Cymoxanil; Pesticide Tolerances, 58880-58886 [E8-23864]
Download as PDF
58880
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Approved: July 10, 2008.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 38 CFR parts 17 and 59,
which was published in the Federal
Register at 66 FR 33845 on June 26,
2001, is adopted as a final rule with the
following changes and with the final
regulatory change made to § 59.50 that
was effective on February 14, 2007 (72
FR 6959):
■
PART 59—GRANTS TO STATES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OR ACQUISITION OF
STATE HOMES
1. The authority citation for part 59
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742,
8105, 8131–8137.
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742,
8105, 8131–8137
2. Amend § 59.20 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 59.20
Care, may determine and certify for
payment to the appropriate Federal
institution. Funds paid under this
section for an approved project shall be
used solely for carrying out such project
as so approved. As a condition for the
final payment, the State must comply
with the requirements of this part based
on an architectural and engineering
inspection approved by VA, must obtain
VA approval of the final equipment list
submitted by the State representative,
and must submit to VA a completed VA
Form 10–0388–13 (this form is available
on the internet Web site provided in
§ 59.170). The equipment list and the
completed VA Form 10–0388–13 must
be submitted to the Chief Consultant,
Geriatrics and Extended Care (114),
VHA Headquarters; 810 Vermont
Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20420.
■
Initial application requirements.
5. Revise § 59.170 to read as follows:
(a) For a project to be considered for
inclusion on the priority list in § 59.50
of this part for the next fiscal year, a
State must submit to VA an original and
one copy of a completed VA Form 10–
0388–1 and all information,
documentation, and other forms
specified by VA Form 10–0388–1 (these
forms are available on the internet Web
sites provided in § 59.170 of this part).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 59.60 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 59.170.
§ 59.60 Additional application
requirements.
[FR Doc. E8–23822 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am]
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Complete, updated Standard
Forms 424 (mark the box labeled
application and submit the information
requested for an application), 424C, and
424D (these forms are available on the
internet Web site provided in § 59.170
of this part), and
(b) A completed VA Form 10–0388–
5 and all information and
documentation specified by VA Form
10–0388–5 (this form is available on the
internet Web site provided in § 59.170).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Revise § 59.100 to read as follows:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
§ 59.100
Payment of grant award.
The amount of the grant award will be
paid to the State or, if designated by the
State representative, the State home for
which such project is being carried out
or any other State agency or
instrumentality. Such amount shall be
paid by way of reimbursement, and in
such installments consistent with the
progress of the project as the Chief
Consultant, Geriatrics and Extended
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
Forms.
All forms required by this part are
available on the internet at ‘‘http:/
www.va.gov/forms/’’ for VA Forms and
at ‘‘https://www.gsa.gov’’ for Standard
Forms, or at the Veterans Health
Administration, Room 789, 810
Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20420.
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742,
8105, 8131–8137, Section 2, 3, 4, and 4a of
the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as
amended, Pub. L. 90–480, 42 U.S.C. 4151–
4157
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
This regulation is effective
October 8, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 8, 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–2007–1191. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.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.
DATES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007-1191; FRL–8382–9]
Cymoxanil; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of cymoxanil in
or on bulb onion subgroup 3-07A; green
onion subgroup 3-07B; leafy greens
subgroup 4A; leaf petioles subgroup 4B;
cilantro leaves; and caneberry subgroup
13-07A. The Interregional Research
Project (IR-4) requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation
also deletes the tolerances for caneberry
and head lettuce.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. General Information
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).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather 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
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’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.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing electronically
available documents 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.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
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.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of March 12,
2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL–8354–6), 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 7E7282 and
7E7283) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.503
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the fungicide cymoxanil,
(2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2(methoxyimino) acetamide), in or on
bulb vegetables group 3-07 at 1.1 parts
per million (ppm); leafy greens
subgroup 4A at 19 ppm; cilantro leaves
at 19 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A
at 4 ppm (PP 7E7283); and leaf petioles
subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm (PP 7E7282).
That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by IR-4 and DuPont,
the registrant, which is available to the
public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Several comments
were received from a private citizen
objecting to the sale of the pesticide and
animal testing. The Agency has received
these same comments from this
commenter on numerous previous
occasions. Refer to Federal Register 70
FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354
(January 7, 2005), 69 FR 63096-63098
(October 29, 2004) for the Agency’s
response to these objections.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the tolerance levels for
bulb vegetables should be set as follows:
bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm;
green onion subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm.
The reasons for this change are
explained in Unit IV.D.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–1191 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 December 8, 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–2007–1191, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58881
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue.’’
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of FFDCA, and the factors specified in
section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of cymoxanil on
bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm;
green onion subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm;
leafy greens subgroup 4A at 19 ppm;
leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm;
cilantro leaves at 19 ppm; and caneberry
subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing these
tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by cymoxanil as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-levels
(NOAELs) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-levels (LOAELs) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
Cymoxanil; Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Bulb
Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07), Leafy
Greens (Subgroup 4A), and Leaf Petioles
(Subgroup 4B), page 16 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1191.
Cymoxanil has low acute toxicity via
oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of
exposure. It is a mild skin irritant, not
a skin sensitizer, and non-irritating to
the eye. Systemic toxicity, as evidenced
by decreased body weights, body weight
gains, and food consumption, was
observed in subchronic, chronic,
developmental, reproductive and
neurotoxicity studies across species.
The dog appears to be the most sensitive
species for cymoxanil-induced toxicity
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
58882
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
with the thymus gland identified as a
target organ in this species during
subchronic and chronic exposures. No
evidence of immunotoxicity was
observed following subchronic exposure
of rats up to 108 milligrams/kilograms/
day (mg/kg/day) in males and 117 mg/
kg/day in females (108/117 (M/F)) or
mice up to 218/552 (M/F) mg/kg/day,
respectively. In a 21–day dermal
toxicity study in rats, no systemic
toxicity was observed up to the limit
dose. In a subchronic neurotoxicity
study in rats, systemic toxicity was
observed at 102/137 mg/kg/day (M/F);
however, no neurotoxicity and/or
neuropathology were observed up to
224/333 mg/kg/day (M/F; highest dose
tested). In addition, no evidence of
neurotoxicity was observed in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats or
rabbits, the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats, the subchronic or chronic
dog studies, or the 18–month mouse
carcinogenicity study. However, in the
combined chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in rats, clinical
signs of hyperactivity and
aggressiveness in males (≥30.3 mg/kg/
day), as well as retinal atrophy in both
sexes (≥30.3 mg/kg/day) were observed.
Increased susceptibility of rats and
rabbits was observed following in utero
exposure to cymoxanil. In acceptable
developmental toxicity studies in both
of these species, developmental effects
were seen at doses below those that
caused maternal toxicity. In the rat
developmental toxicity studies, skeletal
anomalies, delays in skeletal
ossification, and/or increases in overall
malformations were observed at lower
doses than those at which maternal
toxicity was observed. In a rabbit
developmental study, increased skeletal
malformations were observed at 8 mg/
kg/day (LOAEL), which was also below
the maternal NOAEL of 32 mg/kg/day.
Cleft palate was also observed in fetuses
at 32 mg/kg/day. In the first 2generation reproduction toxicity study
(1993), decreased pup viability (PND 04) was observed at maternally toxic
doses. In a second 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study (2001),
decreased body weight was observed
during lactation in both F1 and F2
offspring at a dose that was lower than
that at which parental toxicity was
observed. The increased susceptibility
of offspring observed in this study was
concordant with the results obtained in
the developmental toxicity studies. In a
developmental neurotoxicity study,
offspring toxicity – adverse effects
included decreased pup survival,
decreased pup weight and body weight
gain during early lactation, increases in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
morphometric measurements (anterior/
posterior cerebrum for males, cerebellar
height for females) at PND 79-83, and
decreased retention in the water maze
task for adult females – was observed at
the same dose as maternal toxicity
(slight decreases in body weight, body
weight gain during gestation, and food
consumption). The LOAEL for both
maternal animals and offspring was 100
mg/kg/day. No residual uncertainties
exist in the database for pre-/post-natal
toxicity, and the endpoints selected for
risk assessment are considered
protective of effects observed in
offspring in developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies. The
endpoints selected for risk assessment
are further described in section 3.5 of
the document: Cymoxanil; Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
Uses on Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 307), Leafy Greens (Subgroup 4A), and
Leaf Petioles (Subgroup 4B), page 13 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
1191.
Cymoxanil was not carcinogenic in
rats and mice and is classified as ‘‘not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’
The available studies indicate that
cymoxanil is not mutagenic in bacteria
or cultured mammalian cells. There is,
however, evidence of clastogenic
activity and induction of unscheduled
DNA synthesis in vitro. In contrast,
cymoxanil was neither clastogenic nor
aneugenic in vivo in mouse bone
marrow cells and did not induce a
genotoxic response in rat somatic or
germinal cells. The negative results from
the in vivo mouse bone marrow
micronucleus assay support the lack of
a carcinogenic effect in long-term rat
and mouse feeding studies.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, a toxicological point of departure
(POD) is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as
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) or a Benchmark Dose
(BMD) approach is sometimes used for
risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety
factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute
and chronic dietary risks by comparing
aggregate food and water 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 POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing food, water, and residential
exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by
the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded. This latter value is referred to
as the Level of Concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus,
the Agency estimates risk in terms of the
probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect greater than that expected
in a lifetime. For more information on
the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment
process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for cymoxanil used for
human risk assessment can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in document
Cymoxanil; Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Bulb
Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07), Leafy
Greens (Subgroup 4A), and Leaf Petioles
(Subgroup 4B), page 16 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1191.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cymoxanil, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
cymoxanil tolerances in (40 CFR
180.503). EPA assessed dietary
exposures from cymoxanil in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1–day or single
exposure. An acute endpoint of concern
was not identified for the general U.S.
population. Therefore, an acute dietary
exposure assessment was performed
only for Females 13-49 Years Old, based
upon the NOAEL of 4 mg/kg/day from
the rabbit developmental toxicity study.
In estimating acute dietary exposure,
EPA used food consumption
information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
in food, EPA assumed that cymoxanil
residues were present in all registered
and proposed food commodities at
tolerance levels, and 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) for all commodities.
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
(DEEM) version 7.81 default processing
factors were used for all registered and
proposed commodities except grapes.
Processing factors for grape juice (1.4x)
and raisins (1x) were derived from grape
processing data.
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 tolerance level residues or
anticipated residues (field trial residues)
and PCT. Anticipated residues were
calculated from average field trial data
for cilantro leaves, chive, grape, green
onion, hops, leaf petioles, and leafy
greens. DEEM 7.81 default processing
factors were used for all commodities
except grapes. Processing factors for
grape juice (1.4x) and raisins (1x) were
derived from grape processing data.
iii. Cancer. Cymoxanil was not
carcinogenic in rats and mice. EPA
classified cymoxanil as ‘‘not likely’’ to
be a human carcinogen; therefore a
cancer dietary exposure assessment was
not performed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available
data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in
food. If EPA relies on such information,
EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5
years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating
that the levels in food are not above the
levels anticipated. For the present
action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of
these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
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: Cucumber, head lettuce,
pepper, potato, and tomato at 10%;
pumpkin, squash, and watermelon at
1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the
National Pesticide Use Database for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6 years. EPA uses an average PCT
for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use
is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations
in which the average PCT is less than
one. In those cases, 1% is used as the
average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated
is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58883
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which cymoxanil may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for cymoxanil in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of cymoxanil.
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
cymoxanil for acute exposures are
estimated to be 9.3 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.0018 ppb
for ground water. EDWCs of cymoxanil
for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 0.05
ppb for surface water and 0.0018 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 9.3 ppb was used
to assess the contribution to drinking
water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration
value of 0.05 ppb was used to assess 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).
Cymoxanil is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found cymoxanil to share
a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and cymoxanil
does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that cymoxanil does not have
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
58884
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is an indication of increased
susceptibility of rats and rabbits to in
utero exposure to cymoxanil. In several
developmental toxicity studies in the rat
and rabbit, developmental toxicity was
observed at doses that were lower than
those that caused maternal toxicity. In
the rat developmental toxicity studies,
skeletal anomalies, delays in skeletal
ossification, and/or increases in overall
malformations were observed at lower
doses than those at which maternal
toxicity was observed. However, in the
developmental neurotoxicity study in
rat, offspring toxicity was observed at
the same dose as maternal toxicity. In
one rabbit developmental study,
increased skeletal anomalies were
observed at 8 mg/kg/day (LOAEL),
which was below the maternal NOAEL
of 32 mg/kg/day. In a second rabbit
developmental toxicity study, an
increased incidence of visceral and
skeletal anomalies was observed at 25
mg/kg bw/day; a maternal LOAEL was
not observed in this study. In the 2generation reproduction toxicity study,
decreased pup body weight was
observed at a lower dose than that
which caused toxicity in adults.
In the developmental and postnatal
studies for which there is increased
susceptibility, the effects are well
characterized and conservative NOAELs
were established for developmental and
offspring effects. In addition, the doses
selected for risk assessment are based on
the lowest NOAELs from the
developmental and reproductive
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
toxicity studies, where appropriate, and
are protective of any potential pre- and
post-natal effects. Therefore, there are
low levels of concern and no residual
uncertainties for pre- and post-natal
toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X for acute risk
determination. That decision is based
on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for cymoxanil
is complete for dietary risk assessment
and includes a developmental
neurotoxicity study.
ii. Although there is evidence of
increased susceptibility in the prenatal
developmental studies in rats and
rabbits, there have not been any residual
uncertainties identified after
establishing toxicity endpoints and
traditional uncertainty factors to be used
in the risk assessment of cymoxanil. The
degree of concern for pre-and/or
postnatal toxicity is low.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute dietary food exposure
assessment was performed based on 100
PCT and tolerance-level residues, and
DEEM default processing factors for all
registered and proposed commodities.
The chronic dietary food assessment
was performed incorporating tolerance
levels or anticipated residues (field trial
residues) and PCT (potatoes, head
lettuce, peppers, tomatoes, watermelon,
cucumber, pumpkin, and summer and
winter squash). EPA believes that the
PCT estimates used are based on reliable
data because PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to cymoxanil in
drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by cymoxanil.
EPA has retained the 10X FQPA
safety factor for assessing risk from
chronic dietary exposure to cymoxanil
because the LOAEL from the chronic
toxicity study in the dog was used to
assess chronic dietary risk.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic pesticide exposures are safe by
comparing aggregate exposure estimates
to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD represent the highest safe
exposures, taking into account all
appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the
aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
all applicable UFs. For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to
ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account exposure
estimates from acute dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. An acute dietary exposure
assessment was performed for females
13-49 years old only, since an acute
endpoint of concern was not identified
for the general U.S. population. Using
the exposure assumptions discussed in
this unit for acute exposure, the acute
dietary exposure to cymoxanil from
food and water will occupy 89% of the
aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
only population subgroup of concern.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to cymoxanil
from food and water will utilize 74% of
the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. For the general U.S.
population, chronic exposure to
cymoxanil from food and water will
utilize 48% of the cPAD. There are no
residential uses for cymoxanil.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Cymoxanil is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
Therefore, the short- or intermediateterm aggregate risk is the sum of the risk
from exposure to cymoxanil through
food and water and will not be greater
than the chronic aggregate risk.
4. Cancer. Because cymoxanil was not
carcinogenic in rats and mice, EPA
concludes that the cancer risk to
humans from exposure to cymoxanil is
negligible.
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 cymoxanil
residues.
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(high performance liquid
chromatography with ultra violet
detection (HPLC/UV) and HPLC/MS
(mass spectroscopy)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no CODEX maximum
residue levels established for cymoxanil
on any of the commodities for which the
tolerances are being established.
C. Response to Comments
Comments were submitted by a
private citizen who opposed the
establishment of cymoxanil tolerances
for the following reasons:
1. The availability of numerous
products previously registered for the
same purpose as the new uses of
cymoxanil supported by these
tolerances, and
2. Cymoxanil is toxic to aquatic
plants, bees, and birds, and therefore
has potentially harmful effects on the
environment.
These comments are considered
irrelevant because the safety standard
for approving tolerances under section
408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential
harm to human health and does not
permit consideration of effects on the
environment or the availability of other
registered products. Environmental
effects were closely considered in EPA’s
decision to register cymoxanil under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
Because there is a wide variability in
the field trial residues, EPA has
concluded that a group tolerance for
bulb vegetables is not supported by the
available data. Therefore, EPA has
determined that the proposed tolerance
level for bulb vegetables of 1.1 ppm
should be revised as follows: Bulb onion
subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm; green
onion subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of cymoxanil, (2-cyano-N[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2(methoxyimino) acetamide), in or on
bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm;
green onion subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
leafy vegetables subgroup 4A at 19 ppm;
cilantro leaves at 19 ppm; leaf petioles
subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm; and caneberry
subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm.
Additionally, the existing entries for
‘‘Caneberry’’ and ‘‘Lettuce, head’’ are
deleted.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
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 final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58885
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
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: September 29, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.503 is amended in
paragraph (a) by revising the
introductory text, and in the table, by
removing the entry for ‘‘Lettuce, head’’,
revising the entry for ‘‘Caneberry’’ and
alphabetically adding the following
commodities to read as follows:
■
§180.503
residues
Cymoxanil; tolerances for
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of the fungicide,
cymoxanil, 2-cyano -N[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
58886
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
has now replaced the ASBCA as the
venue for claims brought under the Act
for the Federal Employees Health
Parts per million
Benefits (FEHB) Program. OPM is
updating the FEHBAR to eliminate
reference to the ASBCA to reflect this
4.0
change in the law.
(methoxyimino) acetamide, in or on the
following food commodities:
Commodity
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with RULES
Caneberry, subgroup
13A-07 .........................
Cilantro, leaves ...............
*
*
*
*
19
*
Collection of Information Requirement
This rulemaking makes a minor
Leafy greens, subgroup
4A ................................
19 clarifying amendment to the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Acquisition
Leaf petioles, subgroup
4B ................................
6.0 Regulations. The rule does not impose
*
*
*
*
* information collection and
recordkeeping requirements that meet
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3the definition of the Paperwork
07A ..............................
0.05 Reduction Act of 1995’s term
Onion, green, subgroup
‘‘collection of information,’’ which
3-07B ...........................
1.1
means obtaining, causing to be obtained,
*
*
*
*
*
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public, of facts or
opinions by or for an agency, regardless
*
*
*
*
*
of form or format, calling for either
[FR Doc. E8–23864 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am]
answers to identical questions posed to,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
or identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on ten or more
persons, other than agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
United States; or answers to questions
MANAGEMENT
posed to agencies, instrumentalities, or
48 CFR Part 1633
employees of the United States which
are to be used for general statistical
RIN 3206–AL35
purposes. Consequently, it need not be
reviewed by the Office of Management
Federal Employees Health Benefits
and Budget under the authority of the
Acquisition Regulation: Board of
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
Contract Appeals
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
AGENCY: Office of Personnel
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Management.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
ACTION: Final rule.
requires agencies to analyze options for
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel
regulatory relief of small businesses. For
Management (OPM) is adopting as final, purposes of the RFA, small entities
without change, the proposed rule
include small businesses, nonprofit
published April 7, 2008 to remove the
organizations, and government agencies
designation of the Armed Services
with revenues of $11.5 million or less in
Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA)
any one year. This rulemaking affects
from the Federal Employees Health
FEHB Program carriers and their
Benefits Acquisition Regulation
contractual arrangements that exceed
(FEHBAR).
the dollar threshold. Therefore, I certify
that this regulation will not have a
DATES: Effective October 8, 2008.
significant economic impact on a
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
substantial number of small entities.
further information contact Marguerite
Martel, Policy Analyst, at 202–606–1772 Regulatory Impact Analysis
or e-mail: marguerite.martel@opm.gov.
We have examined the impact of this
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM
proposed rule as required by Executive
published a proposed rule to remove the Order 12866 (September 1993,
designation of the ASBCA from the
Regulatory Planning and Review), the
FEHBAR on April 7, 2008, at 73 FR
RFA (September 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96–
18729. No comments were received.
354), section 1102(b) of the Social
Accordingly, OPM is adopting the
Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates
proposed rule without change. The rule Reform Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–4), and
implements the provisions of the
Executive Order 13132. Executive Order
National Defense Authorization Act of
12866 (as amended by Executive Order
2006, which created the Civilian Board
13258, which merely assigns
of Contract Appeals (CBCA) with
responsibility of duties) directs agencies
authority extending to most civilian
to assess all costs and benefits of
agencies, including OPM. The CBCA
available regulatory alternatives and, if
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Oct 07, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). A regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must be prepared for
major rules with economically
significant effects ($100 million or more
in any one year). This rule is not
considered a major rule, as defined in
title 5, United States Code, section
804(2), because we estimate it will affect
only FEHB carriers. Any resulting
economic impact would not be expected
to exceed the dollar threshold.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Review
This rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget in
accordance with Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1633
Government employees, Government
procurement, Health insurance.
Office of Personnel Management.
Howard Weizmann,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5
U.S.C. 8913; 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 48 CFR
1.301 OPM is amending chapter 16 of
title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by removing and reserving
part 1633.
■
PART 1633—[RESERVED]
[FR Doc. E8–23224 Filed 10–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
48 CFR Part 2133
RIN 3206–AL46
Federal Employees Group Life
Insurance; Federal Acquisition
Regulation: Board of Contract Appeals
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is adopting as final,
without change, the proposed rule
published April 7, 2008 to remove the
designation of the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA)
from the Federal Employees Group Life
Insurance Federal Acquisition
Regulation (LIFAR).
DATES: Effective October 8, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information contact Marguerite
E:\FR\FM\08OCR1.SGM
08OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58880-58886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23864]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1191; FRL-8382-9]
Cymoxanil; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cymoxanil in or on bulb onion subgroup 3-07A; green onion subgroup 3-
07B; leafy greens subgroup 4A; leaf petioles subgroup 4B; cilantro
leaves; and caneberry subgroup 13-07A. The Interregional Research
Project (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also deletes the tolerances
for caneberry and head lettuce.
DATES: This regulation is effective October 8, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 8, 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-2007-1191. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://
www.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).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 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
[[Page 58881]]
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 electronically available documents 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.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1191 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 December 8, 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-2007-1191, 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 Facility'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 March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL-8354-
6), 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
7E7282 and 7E7283) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.503 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
cymoxanil, (2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino)
acetamide), in or on bulb vegetables group 3-07 at 1.1 parts per
million (ppm); leafy greens subgroup 4A at 19 ppm; cilantro leaves at
19 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4 ppm (PP 7E7283); and leaf
petioles subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm (PP 7E7282). That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by IR-4 and DuPont, the registrant,
which is available to the public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Several comments were received from a private
citizen objecting to the sale of the pesticide and animal testing. The
Agency has received these same comments from this commenter on numerous
previous occasions. Refer to Federal Register 70 FR 37686 (June 30,
2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), 69 FR 63096-63098 (October 29,
2004) for the Agency's response to these objections.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the tolerance levels for bulb vegetables should be set
as follows: bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm; green onion subgroup
3-07B at 1.1 ppm. The reasons for this change are explained in Unit
IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of cymoxanil on bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at
0.05 ppm; green onion subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm; leafy greens subgroup
4A at 19 ppm; leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm; cilantro leaves at
19 ppm; and caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing these tolerances
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by cymoxanil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
levels (LOAELs) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document Cymoxanil; Human Health Risk Assessment
for Proposed Uses on Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07), Leafy Greens
(Subgroup 4A), and Leaf Petioles (Subgroup 4B), page 16 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1191.
Cymoxanil has low acute toxicity via oral, dermal, and inhalation
routes of exposure. It is a mild skin irritant, not a skin sensitizer,
and non-irritating to the eye. Systemic toxicity, as evidenced by
decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption, was
observed in subchronic, chronic, developmental, reproductive and
neurotoxicity studies across species. The dog appears to be the most
sensitive species for cymoxanil-induced toxicity
[[Page 58882]]
with the thymus gland identified as a target organ in this species
during subchronic and chronic exposures. No evidence of immunotoxicity
was observed following subchronic exposure of rats up to 108
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in males and 117 mg/kg/day in
females (108/117 (M/F)) or mice up to 218/552 (M/F) mg/kg/day,
respectively. In a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rats, no systemic
toxicity was observed up to the limit dose. In a subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats, systemic toxicity was observed at 102/137
mg/kg/day (M/F); however, no neurotoxicity and/or neuropathology were
observed up to 224/333 mg/kg/day (M/F; highest dose tested). In
addition, no evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, the subchronic or chronic dog studies, or
the 18-month mouse carcinogenicity study. However, in the combined
chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, clinical signs of
hyperactivity and aggressiveness in males (>=30.3 mg/kg/day), as well
as retinal atrophy in both sexes (>=30.3 mg/kg/day) were observed.
Increased susceptibility of rats and rabbits was observed following
in utero exposure to cymoxanil. In acceptable developmental toxicity
studies in both of these species, developmental effects were seen at
doses below those that caused maternal toxicity. In the rat
developmental toxicity studies, skeletal anomalies, delays in skeletal
ossification, and/or increases in overall malformations were observed
at lower doses than those at which maternal toxicity was observed. In a
rabbit developmental study, increased skeletal malformations were
observed at 8 mg/kg/day (LOAEL), which was also below the maternal
NOAEL of 32 mg/kg/day. Cleft palate was also observed in fetuses at 32
mg/kg/day. In the first 2-generation reproduction toxicity study
(1993), decreased pup viability (PND 0-4) was observed at maternally
toxic doses. In a second 2-generation reproduction toxicity study
(2001), decreased body weight was observed during lactation in both
F1 and F2 offspring at a dose that was lower than
that at which parental toxicity was observed. The increased
susceptibility of offspring observed in this study was concordant with
the results obtained in the developmental toxicity studies. In a
developmental neurotoxicity study, offspring toxicity - adverse effects
included decreased pup survival, decreased pup weight and body weight
gain during early lactation, increases in morphometric measurements
(anterior/posterior cerebrum for males, cerebellar height for females)
at PND 79-83, and decreased retention in the water maze task for adult
females - was observed at the same dose as maternal toxicity (slight
decreases in body weight, body weight gain during gestation, and food
consumption). The LOAEL for both maternal animals and offspring was 100
mg/kg/day. No residual uncertainties exist in the database for pre-/
post-natal toxicity, and the endpoints selected for risk assessment are
considered protective of effects observed in offspring in developmental
and reproduction toxicity studies. The endpoints selected for risk
assessment are further described in section 3.5 of the document:
Cymoxanil; Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Bulb
Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07), Leafy Greens (Subgroup 4A), and Leaf
Petioles (Subgroup 4B), page 13 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
1191.
Cymoxanil was not carcinogenic in rats and mice and is classified
as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' The available studies
indicate that cymoxanil is not mutagenic in bacteria or cultured
mammalian cells. There is, however, evidence of clastogenic activity
and induction of unscheduled DNA synthesis in vitro. In contrast,
cymoxanil was neither clastogenic nor aneugenic in vivo in mouse bone
marrow cells and did not induce a genotoxic response in rat somatic or
germinal cells. The negative results from the in vivo mouse bone marrow
micronucleus assay support the lack of a carcinogenic effect in long-
term rat and mouse feeding studies.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as 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) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD 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
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water 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 POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cymoxanil used for
human risk assessment can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
document Cymoxanil; Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on
Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07), Leafy Greens (Subgroup 4A), and Leaf
Petioles (Subgroup 4B), page 16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
1191.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cymoxanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing cymoxanil tolerances in (40 CFR
180.503). EPA assessed dietary exposures from cymoxanil in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. An acute endpoint of concern
was not identified for the general U.S. population. Therefore, an acute
dietary exposure assessment was performed only for Females 13-49 Years
Old, based upon the NOAEL of 4 mg/kg/day from the rabbit developmental
toxicity study. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
[[Page 58883]]
in food, EPA assumed that cymoxanil residues were present in all
registered and proposed food commodities at tolerance levels, and 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities. Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM) version 7.81 default processing factors were
used for all registered and proposed commodities except grapes.
Processing factors for grape juice (1.4x) and raisins (1x) were derived
from grape processing data.
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 tolerance level
residues or anticipated residues (field trial residues) and PCT.
Anticipated residues were calculated from average field trial data for
cilantro leaves, chive, grape, green onion, hops, leaf petioles, and
leafy greens. DEEM 7.81 default processing factors were used for all
commodities except grapes. Processing factors for grape juice (1.4x)
and raisins (1x) were derived from grape processing data.
iii. Cancer. Cymoxanil was not carcinogenic in rats and mice. EPA
classified cymoxanil as ``not likely'' to be a human carcinogen;
therefore a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows: Cucumber, head lettuce,
pepper, potato, and tomato at 10%; pumpkin, squash, and watermelon at
1%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which cymoxanil may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cymoxanil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cymoxanil. 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 cymoxanil for acute
exposures are estimated to be 9.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 0.0018 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of cymoxanil for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.05 ppb for
surface water and 0.0018 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 9.3 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.05 ppb was used to
assess 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). Cymoxanil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found cymoxanil to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and cymoxanil does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cymoxanil does not
have
[[Page 58884]]
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is an indication of
increased susceptibility of rats and rabbits to in utero exposure to
cymoxanil. In several developmental toxicity studies in the rat and
rabbit, developmental toxicity was observed at doses that were lower
than those that caused maternal toxicity. In the rat developmental
toxicity studies, skeletal anomalies, delays in skeletal ossification,
and/or increases in overall malformations were observed at lower doses
than those at which maternal toxicity was observed. However, in the
developmental neurotoxicity study in rat, offspring toxicity was
observed at the same dose as maternal toxicity. In one rabbit
developmental study, increased skeletal anomalies were observed at 8
mg/kg/day (LOAEL), which was below the maternal NOAEL of 32 mg/kg/day.
In a second rabbit developmental toxicity study, an increased incidence
of visceral and skeletal anomalies was observed at 25 mg/kg bw/day; a
maternal LOAEL was not observed in this study. In the 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study, decreased pup body weight was observed at
a lower dose than that which caused toxicity in adults.
In the developmental and postnatal studies for which there is
increased susceptibility, the effects are well characterized and
conservative NOAELs were established for developmental and offspring
effects. In addition, the doses selected for risk assessment are based
on the lowest NOAELs from the developmental and reproductive toxicity
studies, where appropriate, and are protective of any potential pre-
and post-natal effects. Therefore, there are low levels of concern and
no residual uncertainties for pre- and post-natal toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for acute risk determination. That decision
is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for cymoxanil is complete for dietary risk
assessment and includes a developmental neurotoxicity study.
ii. Although there is evidence of increased susceptibility in the
prenatal developmental studies in rats and rabbits, there have not been
any residual uncertainties identified after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional uncertainty factors to be used in the risk
assessment of cymoxanil. The degree of concern for pre-and/or postnatal
toxicity is low.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessment was performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, and DEEM default
processing factors for all registered and proposed commodities. The
chronic dietary food assessment was performed incorporating tolerance
levels or anticipated residues (field trial residues) and PCT
(potatoes, head lettuce, peppers, tomatoes, watermelon, cucumber,
pumpkin, and summer and winter squash). EPA believes that the PCT
estimates used are based on reliable data because PCT estimates are
derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable
and have a valid basis. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions
in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
cymoxanil in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate
the exposure and risks posed by cymoxanil.
EPA has retained the 10X FQPA safety factor for assessing risk from
chronic dietary exposure to cymoxanil because the LOAEL from the
chronic toxicity study in the dog was used to assess chronic dietary
risk.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. An acute dietary exposure assessment was performed for
females 13-49 years old only, since an acute endpoint of concern was
not identified for the general U.S. population. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute
dietary exposure to cymoxanil from food and water will occupy 89% of
the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the only population subgroup of
concern.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cymoxanil from food and water will utilize 74% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
For the general U.S. population, chronic exposure to cymoxanil from
food and water will utilize 48% of the cPAD. There are no residential
uses for cymoxanil.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Cymoxanil is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short- or intermediate-term aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from exposure to cymoxanil through food and water
and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
4. Cancer. Because cymoxanil was not carcinogenic in rats and mice,
EPA concludes that the cancer risk to humans from exposure to cymoxanil
is negligible.
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 cymoxanil residues.
[[Page 58885]]
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography with ultra violet detection (HPLC/UV) and HPLC/MS (mass
spectroscopy)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no CODEX maximum residue levels established for cymoxanil
on any of the commodities for which the tolerances are being
established.
C. Response to Comments
Comments were submitted by a private citizen who opposed the
establishment of cymoxanil tolerances for the following reasons:
1. The availability of numerous products previously registered for
the same purpose as the new uses of cymoxanil supported by these
tolerances, and
2. Cymoxanil is toxic to aquatic plants, bees, and birds, and
therefore has potentially harmful effects on the environment.
These comments are considered irrelevant because the safety standard
for approving tolerances under section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on
potential harm to human health and does not permit consideration of
effects on the environment or the availability of other registered
products. Environmental effects were closely considered in EPA's
decision to register cymoxanil under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Because there is a wide variability in the field trial residues,
EPA has concluded that a group tolerance for bulb vegetables is not
supported by the available data. Therefore, EPA has determined that the
proposed tolerance level for bulb vegetables of 1.1 ppm should be
revised as follows: Bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm; green onion
subgroup 3-07B at 1.1 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cymoxanil,
(2-cyano-N-[(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-(methoxyimino) acetamide), in or on
bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm; green onion subgroup 3-07B at
1.1 ppm; leafy vegetables subgroup 4A at 19 ppm; cilantro leaves at 19
ppm; leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 6.0 ppm; and caneberry subgroup 13-
07A at 4.0 ppm. Additionally, the existing entries for ``Caneberry''
and ``Lettuce, head'' are deleted.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This 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 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final 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: September 29, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Section 180.503 is amended in paragraph (a) by revising the
introductory text, and in the table, by removing the entry for
``Lettuce, head'', revising the entry for ``Caneberry'' and
alphabetically adding the following commodities to read as follows:
Sec. 180.503 Cymoxanil; tolerances for residues
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide, cymoxanil, 2-cyano -N- [(ethylamino)carbonyl]-2-
[[Page 58886]]
(methoxyimino) acetamide, in or on the following food commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caneberry, subgroup 13A-07........................... 4.0
Cilantro, leaves..................................... 19
* * * * *
Leafy greens, subgroup 4A............................ 19
Leaf petioles, subgroup 4B........................... 6.0
* * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.......................... 0.05
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B......................... 1.1
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-23864 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S