles share common mechanisms of
toxicity and EPA is not following a
cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity for the
conazoles. For information regarding
EPA’s procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a
common mechanism of toxicity, see
EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative.
Myclobutanil is a triazole-derived
pesticide. This class of compounds can
form the common metabolite 1,2,4triazole and two triazole conjugates
(triazole alanine and triazole acetic
acid). To support existing tolerances
and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including
myclobutanil, EPA conducted a human
health risk assessment for exposure to
1,2,4-triazole, triazole alanine, and
triazole acetic acid resulting from the
use of all current and pending uses of
any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk
assessment is a highly conservative,
screening-level evaluation in terms of
hazards associated with common
metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum
combination of uncertainty factors) and
potential dietary and non-dietary
exposures (i.e., high end estimates of
both dietary and non-dietary exposures).
In addition, the Agency retained the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
additional 10X FQPA safety factor for
the protection of infants and children.
The assessment includes evaluations of
risks for various subgroups, including
those comprised of infants and children.
The Agency’s complete risk assessment
is found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA–
HQ–OPP–2005–0497). Additional
information regarding the uses proposed
for myclobutanil in this action can also
be found at https://www.regulations.gov
in the following documents: 1,2,4
Triazole Revised Chronic and Acute
Aggregate Dietary Exposure
Assessments to Include for New Uses of
Myclobutanil on Snap Bean, Mint,
Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry,
Bell and Non-Bell Pepper, Head and
Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke, and
Triazole Alanine and Triazole Acetic
Acid Revised Chronic and Acute
Aggregate Dietary Exposure
Assessments for New Uses of
Myclobutanil on Snap Bean, Mint,
Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry,
Bell and Non-Bell Pepper, Head and
Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0107.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional (‘‘10X’’) 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
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA safety
factor value based on the use of
traditional UFs and/or special FQPA
safety factors, as appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no indication of quantitative or
qualitative increased susceptibility in
rats or rabbits from in utero and/or
postnatal exposure to myclobutanil. In
the rat developmental toxicity study,
maternal toxicity, which included rough
hair coat and salivation, alopecia,
desquamation and red exudate around
mouth occurs at the same dose level as
increases in incidences of 14th
rudimentary and 7th cervical ribs in the
fetuses. The maternal and
developmental toxicity NOAELs in the
rat developmental toxicity study were
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
93.8 mg/kg/day. EPA concludes that
there is no evidence qualitative
susceptibility in rat developmental
toxicity study since the fetal variations
(14th rudimentary ribs and 7th cervical
ribs) are normal occurance control
animals that occurred in the presence of
severe maternal toxicity (red exudate
around mouth and salivation). In the
rabbit developmental toxicity study
there is reduced body weight and body
weight gain during the dosing period,
clinical signs of toxicity such as bloody
urine and bloody urogenital or anal area
and a possible increase in abortions
(blood and/or aborted material in the
cage pan) in the does at the same dose
level as developmental toxicity
manifested as increased resorptions,
decreased litter size and decreased
viability index. The maternal and
developmental toxicity NOAELs in the
rabbit developmental toxicity study
were 93.8 mg/kg/day. EPA concludes
that there is no evidence qualitative
susceptibility in rabbit developmental
toxicity study since the fetal effects
(resorptions, decreased litter size and
viability) occurred in the presence of
equally severe maternal toxicity
(abortions, bloody urine and bloody
urogenital or anal area).The maternal
NOAEL in the 2-generation
reproduction study was 50 ppm (2.5
mg/kg/day) based on hepatocellular
hypertrophy and increased liver weight
seen at 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day;
LOAEL). The offspring toxicity NOAEL
was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day) based on
decreased pup body weight gain during
lactation seen at 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/
day; LOAEL). The reproductive toxicity
NOAEL was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day)
based on increased incidences in the
number of still born pups and atrophy
of the testes, epididymides and prostate
observed at 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day;
LOAEL). EPA concludes that there is no
evidence on increased susceptibility
(qualitative or quantitative) in the 2generation reproduction study in rats
because the offspring and reproductive
toxicity were observed at a higher dose
than the dose that caused maternal
toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show that it would be
safe for infants and children to reduce
the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That
decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for
myclobutanil is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
myclobutanil is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
iii. There is no evidence that
myclobutanil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2–generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute dietary food exposure
assessment (females 13 to 49 years old
only) utilizes existing and proposed
tolerance level residues and 100 PCT
information for all commodities. The
chronic dietary food exposure
assessment utilizes existing and
proposed tolerance level residues;
USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data for apple juice, bananas
(not plantains) and milk; average PCT
data for some commodities and 100 PCT
information for all other commodities.
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. Finally, the residential
handler assessment is based upon the
residential standard operating
procedures (SOPs) and utilized unit
exposure data from the Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force
(ORETF) and the Pesticide Handler’s
Exposure Database (PHED). The
residential post-application assessment
is based upon chemical-specific turf
transferable residue (TTR) data and DFR
data. The chemical-specific study data
as well as the surrogate study data used
are reliable and also are not expected to
underestimate risk to adults as well as
to children. In a few cases where
chemical-specific data were not
available, the SOPs were used alone.
The residential SOPs are based upon
reasonable ‘‘worst-case’’ assumptions
and are not expected to underestimate
risk. These assessments of exposure are
not likely to underestimate the exposure
to myclobutanil.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and
chronic risks by comparing aggregate
exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and
chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks,
EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given aggregate
exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and
long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the
LOC to ensure that the MOE called for
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15935
by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure for females 13 to 49
years old (no acute endpoint was
identified for the general U.S.
population or any other population
subgroup), the acute dietary exposure
from food and water to myclobutanil
will occupy 4% of the aPAD for females
13 to 49 years old.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that exposure to myclobutanil from food
and water will utilize 30% of the cPAD
for children 1 to 2 years old, the
subpopulation group with greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern,
chronic residential exposure to residues
of myclobutanil is not expected.
3. Short-term risk and Intermediateterm risk. Short-term and intermediateterm aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Myclobutanil is currently registered
for uses that could result in short-term
and intermediate–term residential
exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic food and water and
short-term exposures for myclobutanil.
As discussed in Unit III.C.3., short-term
and intermediate-term exposures were
assessed for adults and for children/
toddlers. A NOAEL (10 mg/kg/day) from
a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats was used for assessing
short-term and intermediate-term
dermal, inhalation and incidental oral
exposures; therefore, the short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate risk
estimates from the post-application
exposure scenarios are the same for the
general U.S. population and children/
toddlers.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term and
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has
concluded that food, water, and
residential exposures aggregated result
in aggregate MOEs ranging from 110 to
990: 110 for post-application exposures
for adults for ‘‘pick your own fruit’’
operations; 120 for post-application
exposures for adults to turf, heavy yard
work; 130 post-application exposures
for children playing on the lawn; 170 for
adult handlers; 280 for adult post
application exposures to home gardens;
and 980 for adult post applications
exposures while playing golf.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. The Agency has classified
myclobutanil as not likely to be a
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
15936
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
human carcinogen. Myclobutanil was
determined to be not carcinogenic in
two acceptable animal studies.
Myclobutanil 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 or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to myclobutanil
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography/nitrogenphosphorus detector (GC/NPD) for
myclobutanil and gas chromatography/
electron-capture detection (GC/ECD) for
the alcohol metabolite) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The
methods may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are currently no established
Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs for
myclobutanil.
C. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA revised
the tolerance levels based on analyses of
the residue field trial data using the
Agency’s Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency’s Guidance
for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based
on Field Trial Data Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) as follows: (1) PP
3E6562 from 3.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm for
canistel; mango; papaya; sapodilla;
sapote, black; sapote, mamey; and star
apple; (2) PP 6E7138 from 4.5 ppm to
4.0 ppm for fruiting vegetables, crop
group 8, except tomato and okra; from
11 ppm to 9.0 ppm for leafy vegetables,
crop subgroup 4A, except spinach and
cilantro; and from 0.9 ppm to 0.90 ppm
for globe artichoke.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for combined residues of myclobutanil
and its alcohol metabolite on artichoke,
globe at 0.90 ppm; canistel at 3.0 ppm;
cilantro, leaves at 9.0 ppm; leafy greens,
crop subgroup 4A, except spinach at 9.0
ppm; mango at 3.0 ppm; okra at 4.0
ppm; papaya at 3.0 ppm; sapodilla at 3.0
ppm; sapote, black at 3.0 ppm; sapote,
mamey at 3.0 ppm; star apple at 3.0
ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8,
except tomato at 4.0 ppm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
VI. 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, 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) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under 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.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, This rule does
not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Public Law 104–4).
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).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report 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 13, 2008.
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 180.443 is amended by
removing from the table in paragraph (b)
the entries for artichoke, globe; beet,
sugar, dried pulp; beet, sugar, molasses;
beet, sugar, refined sugar; beet, sugar,
roots; beet, sugar, tops; and pepper and
by alphabetically adding commodities
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
I
180.443 Myclobutanil; tolerances for
residues.
(a) *
*
*
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Artichoke, globe ....................
*
*
*
*
Canistel .................................
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
Parts per
million
*
0.90
*
3.0
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 26, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Cilantro, leaves .....................
*
*
*
*
Leafy greens, subgroup 4A,
except spinach ..................
Mango ...................................
*
*
*
*
Okra ......................................
Papaya ..................................
*
*
*
*
Sapodilla ...............................
Sapote, black ........................
Sapote, mamey ....................
*
*
*
*
Star apple .............................
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8,
except tomato ...................
*
*
*
*
*
9.0
*
9.0
3.0
*
4.0
3.0
*
3.0
3.0
3.0
*
3.0
*
4.0
*
[FR Doc. E8–6205 Filed 3–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Office of Inspector General
42 CFR Part 1008
Medicare and State Health Care
Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Issuance
of Advisory Opinions by OIG
Office of Inspector General
(OIG), HHS.
ACTION: Interim final rule with comment
period.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
205 of the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996, this
final rule amends the OIG regulations at
42 CFR part 1008 by (1) revising the
process for advisory opinion requestors
to submit payments for advisory
opinion costs, and (2) clarifying that
notices to the public announcing
procedures for processing advisory
opinion requests will be published on
OIG’s Web site.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
are effective on April 25, 2008.
Comment Period: To assure
consideration, public comments must be
delivered to the address provided below
by no later than 5 p.m. on April 25,
2008.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer
to file code OIG–223–IFC. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
three ways (no duplicates, please):
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Mar 25, 2008
Jkt 214001
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on specific
recommendations and proposals
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at https://www.regulations.gov.
(Attachments should be in Microsoft
Word, if possible.)
2. By regular, express, or overnight
mail. You may send written comments
to the following address: Office of
Inspector General, Department of Health
and Human Services, Attention: OIG–
223–IFC, Room 5246, Cohen Building,
330 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201. Please allow
sufficient time for mailed comments to
be received before the close of the
comment period.
3. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver, by hand or courier,
your written comments before the close
period to Office of Inspector General,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Cohen Building, 330
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201. Because access
to the interior of the Cohen Building is
not readily available to persons without
Federal Government identification,
commenters are encouraged to schedule
their delivery with one of our staff
members at (202) 358–3141.
For information on viewing public
comments, please see section IV in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Meredith Melmed, Office of Counsel to
the Inspector General, (202) 619–0335.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Section 205 of Public Law 104–191
The Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA),
Public Law 104–101, specifically
required the Department to provide a
formal guidance process to requesting
individuals and entities regarding the
application of the anti-kickback statute,
the safe harbor provisions, and other
OIG health care fraud and abuse
sanctions. In accordance with section
205 of HIPAA, the Department, in
consultation with the Department of
Justice, issues written advisory opinions
to parties with regard to: (1) What
constitutes prohibited remuneration
under the anti-kickback statute; (2)
whether an arrangement or proposed
arrangement satisfies the criteria in
section 1128B(b)(3) of the Social
Security Act (the Act), or established by
regulation, for activities which do not
result in prohibited remuneration; (3)
what constitutes an inducement to
reduce or limit services to Medicare or
Medicaid program beneficiaries under
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15937
section 1128A(b) of the Act 1; and (4)
whether an activity or proposed activity
constitutes grounds for the imposition
of civil or criminal sanctions under
sections 1128, 1128A, or 1128B of the
Act.
B. OIG Final Regulations
OIG published an interim final rule
(62 FR 7350; February 19, 1997)
establishing a new part 1008 in 42 CFR
chapter V addressing various procedural
issues and aspects of the advisory
opinion process. In response to public
comments received on the interim final
regulations, we published a final rule
(63 FR 38311; July 16, 1998) revising
and clarifying various aspects of the
earlier rulemaking. The rulemaking
established procedures for requesting an
advisory opinion. Specifically, the rule
provided information to the public
regarding costs associated with
preparing an opinion and procedures for
submitting an initial deposit and final
payment to OIG for such costs.
II. Provisions of the Interim Final Rule
By statute, the Department must
charge a fee equal to the costs incurred
by the Department in responding to a
request for an advisory opinion. (42
U.S.C. 1320a–7d(b)(5)(B)(ii)). Under the
interim final and final advisory opinion
rules, we directed requestors to make an
initial payment to the U.S. Treasury by
check or money order in the amount of
$250. The regulations have also allowed
for the acceptance of final payment of
the fee by check or money order.
Through this interim final rule, we are
setting forth several revisions to the
payment process for advisory opinion
requests. Specifically, we are modifying
our procedures for submitting an
advisory opinion request by deleting the
current requirements at §§ 1008.31(b)
and 1008.36(b)(6) for an initial payment
of $250 for each advisory opinion
request, and replacing the existing
provision set forth in § 1008.31(b) with
a requirement that payment for an
advisory opinion be made directly to the
Treasury of the United States, as
directed by OIG. In addition, we are
amending § 1008.43(d) to state that an
advisory opinion will be issued
following receipt by OIG of
confirmation that payment in full has
been remitted by the requesting party to
the Department of Treasury as directed
by OIG.
1 Public Law 104–191 erroneously cited this
provision as section 1128B(b) of the Act. Section
4331(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public
Law 105–33, corrected this citation to section
1128A(b) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR1.SGM
26MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15930-15937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6205]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107; FRL-8356-2]
Myclobutanil; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite in or on artichoke, globe;
black sapote; canistel; cilantro, leaves; leafy greens, subgroup 4A,
except spinach; mamey sapote; mango; okra; papaya; sapodilla; star
apple; and fruiting vegetable group 8, except tomato. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). EPA is also deleting
several established myclobutanil tolerances that are no longer needed.
DATES: This regulation is effective March 26, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 27, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 in the electronic docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), 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 those
engaged in the following activities:
Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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 to
provide 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?
In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
[[Page 15931]]
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before May 27, 2008.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16352) (FRL-8119-
2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
3E6562 and 6E7138) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. These petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.443 be
amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the
fungicide myclobutanil alpha-butyl-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-
triazole-1-propanenitrile and its alcohol metabolite (alpha-(3-
hydroxybutyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-propanenitrile
(free and bound), in or on Black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango,
papaya, sapodilla, and star apple at 3.0 parts per million (ppm) (PP
3E6562); and Fruiting vegetables, crop group 8, except tomato at 4.5
ppm; leafy vegetables, crop subgroup 4A, except spinach at 11.0 ppm;
globe artichoke at 0.9 ppm; cilantro at 11.0 ppm; and okra at 4.5 ppm
in (PP 6E7138). That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Dow Agrosciences LLC, the registrant, which is available to
the public in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised some of the commodity definitions and tolerance levels for
certain commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit
IV.C.
EPA is also deleting several established tolerances in Sec.
180.443(b) that are no longer needed. The tolerance deletions under
Sec. 180.443(b) are time-limited tolerances established under section
18 emergency exemptions. The time-limited tolerances for artichoke,
globe and pepper are superceded by the establishment of general
tolerances for myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite under Sec.
180.443(a) as a result of this action. The time-limited tolerances for
sugar beet dried pulp, sugar molassess, refined sugar, roots, and tops
are being deleted since they have expired.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for combined residues of myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite on
artichoke, globe at 0.90 ppm; canistel at 3.0 ppm; cilantro, leaves at
9.0 ppm; leafy greens, crop subgroup 4A, except spinach at 9.0 ppm;
mango at 3.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm; papaya at 3.0 ppm; sapodilla at 3.0
ppm; sapote, black at 3.0 ppm; sapote, mamey at 3.0 ppm; star apple at
3.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except tomato at 4.0 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.
Myclobutanil has low acute toxicity with the exception for ocular
irritation. In rat subchronic and chronic toxicity studies, the primary
target organs are liver and testes. Liver effects, following subchronic
exposure, include hypertrophy, hepatocellular necrosis and increased
liver weight. Chronic exposure to the rat also results in
hepatocellular vacuolization and additional testicular effects, which
include bilateral aspermatogenesis, increased incidences of hypospermia
and cellular debris in the epididymides and increased incidences of
arteritis/periarteritis in the testes. With the exception of testicular
effects, subchronic and chronic exposures in the mouse result in a
toxicity profile similar to the rat. The mouse, following chronic
exposure, has, in addition, increased Kupffer cell pigmentation,
periportal punctate vacuolation, and individual cell necrosis of the
liver. There is no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse. In the subchronic dog study, there are hepatocellular
hypertrophy, increased relative and absolute liver weight and increased
alkaline phosphatase. In the chronic dog study, liver toxicity is
similar with the addition of ``ballooned''
[[Page 15932]]
hepatocytes and increases in serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT)
and gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT). Signs of toxicity observed in the
rat 28-day dermal studies are limited to dermal irritation. There is no
evidence of systemic toxicity in either study. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility in either of the developmental toxicity
studies or the reproduction study. There is no concern for mutagenic
activity. Myclobutanil was determined to be not carcinogenic in two
acceptable animal studies.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by myclobutanil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule
published in the Federal Register of May 10, 2000 (65 FR 29963) (FRL-
6555-5) (https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/May/Day-10/
p11571.htm).
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account 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. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for myclobutanil used for
human risk assessment can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
document Myclobutanil. Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on
Section 3 Requests for Use on Snap Bean, Mint, Papaya, Gooseberry,
Currant, Caneberry, Bell and Non-Bell Pepper, Head and Leaf Lettuce,
and Artichoke at page 7 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to myclobutanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing myclobutanil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.443. EPA assessed dietary exposures from myclobutanil 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. An acute dietary exposure
assessment was performed for females 13 to 49 years old. No acute
endpoint was identified for the general U.S. population or any other
population subgroup.
In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As
to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for which there are
tolerances were treated andcontain tolerance-level residues.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used USDA Pesticide
Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for apple juice, bananas (not
plantains) and milk. Tolerance level residues were used for all other
registered and proposed uses. Average percent cropped treated (PCT)
information was used for some commodities and 100 PCT information was
used for all other registered and proposed uses.
iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, myclobutanil has been classified as ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Consequently, a quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessment is not appropriate for myclobutanil.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant
to FFDCA 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. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of 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:
a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show
what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain
such pesticide residue.
b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a
particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for
the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for
periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows: 40% apples (except
juice); 15% almonds; 25% apricots; 55% artichokes; 5% asparagus; 1%
green beans; 15% blackberries; 1% broccoli; 10% cantaloupes; 5%
cauliflower; 35% cherries; 1% cucumber; 25% grapes; 65% hops; 1% mint;
10% nectarines; 10% peaches; 10% plums; 15% pumpkins; 25 % raspberries;
1% soybeans; 10% squash; 35% strawberries; 1% sugar beets; 5% tomatoes;
and 5% watermelons.
The Agency used projected percent crop treated (PPCT) information
for peppers estimating 46% of peppers are treated.
EPA estimates PPCT for myclobutanil use on peppers by assuming that
the PCT during the pesticide's initial 5 years of use on a specific use
site will not exceed the average PCT of the
[[Page 15933]]
dominant pesticide (i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that site
over the three most recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among
pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the dominant insecticide
on the use site is selected for comparison with a new insecticide). The
PCTs included in the average may be each for the same pesticide or for
different pesticides since the same or different pesticides may
dominate for each year selected. Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the
source for raw PCT data because it is publicly available and does not
have to be calculated from available data sources. When a specific use
site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses proprietary data and
calculates the estimated PCT.
This estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader
is appropriate for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. This
method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or
a new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most
cases, to be exceeded during the initial 5 years of actual use. The
predominant factors that bears on whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded are whether the new pesticide use is more efficacious or
controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant pesticides,
whether there are concerns with pest pressures as indicated in
emergency exemption requests or other readily available information,
and whether the pathogenicity of the pest is prevalent in other states.
All information currently available has been considered for
myclobutanil, and it is the opinion of EPA that it is unlikely that
actual PCT for myclobutanil will exceed the estimated PPCT during the
next 5 years.
The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in Unit
III.C.1.vi. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available information on the regional consumption of food to
which myclobutanil may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for myclobutanil 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 environmental
fate characteristics of myclobutanil. 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 (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of myclobutanil for
acute exposures are estimated to be 120.1 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 2.83 ppb for ground water. The estimated
environmental concentrations for chronic exposures are estimated to be
46.3 ppb for surface water and 2.83 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 120.1 ppb was used to
access the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 46.3 ppb was used to
access the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Myclobutanil is currently registered for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: turf, ornamentals, and home garden uses
on vegetables, fruit trees, nut trees, berries and mint. The risk
assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure
assumptions:
For adults, there is potential for short-term dermal and inhalation
handler exposure, and short-term dermal post-application exposures from
the residential uses of myclobutanil, including ``pick your own''
orchards, home fruit and vegetable gardens, and treated turf. Since
myclobutanil is applied at 7- to 14-day intervals, only short-term
exposure is expected for the residential handler. For children/
toddlers, short-term dermal and non-dietary oral post-application
exposures may result from dermal contact with treated turf as well as
non-dietary ingestion/hand-to-mouth transfer of residues from turf
grass. Intermediate-term post-application exposures may result for
adults from dermal contact with treated fruits and vegetables at ``pick
your own'' gardens, treated home fruit and vegetable gardens and
treated turf. For toddlers, intermediate-term dermal and non-dietary
oral post-application exposures may result from dermal contact with
treated turf as well as non-dietary ingestion/hand-to-mouth transfer of
residues from turf grass. Based on the current use patterns, no chronic
residential exposures are expected.
The current use patterns and labeling indicate that a variety of
application equipment could be used by the homeowner to apply
myclobutanil to ornamental plants, shrubs, fruit trees, home garden
vegetables and lawns. Therefore, the following scenarios were assessed:
i. Aerosol spray can application to ornamentals and fruit trees;
ii. Hose end sprayer application to ornamentals and fruit trees;
iii. Low-pressure (LP) handwand application to ornamentals;
iv. LP handwand application to vegetables;
v. Ready to use (RTU) sprayer application to vegetables;
vi. Hose end sprayer application to vegetables;
vii. Hose end sprayer - mix your own - application to turf;
viii. Hose end sprayer - ready to use - application to turf;
ix. Belly grinder application to turf;
x. Broadcast spreader application to turf.
Unit exposure data were either taken from Pesticide Handler's
Exposure Database (PHED) study data or from the home garden and turf
application studies that were sponsored by the Outdoor Residential
Exposure Task Force (ORETF).
Home garden post-application exposures can occur when home
gardeners perform tasks such as weeding, pruning or hand harvesting
following application of myclobutanil. In order to address these risks,
the post-application exposure to home gardens and orchard scenarios
were assessed based upon the Residential Standard
[[Page 15934]]
Operating Procedures (SOP) 3.0 for Garden Plants and SOP 4.0 for Trees.
Two dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) studies on grapes in
California were used to assess the home garden exposures. The studies
were performed using airblast sprayers while the proposed home garden
applications would be made with LP handwand or hose end sprayers. Based
upon experience with other fungicides, however, it is anticipated that
DFRs resulting from handwand applications would be similar to DFRs from
airblast applications. The initial DFR was assumed to be 23% of the
application rate.
``Pick your own'' exposures can occur at commercially operated
``pick your own'' strawberry farms and orchards where myclobutanil has
been applied. To address these risks, post-application exposure for
pick your own strawberries and tree fruit were assessed based upon the
Residential SOP 15.0 for ``pick your own'' strawberries. The DFR data
that were used for the home gardener post-application risks were also
used to assess ``pick your own'' exposures. The exposure estimates used
for pick your own exposures are considered conservative because that
scenario is based upon a screening-level transfer coefficient (TC) and
a dermal absorption factor of 50%.
The following exposure scenarios were assessed for residential
post-application risks:
Toddlers playing on treated turf;
Adults performing yard work on treated turf;
Adults playing golf on treated turf.
A total radioactive residue (TTR) study was used to assess the turf
exposures. The field portion of this study was in North Carolina and
California. The initial TTR for dermal exposures was assumed to be 2.4%
of the application rate and was based upon an average of the days after
treatment (DAT) of 0 and DAT of 3 for the California site. The maximum
application rate for turf of 0.62 to 0.68 lb active ingredient/Acre was
use to assess the turf exposures.
Additional information on residential exposure assumptions can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Myclobutanil.
Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Section 3 Requests for
Use on Snap Bean, Mint, Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry, Bell
and Non-Bell Pepper, Head and Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke,'' in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0107.
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.''
Myclobutanil is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found. Some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events, including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
Myclobutanil is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazole alanine and triazole acetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including myclobutanil, EPA conducted a
human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazole
alanine, and triazole acetic acid resulting from the use of all current
and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The risk assessment
is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of
hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum
combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-
dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-
dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency retained the additional 10X
FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The
assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups,
including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's
complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration
docket at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497).
Additional information regarding the uses proposed for myclobutanil in
this action can also be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the
following documents: 1,2,4 Triazole Revised Chronic and Acute Aggregate
Dietary Exposure Assessments to Include for New Uses of Myclobutanil on
Snap Bean, Mint, Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry, Bell and Non-
Bell Pepper, Head and Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke, and Triazole Alanine
and Triazole Acetic Acid Revised Chronic and Acute Aggregate Dietary
Exposure Assessments for New Uses of Myclobutanil on Snap Bean, Mint,
Papaya, Gooseberry, Currant, Caneberry, Bell and Non-Bell Pepper, Head
and Leaf Lettuce, and Artichoke in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0107.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') 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 based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no indication of
quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility in rats or rabbits
from in utero and/or postnatal exposure to myclobutanil. In the rat
developmental toxicity study, maternal toxicity, which included rough
hair coat and salivation, alopecia, desquamation and red exudate around
mouth occurs at the same dose level as increases in incidences of 14th
rudimentary and 7th cervical ribs in the fetuses. The maternal and
developmental toxicity NOAELs in the rat developmental toxicity study
were
[[Page 15935]]
93.8 mg/kg/day. EPA concludes that there is no evidence qualitative
susceptibility in rat developmental toxicity study since the fetal
variations (14th rudimentary ribs and 7th cervical ribs) are normal
occurance control animals that occurred in the presence of severe
maternal toxicity (red exudate around mouth and salivation). In the
rabbit developmental toxicity study there is reduced body weight and
body weight gain during the dosing period, clinical signs of toxicity
such as bloody urine and bloody urogenital or anal area and a possible
increase in abortions (blood and/or aborted material in the cage pan)
in the does at the same dose level as developmental toxicity manifested
as increased resorptions, decreased litter size and decreased viability
index. The maternal and developmental toxicity NOAELs in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study were 93.8 mg/kg/day. EPA concludes that
there is no evidence qualitative susceptibility in rabbit developmental
toxicity study since the fetal effects (resorptions, decreased litter
size and viability) occurred in the presence of equally severe maternal
toxicity (abortions, bloody urine and bloody urogenital or anal
area).The maternal NOAEL in the 2-generation reproduction study was 50
ppm (2.5 mg/kg/day) based on hepatocellular hypertrophy and increased
liver weight seen at 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day; LOAEL). The offspring
toxicity NOAEL was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day) based on decreased pup body
weight gain during lactation seen at 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day; LOAEL).
The reproductive toxicity NOAEL was 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day) based on
increased incidences in the number of still born pups and atrophy of
the testes, epididymides and prostate observed at 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/
day; LOAEL). EPA concludes that there is no evidence on increased
susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats because the offspring and reproductive
toxicity were observed at a higher dose than the dose that caused
maternal toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for myclobutanil is complete.
ii. There is no indication that myclobutanil is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that myclobutanil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessment (females 13 to 49
years old only) utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level residues
and 100 PCT information for all commodities. The chronic dietary food
exposure assessment utilizes existing and proposed tolerance level
residues; USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for apple
juice, bananas (not plantains) and milk; average PCT data for some
commodities and 100 PCT information for all other commodities. 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. Finally, the
residential handler assessment is based upon the residential standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and utilized unit exposure data from the
Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) and the Pesticide
Handler's Exposure Database (PHED). The residential post-application
assessment is based upon chemical-specific turf transferable residue
(TTR) data and DFR data. The chemical-specific study data as well as
the surrogate study data used are reliable and also are not expected to
underestimate risk to adults as well as to children. In a few cases
where chemical-specific data were not available, the SOPs were used
alone. The residential SOPs are based upon reasonable ``worst-case''
assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk. These
assessments of exposure are not likely to underestimate the exposure to
myclobutanil.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted
dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure for females 13 to 49 years old (no acute
endpoint was identified for the general U.S. population or any other
population subgroup), the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
myclobutanil will occupy 4% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49 years old.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
myclobutanil from food and water will utilize 30% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the subpopulation group with greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of myclobutanil is not expected.
3. Short-term risk and Intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
Myclobutanil is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and
water and short-term exposures for myclobutanil. As discussed in Unit
III.C.3., short-term and intermediate-term exposures were assessed for
adults and for children/toddlers. A NOAEL (10 mg/kg/day) from a 2-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats was used for assessing
short-term and intermediate-term dermal, inhalation and incidental oral
exposures; therefore, the short-term and intermediate-term aggregate
risk estimates from the post-application exposure scenarios are the
same for the general U.S. population and children/toddlers.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food,
water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs
ranging from 110 to 990: 110 for post-application exposures for adults
for ``pick your own fruit'' operations; 120 for post-application
exposures for adults to turf, heavy yard work; 130 post-application
exposures for children playing on the lawn; 170 for adult handlers; 280
for adult post application exposures to home gardens; and 980 for adult
post applications exposures while playing golf.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
classified myclobutanil as not likely to be a
[[Page 15936]]
human carcinogen. Myclobutanil was determined to be not carcinogenic in
two acceptable animal studies. Myclobutanil 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 or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to myclobutanil residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-
phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) for myclobutanil and gas chromatography/
electron-capture detection (GC/ECD) for the alcohol metabolite) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The methods 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 currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs
for myclobutanil.
C. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA revised
the tolerance levels based on analyses of the residue field trial data
using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the
Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial
Data Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) as follows: (1) PP 3E6562 from
3.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm for canistel; mango; papaya; sapodilla; sapote,
black; sapote, mamey; and star apple; (2) PP 6E7138 from 4.5 ppm to 4.0
ppm for fruiting vegetables, crop group 8, except tomato and okra; from
11 ppm to 9.0 ppm for leafy vegetables, crop subgroup 4A, except
spinach and cilantro; and from 0.9 ppm to 0.90 ppm for globe artichoke.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
myclobutanil and its alcohol metabolite on artichoke, globe at 0.90
ppm; canistel at 3.0 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 9.0 ppm; leafy greens,
crop subgroup 4A, except spinach at 9.0 ppm; mango at 3.0 ppm; okra at
4.0 ppm; papaya at 3.0 ppm; sapodilla at 3.0 ppm; sapote, black at 3.0
ppm; sapote, mamey at 3.0 ppm; star apple at 3.0 ppm; and vegetable,
fruiting, group 8, except tomato at 4.0 ppm.
VI. 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, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under 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.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
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).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 13, 2008.
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 180.443 is amended by removing from the table in paragraph
(b) the entries for artichoke, globe; beet, sugar, dried pulp; beet,
sugar, molasses; beet, sugar, refined sugar; beet, sugar, roots; beet,
sugar, tops; and pepper and by alphabetically adding commodities to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
180.443 Myclobutanil; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Artichoke, globe........................................ 0.90
* * * * *
Canistel................................................ 3.0
[[Page 15937]]
* * * * *
Cilantro, leaves........................................ 9.0
* * * * *
Leafy greens, subgroup 4A, except spinach............... 9.0
Mango................................................... 3.0
* * * * *
Okra.................................................... 4.0
Papaya.................................................. 3.0
* * * * *
Sapodilla............................................... 3.0
Sapote, black........................................... 3.0
Sapote, mamey........................................... 3.0
* * * * *
Star apple.............................................. 3.0
* * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except tomato............. 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-6205 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S