Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances, 70143-70149 [2010-28973]
Download as PDF
70143
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
State effective
date
New York State regulation
Redesignation of non-attainment areas to attainment areas
(200.1(av)) does not relieve a source from compliance with
previously applicable requirements as per letter of Nov. 13,
1981 from H. Hovey, NYSDEC.
Changes in definitions are acceptable to EPA unless a previously approved definition is necessary for implementation
of an existing SIP regulation.
EPA is including the definition of ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ with
the understanding that (1) the definition applies to provisions of a Title V permit that are correctly identified as
Federally enforceable, and (2) a source accepts operating
limits and conditions to lower its potential to emit to become a minor source, not to ‘‘avoid’’ applicable requirements.
EPA is approving reference documents that are not already
Federally enforceable.
EPA is approving reference documents that are not already
Federally enforceable.
2/25/00
*
*
Subpart 201–2.1(b)(21), Definitions.
3/5/09
*
*
11/17/10, [Insert FR page citation].
*
*
*
EPA is including the definition of ‘‘Major stationary source or
major source or major facility’’ with the understanding that
the definition applies only to provisions of Part 231.
*
*
Part 231, New Source Review
for New and Modified Facilities.
3/5/09
*
*
11/17/10, [Insert FR page citation].
*
*
*
Partial approval; no action taken on provisions that may require PSD permits for sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions with emissions below the thresholds identified in
EPA’s final PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule at 75 FR
31514, 31606 (June 3, 2010).
§ 52.1689
*
*
[Reserved]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0812; FRL–8851–7]
Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of acequinocyl in
or on bean, edible podded; hop, dried
cones; okra and vegetable, fruiting,
group 8. The Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
November 17, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before January 18, 2011, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
SUMMARY:
Jkt 223001
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0812. 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:
Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2010–28964 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
4. Section 52.1689 is removed and
reserved.
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
*
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11/17/10, [Insert FR page citation].
4/22/08, 73 FR 21548 ............
Comments
Section 200.9, Table 1 (Part
231 references).
Sections 200.6, 200.7 and
200.9.
*
3/5/09
Latest EPA approval date
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7610; e-mail address:
jackson.sidney@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
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
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
70144
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 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–2009–0812 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before January 18, 2011. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
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. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0812, 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
In the Federal Register of January 6,
2010 (75 FR 868) (FRL–8801–5), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9E7598) by IR–4
Project Headquarters, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.599 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide
acequinocyl, 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl1,4-naphthalenedione, and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of
acequinocyl and by establishing a
tolerance for the residues of
acequinocyl, including its metabolites
and degradates in or on vegetable,
fruiting, group 8 at 0.7 parts per million
(ppm); okra at 0.7 ppm; bean, edible
podded at 0.25 ppm and hop, dried
cone at 3.5 ppm. That notice referenced
a summary of the petition prepared on
behalf of IR–4 by Arysta LifeScience
North America LLC, the registrant,
which is available 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
the proposed tolerance for hop dried
cones from 3.5 ppm to 4.0 ppm as
available data submitted support the
higher tolerance. The reason(s) for these
changes 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. * * * ’’
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 acequinocyl
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with acequinocyl follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered their
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.
Acequinocyl exhibits low acute
toxicity in oral, dermal and inhalation
routes of exposure, as well as, primary
eye and primary skin irritation studies.
It is not a dermal sensitizer.
In rat studies including a subchronic
oral toxicity study, a 28-day dermal
toxicity study, and a chronic feeding/
oncogenicity study, acequinocyl
increased prothrombin and activated
partial thromboplastin. Internal
hemorrhages were observed in both a rat
and rabbit developmental toxicity study,
a mouse subchronic/chronic toxicity
study, and in a 2-generation
reproduction rat study. In a combined
chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study in
rats, enlarged eyeballs were observed.
Hepatotoxicity in the mouse was
evidenced by histopathology and
increased liver enzymes.
In both rat and rabbit developmental
toxicity studies, acequinocyl increased
the number of resorptions.
Developmental effects (i.e., resorptions)
occurred at a dose that was higher than
or the same as the dose that caused
maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in the rat,
there was no evidence of reproductive
toxicity, though there were notable toxic
effects observed in offspring that were
not observed in adults including
swollen body parts, protruding eyes,
clinical signs, delays in pupil
development and increased mortality
occurring mainly after weaning.
There was no evidence of
carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse carcinogenicity study,
indicating that acequinocyl is ‘‘not
likely’’ to be carcinogenic to humans.
There was no concern for mutagenic
activity as indicated by several
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mutagenicity studies. Acequinocyl is
classified as ‘‘Not likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans.’’
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by acequinocyl as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document,
‘‘Acequinocyl; Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses
on Fruiting Vegetables, Hops, Okra, and
Edible-Podded Beans’’ dated August 26,
2010, at pp. 32–35 in docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0812–0004.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
70145
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). 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
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 acequinocyl used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR ACEQUINOCYL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
Exposure/Scenario
Acute dietary ....................................................
(General population including infants and children).
Chronic dietary .................................................
(All populations) ................................................
Short-term .........................................................
(1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1–6
months) dermal.
Short-term (1 to 30 days) inhalation ................
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
N/A .............................
N/A .............................
An endpoint attributable to a single dose was
not identified in the database.
NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x ..................
UFH = 10x ..................
FQPA SF = 1x ...........
Dermal NOAEL = 200
mg/kg/day.
Chronic RfD = 0.027
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.027 mg/kg/
day.
Carcinogenicity study in mice (18 month);
LOAEL = 7.0 mg/kg/day based on the clinical chemistry and microscopic nonneoplastic lesions (brown pigmented cells and
perivascular inflammatory cells in liver).
28-day dermal study in rats;
LOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day based on increased clotting factor times.
Developmental toxicity study in rabbits;
Maternal LOAEL = 120 mg/kg/day based on
clinical signs (hematuria, reduced fecal output, body weight loss, and reduced food
consumption) and gross necropsy findings
(pale lungs and liver, hemorrhaging uterus,
fluid in the cecum, fur in the stomach,
blood stained vaginal opening, bloodstained urinary bladder contents/urine).
Oral NOAEL = 60 mg/
kg/day (inhalation
absorption rate =
100%).
UFA = 10x ..................
UFH = 10x ..................
LOC (occupational/
residential) for MOE
= <100.
LOC (occupational/
residential) = MOE
<100.
Classification: ‘‘Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.’’
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) ......................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).
UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor.
PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).
RfD = reference dose.
MOE = margin of exposure.
LOC = level of concern.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acequinocyl, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing acequinocyl tolerances in 40
CFR 180.599. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from acequinocyl in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
No such effects were identified in the
toxicological studies for acequinocyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994–1996 and 1998 and the
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted a
chronic dietary exposure analysis of
acequinocyl based on the assumption of
tolerance level residues and 100 percent
crops treated (PCT) for all existing and
proposed uses.
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
70146
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that acequinocyl does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for
acequinocyl. Tolerance level residues
and 100 PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for acequinocyl in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of acequinocyl.
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 Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–
GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
acequinocyl for chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 2.45 parts per billion (ppb)
acequinocyl for surface water and
0.0036 ppb (acequinocyl and its
metabolite, acequinocyl-OH) for ground
water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration of value 2.45 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).
Acequinocyl is currently registered
for the following uses that could result
in residential exposures: Landscape
ornamentals in residential and public
areas for use by commercial applicators
and homeowners. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following
assumptions: In assessing residential
exposure/risk, the homeowner handlers
are expected to complete all tasks
associated with the use of a pesticide
product including mixing and loading
(if needed), and application. No
chemical-specific data were available
with which to assess potential exposure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
to pesticide handlers. The estimates of
exposure to pesticide handlers are based
upon surrogate study data available
from the Outdoor Residential Exposure
Task Force (ORETF) and the Pesticide
Handlers Exposure Data (PHED).
Homeowner handler assessments are
based on the assumption that
individuals are wearing shorts, shortsleeved shirts, socks, and shoes.
Residential handler exposure scenarios
are considered to be short-term only,
due to infrequent use patterns
associated with homeowner products.
Based upon the proposed use pattern,
the following residential handler
scenarios have been assessed:
(1) Mixing/loading/applying liquids
with low-pressure handwand (ORETFfruit trees and ornamentals).
(2) Mixing/loading/applying liquids
with hose-end sprayer (ORETF-fruit
trees and ornamentals).
No significant dermal postapplication exposure is expected from
landscape ornamentals uses.
Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
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 acequinocyl to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
acequinocyl does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that acequinocyl does not have
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
In the rat prenatal developmental
toxicity study, developmental toxicity
was indicated by increased resorptions
and fetal variations. The developmental
toxicity study in rabbits identified an
increased number of complete
resorptions. In the rat two-generation
reproductive toxicity study, both the
maternal and reproductive toxicity
LOAELs were not observed, however
the LOAEL for parental males was 58.9/
69.2 mg/kg/day based on hemorrhagic
effects. The offspring systemic LOAEL
was also 58.9 mg/kg/day. Though the
offspring LOAEL was similar to that of
parental male’s, there were effects
specific to the pups which in addition
to the hemorrhagic effects noted in both
generations, included swollen body
parts, protruding eyes, clinical signs,
delays in pupil development and
increased mortality occurring mainly
after weaning.
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. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. At this time, the Agency is making
permanent registration of these new
uses conditional pending resolution of
toxicological issues and has identified
the following studies needed, including:
(1) A 28-day inhalation study; (2) an
immunotoxicity study; and (3) acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
Except for the 28-day inhalation study,
the remaining studies are required
under new EPA regulations. The
toxicology database for acequinocyl
does not show any evidence of
treatment-related effects on the immune
system. The overall weight of evidence
suggests that this chemical does not
directly target the immune system. An
immunotoxicity study is required as a
part of new data requirements in the 40
CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide
registration; however, the Agency does
not believe that conducting a functional
immunotoxicity study will result in a
lower point of departure (POD) than that
currently in use for overall risk
assessment, and therefore, a database
uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not needed
to account for lack of this study.
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Although a 28-day inhalation study is
not available, EPA has determined that
the additional FQPA SF is not needed.
Residential inhalation risk was
estimated by calculating exposure using
the Agency’s Residential SOPs. For
chemicals with low vapor pressure (7.5
× 10¥5 mmHg or below for outdoor uses
at 20–30 °C), these standard
assumptions are expected to
overestimate the exposure via the
inhalation route. Acequinocyl is such a
compound (1.69 × 10¥11 mmHg at 25
°C) and exposure through the inhalation
route is expected to be minimal.
Therefore, the risk estimate is
conservative and is considered
protective and the additional FQPA SF
is not needed. Since all calculated
inhalation MOEs for residential
handlers are significantly greater than
the Agency’s LOC (MOE >100), even
retaining the FQPA SF would not affect
EPA’s conclusion on safety.
There is potential evidence of
neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the
2-generation reproduction study as well
as the rat subchronic oral toxicity study,
however these toxicities are not
considered to be primary effects since
they occur in the presence of more
severe systemic effects in both studies.
Therefore, although an acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies are
now required as a part of new data
requirements in the 40 CFR part 158 for
conventional pesticide registration, the
agency does not believe that conducting
these studies will result in a lower point
of departure (POD) than that currently
used for overall risk assessment.
ii. There is no evidence that
acequinocyl results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rat or rabbit
fetuses in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the
2-generation reproduction study. In the
2-generation rat reproduction study,
more severe effects were observed in the
offspring, however these effects were
observed at the same doses as parental
effects, and a clear NOAEL was
established which is being used in
endpoint selection.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100 PCT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground water and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to
acequinocyl in drinking water. The
residential use (ornamentals) is not
expected to result in post-application
exposure to infants and children. These
assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by
acequinocyl.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, acequinocyl is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to acequinocyl
from food and water will utilize 45% of
the cPAD for children 1–2 years old the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern,
chronic residential exposure to residues
of acequinocyl is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Acequinocyl is currently registered
for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short-term residential
exposures to acequinocyl.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded that the
combined short-term food, drinking
water, and dermal and inhalation
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOE of 2,700 for adults 50+ years old,
the highest exposed population.
Because EPA’s level of concern for
chemical name is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Acequinocyl is not registered for any
use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70147
Intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed
under the appropriately protective
cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediateterm risk), no further assessment of
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and
EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk
assessment for evaluating intermediateterm risk for acequinocyl.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity,
acequinocyl is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
6. 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 acequinocyl
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodologies
are available for enforcing tolerances for
acequinocyl residues of concern in/on
the proposed/registered plant
commodities. Methods include two
high-performance liquid
chromatography methods with tandem
mass-spectroscopy detection (HPLC/
MS/MS).
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
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization/
World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized
as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the U.S. is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level.
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
70148
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
The Codex has not established MRLs
for acequinocyl.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
The Agency revised the 3.5 ppm
proposed tolerance on hop, dried cones
to 4.0 ppm. The Agency’s tolerance
spreadsheet as specified by the
Guidance for Setting Tolerances Based
on Field Trial Data SOP (August 2009
version) was used to determine
appropriate tolerance levels.
EPA has revised the tolerance
expression for acequinocyl to clarify
1. That, as provided in FFDCA section
408(a)(3), the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of
acequinocyl not specifically mentioned;
and
2. That compliance with the specific
compounds mentioned in the tolerance
expression.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of acequinocyl including its
metabolites and degradates in or on
bean, edible podded at 0.25 ppm, hop,
dried cones at 4.0 ppm, okra at 0.70
ppm, and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at
0.70 ppm. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified is to be
determined by measuring only the sum
of acequinocyl [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl1,4-naphthalenedione] and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of
acequinocyl, in or on the commodity.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
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) (Pub. L. 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: November 4, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
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 180.599 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.599 Acequinocyl; tolerance for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of acequinocyl,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum
of acequinocyl [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl1,4-naphthalenedione] and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of
acequinocyl, in or on the commodity.
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Commodity
Parts per million
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On April 19, 2000, OMB approved the
information collection requirements
*
*
*
*
*
contained in § 54.703(c) of title 47 of the
United States Code as a revision to OMB
Bean, edible podded ......
0.25
Control Number 3060–0876. OMB had
previously temporarily approved this
*
*
*
*
*
information collection several times.
On March 16, 2004, OMB approved
Hop, dried cones ............
4.0
the information collection requirements
*
*
*
*
*
contained in §§ 54.609(d)(2) and 54.621
of title 47 of the United States Code as
Okra ................................
0.70 a revision to OMB Control Number
3060–0804.
*
*
*
*
*
On July 13, 2004, OMB approved the
information collection requirements
Vegetable, fruiting, group
8 ..................................
0.70 contained in § 54.513(c) of title 47 of the
United States Code as a part of OMB
Control Number 3060–1062.
*
*
*
*
*
On November 12, 2004, OMB
[FR Doc. 2010–28973 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
approved the information collection
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
requirements contained in § 54.514(b) of
title 47 of the United States Code as a
revision to OMB Control Number 3060–
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
0806.
COMMISSION
On May 12, 2005, OMB approved the
information collection requirements
47 CFR Part 54
contained in §§ 54.409(d), 54.410, and
Universal Service Support
54.416 of title 47 of the United States
Mechanisms
Code as a revision to OMB Control
Number 3060–0819.
AGENCY: Federal Communications
On June 28, 2005, OMB approved the
Commission.
information collection requirements
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
contained in §§ 54.609(e) of title 47 of
effective date.
the United States Code as a revision to
OMB Control Number 3060–0804.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
On March 19, 2007, OMB approved
Commission has published a number of
the information collection requirements
requirements related to the universal
contained in §§ 54.5, 54.708, and 54.712
service support mechanisms. This
of title 47 of the United States Code as
document announces the approval of
a revision to OMB Control Number
the Office of Management and Budget
3060–0855. OMB had previously
(OMB) for information collection
temporarily approved these information
requirements contained in the sections
collections on October 20, 2006.
outlined in the DATES section.
These information collection
DATES: Effective November 17, 2010, the
requirements required OMB approval in
following regulations have been
order to become effective. The
approved by OMB:
Commission publishes this document as
54.5—71 FR 38796, July 10, 2006.
an announcement of those approvals. If
54.409(d)—69 FR 34600, June 22, 2004.
you have any comments on the burden
54.410—69 FR 34600, June 22, 2004.
estimates listed below, or how the
54.416—69 FR 34601, June 22, 2004.
Commission can improve the
54.513(c)—69 FR 6191, Feb. 10, 2004.
collections and reduce any burdens
54.514(b)—68 FR 36942, June 20, 2003.
54.609(d)(2)—68 FR 74502, Dec. 24,
caused thereby, please contact Thomas
2003.
Butler, Federal Communications
54.609(e)—70 FR 6373, Feb. 7, 2005.
Commission, Room 5–C457, 445 12th
54.621—68 FR 74503, Dec. 24, 2003.
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
54.703(c)—63 FR 70573, Dec. 21, 1998.
Please include the OMB Control
54.708—71 FR 38797, July 10, 2006.
Numbers, 3060–0804, 3060–0806, 3060–
54.712—71 FR 38797, July 10, 2006.
0819, 3060–0855, 3060–0876, 3060–
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
1062, in your correspondence. The
Nicholas Degani, Telecommunications
Commission will also accept your
Access Policy Division, Wireline
comments via the Internet if you send
Competition Bureau, at (202) 418–7400. them to PRA@fcc.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
70149
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received OMB approval for the
information collection requirements
described above. The OMB Control
Numbers are 3060–0804, 3060–0806,
3060–0819, 3060–0855, 3060–0876, and
3060–1062. The total annual reporting
burden for respondents for these
collections of information, including the
time for gathering and maintaining the
collection of information, has been most
recently approved to be:
For 3060–0804: 59,464 responses, for a
total annual burden of 67,468
hours, and no annual costs.
For 3060–0806: 221,000 responses, for a
total annual burden of 525,003
hours, and no annual costs.
For 3060–0819: 227,055 responses, for a
total annual burden of 61,788
hours, and no annual costs.
For 3060–0855: 36,068 responses, for a
total annual burden of 273,129
hours, and no annual costs.
For 3060–0876: 22 responses, for a total
annual burden of 560 hours, and no
annual costs.
For 3060–1062: 100 responses, for a
total annual burden of 100 hours,
and no annual costs.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless it displays a current, valid OMB
Control Number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
which does not display a current, valid
OMB Control Number. The foregoing
notice is required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54
Telecommunications, Universal
service.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–29016 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17NOR1.SGM
17NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70143-70149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0812; FRL-8851-7]
Acequinocyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
acequinocyl in or on bean, edible podded; hop, dried cones; okra and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8. The Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective November 17, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 18, 2011,
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-2009-0812. 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: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7610; e-mail address: jackson.sidney@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 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
[[Page 70144]]
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 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-2009-0812 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 18, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0812, 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. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of January 6, 2010 (75 FR 868) (FRL-8801-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7598) by IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.599
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
acequinocyl, 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione, and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of acequinocyl and by establishing a
tolerance for the residues of acequinocyl, including its metabolites
and degradates in or on vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.7 parts per
million (ppm); okra at 0.7 ppm; bean, edible podded at 0.25 ppm and
hop, dried cone at 3.5 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Arysta LifeScience North America
LLC, the registrant, which is available 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 the proposed tolerance for hop dried cones from 3.5 ppm to 4.0
ppm as available data submitted support the higher tolerance. The
reason(s) for these changes 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 acequinocyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with acequinocyl
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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.
Acequinocyl exhibits low acute toxicity in oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure, as well as, primary eye and primary skin
irritation studies. It is not a dermal sensitizer.
In rat studies including a subchronic oral toxicity study, a 28-day
dermal toxicity study, and a chronic feeding/oncogenicity study,
acequinocyl increased prothrombin and activated partial thromboplastin.
Internal hemorrhages were observed in both a rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity study, a mouse subchronic/chronic toxicity
study, and in a 2-generation reproduction rat study. In a combined
chronic toxicity/oncogenicity study in rats, enlarged eyeballs were
observed. Hepatotoxicity in the mouse was evidenced by histopathology
and increased liver enzymes.
In both rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, acequinocyl
increased the number of resorptions. Developmental effects (i.e.,
resorptions) occurred at a dose that was higher than or the same as the
dose that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction
toxicity study in the rat, there was no evidence of reproductive
toxicity, though there were notable toxic effects observed in offspring
that were not observed in adults including swollen body parts,
protruding eyes, clinical signs, delays in pupil development and
increased mortality occurring mainly after weaning.
There was no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse carcinogenicity study, indicating that acequinocyl is ``not
likely'' to be carcinogenic to humans. There was no concern for
mutagenic activity as indicated by several
[[Page 70145]]
mutagenicity studies. Acequinocyl is classified as ``Not likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans.''
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by acequinocyl as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Acequinocyl; Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Fruiting Vegetables, Hops,
Okra, and Edible-Podded Beans'' dated August 26, 2010, at pp. 32-35 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0812-0004.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). 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 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 acequinocyl used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Acequinocyl for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and
Exposure/Scenario uncertainty/safety RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary...................... N/A................... N/A................... An endpoint attributable to
(General population including a single dose was not
infants and children). identified in the
database.
Chronic dietary.................... NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day. Chronic RfD = 0.027 mg/ Carcinogenicity study in
(All populations).................. UFA = 10x............. kg/day. mice (18 month); LOAEL =
UFH = 10x............. cPAD = 0.027 mg/kg/day 7.0 mg/kg/day based on the
FQPA SF = 1x.......... clinical chemistry and
microscopic nonneoplastic
lesions (brown pigmented
cells and perivascular
inflammatory cells in
liver).
Short-term......................... Dermal NOAEL = 200 mg/ LOC (occupational/ 28-day dermal study in
(1 to 30 days) and intermediate- kg/day. residential) for MOE rats;
term (1-6 months) dermal. = <100. LOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day
based on increased
clotting factor times.
Short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/ LOC (occupational/ Developmental toxicity
inhalation. day (inhalation residential) = MOE study in rabbits;
absorption rate = <100. Maternal LOAEL = 120 mg/kg/
100%). day based on clinical
UFA = 10x............. signs (hematuria, reduced
UFH = 10x............. fecal output, body weight
loss, and reduced food
consumption) and gross
necropsy findings (pale
lungs and liver,
hemorrhaging uterus, fluid
in the cecum, fur in the
stomach, blood stained
vaginal opening, blood-
stained urinary bladder
contents/urine).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation).. Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).
UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor.
PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic).
RfD = reference dose.
MOE = margin of exposure.
LOC = level of concern.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to acequinocyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing acequinocyl tolerances in 40 CFR
180.599. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acequinocyl 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.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
acequinocyl; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 and the Nationwide Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in
food, EPA conducted a chronic dietary exposure analysis of acequinocyl
based on the assumption of tolerance level residues and 100 percent
crops treated (PCT) for all existing and proposed uses.
[[Page 70146]]
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that acequinocyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
acequinocyl. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for acequinocyl in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of acequinocyl. 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 Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
acequinocyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 2.45 parts per billion (ppb) acequinocyl for surface
water and 0.0036 ppb (acequinocyl and its metabolite, acequinocyl-OH)
for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.45 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).
Acequinocyl is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Landscape ornamentals in
residential and public areas for use by commercial applicators and
homeowners. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions: In assessing residential exposure/risk, the homeowner
handlers are expected to complete all tasks associated with the use of
a pesticide product including mixing and loading (if needed), and
application. No chemical-specific data were available with which to
assess potential exposure to pesticide handlers. The estimates of
exposure to pesticide handlers are based upon surrogate study data
available from the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) and
the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Data (PHED). Homeowner handler
assessments are based on the assumption that individuals are wearing
shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes. Residential handler
exposure scenarios are considered to be short-term only, due to
infrequent use patterns associated with homeowner products.
Based upon the proposed use pattern, the following residential
handler scenarios have been assessed:
(1) Mixing/loading/applying liquids with low-pressure handwand
(ORETF-fruit trees and ornamentals).
(2) Mixing/loading/applying liquids with hose-end sprayer (ORETF-
fruit trees and ornamentals).
No significant dermal post-application exposure is expected from
landscape ornamentals uses.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
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 acequinocyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and acequinocyl does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
acequinocyl does not have 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. In the rat prenatal
developmental toxicity study, developmental toxicity was indicated by
increased resorptions and fetal variations. The developmental toxicity
study in rabbits identified an increased number of complete
resorptions. In the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study,
both the maternal and reproductive toxicity LOAELs were not observed,
however the LOAEL for parental males was 58.9/69.2 mg/kg/day based on
hemorrhagic effects. The offspring systemic LOAEL was also 58.9 mg/kg/
day. Though the offspring LOAEL was similar to that of parental male's,
there were effects specific to the pups which in addition to the
hemorrhagic effects noted in both generations, included swollen body
parts, protruding eyes, clinical signs, delays in pupil development and
increased mortality occurring mainly after weaning.
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. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. At this time, the Agency is making permanent registration of
these new uses conditional pending resolution of toxicological issues
and has identified the following studies needed, including: (1) A 28-
day inhalation study; (2) an immunotoxicity study; and (3) acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies. Except for the 28-day inhalation
study, the remaining studies are required under new EPA regulations.
The toxicology database for acequinocyl does not show any evidence of
treatment-related effects on the immune system. The overall weight of
evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target the
immune system. An immunotoxicity study is required as a part of new
data requirements in the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide
registration; however, the Agency does not believe that conducting a
functional immunotoxicity study will result in a lower point of
departure (POD) than that currently in use for overall risk assessment,
and therefore, a database uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not
needed to account for lack of this study.
[[Page 70147]]
Although a 28-day inhalation study is not available, EPA has
determined that the additional FQPA SF is not needed. Residential
inhalation risk was estimated by calculating exposure using the
Agency's Residential SOPs. For chemicals with low vapor pressure (7.5 x
10-5 mmHg or below for outdoor uses at 20-30 [deg]C), these
standard assumptions are expected to overestimate the exposure via the
inhalation route. Acequinocyl is such a compound (1.69 x
10-11 mmHg at 25 [deg]C) and exposure through the inhalation
route is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the risk estimate is
conservative and is considered protective and the additional FQPA SF is
not needed. Since all calculated inhalation MOEs for residential
handlers are significantly greater than the Agency's LOC (MOE >100),
even retaining the FQPA SF would not affect EPA's conclusion on safety.
There is potential evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in
the 2-generation reproduction study as well as the rat subchronic oral
toxicity study, however these toxicities are not considered to be
primary effects since they occur in the presence of more severe
systemic effects in both studies. Therefore, although an acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies are now required as a part of new data
requirements in the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide
registration, the agency does not believe that conducting these studies
will result in a lower point of departure (POD) than that currently
used for overall risk assessment.
ii. There is no evidence that acequinocyl results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rat or rabbit fetuses in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. In the 2-generation rat reproduction study, more severe effects
were observed in the offspring, however these effects were observed at
the same doses as parental effects, and a clear NOAEL was established
which is being used in endpoint selection.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to acequinocyl in drinking water. The
residential use (ornamentals) is not expected to result in post-
application exposure to infants and children. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by acequinocyl.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
acequinocyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
acequinocyl from food and water will utilize 45% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of acequinocyl is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Acequinocyl is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to acequinocyl.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food,
drinking water, and dermal and inhalation residential exposures result
in aggregate MOE of 2,700 for adults 50+ years old, the highest exposed
population. Because EPA's level of concern for chemical name is a MOE
of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Acequinocyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for acequinocyl.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity, acequinocyl is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
6. 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 acequinocyl residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodologies are available for enforcing
tolerances for acequinocyl residues of concern in/on the proposed/
registered plant commodities. Methods include two high-performance
liquid chromatography methods with tandem mass-spectroscopy detection
(HPLC/MS/MS).
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
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the U.S. is
a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex
MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the
reasons for departing from the Codex level.
[[Page 70148]]
The Codex has not established MRLs for acequinocyl.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
The Agency revised the 3.5 ppm proposed tolerance on hop, dried
cones to 4.0 ppm. The Agency's tolerance spreadsheet as specified by
the Guidance for Setting Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data SOP
(August 2009 version) was used to determine appropriate tolerance
levels.
EPA has revised the tolerance expression for acequinocyl to clarify
1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of acequinocyl not specifically
mentioned; and
2. That compliance with the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of acequinocyl
including its metabolites and degradates in or on bean, edible podded
at 0.25 ppm, hop, dried cones at 4.0 ppm, okra at 0.70 ppm, and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.70 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
acequinocyl [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione] and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of acequinocyl, in or on the commodity.
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) (Pub. L. 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: November 4, 2010.
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 180.599 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table
in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.599 Acequinocyl; tolerance for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
acequinocyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of
acequinocyl [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione] and its
metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of acequinocyl, in or on the commodity.
[[Page 70149]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Bean, edible podded.................................. 0.25
* * * * *
Hop, dried cones..................................... 4.0
* * * * *
Okra................................................. 0.70
* * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8......................... 0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-28973 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P