Quizalofop Ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances, 23625-23630 [2012-9447]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Dated: February 29, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1018; FRL–9340–5]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of quizalofop
ethyl in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later
in this document. This regulation
additionally removes established
tolerances on canola seed and canola
meal, as they will be superseded by new
tolerances. Finally, this regulation
removes several time-limited tolerances,
as they have expired. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR–4)
requested these tolerances, under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April
20, 2012. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 19, 2012, 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–2010–1018. 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:
Laura Nollen, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
SUMMARY:
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart O—Illinois
2. Section 52.720 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(190) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.720
Identification of plan.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(190) On June 10, 2011, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a revision to its state
implementation plan. The revision to
the SIP allows an adjusted standard to
the general rule, Use of Organic Material
Rule, known as the eight pound per
hour (8 lb/hr) rule, for volatile
organic matter, for Leisure Properties
LLC/D/B/A Crownline Boats
manufacturing facility located in West
Frankfort, Illinois. The adjusted
standard is that the facility takes an
alternative standard of the emission
limit requirements set forth in the
MACT under 40 CFR part 63 subpart
VVVV as published in 40 CFR Part 63
(§ 63.1200 to end) revised as of July 1,
2002.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) July 22, 2004, Opinion and Order
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
AS–04–01, (identified in error as July
22, 2002 in the document heading),
effective July 22, 2004.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Letter from Laurel L. Kroack,
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, to Cheryl Newton, EPA, dated
September 2, 2011, identifying that due
to an ownership change to Crownline
Boats, the Board transferred the
adjusted standard to Leisure Properties
LLC D/B/A Crownline Boats, which is
the successor to Crownline Boats, by
Board order AS04–l, effective October 7,
2010.
[FR Doc. 2012–9440 Filed 4–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
(703) 305–7390; email address:
nollen.laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
Quizalofop Ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
23625
Sfmt 4700
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
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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the
harmonized test guidelines referenced
in this document electronically, please
go to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and
select ‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines,’’
which is listed under ‘‘Documents
related to our mission.’’
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–2010–1018 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
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
23626
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before June 19, 2012. 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–2010–1018, 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
Tolerances
In the Federal Register of February
25, 2011 (76 FR 10584) (FRL–8863–3),
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 0E7802, by IR–4,
500 College Road East, Suite 201W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.441 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide quizalofop
ethyl, ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2yl oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on
rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax,
seed at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); gold
of pleasure, meal at 1.5 ppm; crambe,
meal at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.2
ppm; sorghum, forage at 0.2 ppm;
sorghum, stover at 0.35 ppm; and
sorghum, aspirated grain at 1.0 ppm.
The petition additionally requested that
EPA amend tolerances in 40 CFR
180.441 by removing the established
tolerance for canola, seed at 1.0 ppm
from the table in paragraph (a)(3), as the
individual tolerance will be superseded
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
by inclusion in rapeseed subgroup 20A,
except flax, seed. The petition also
proposed to remove the tolerances in
§ 180.441(a)(4), as these tolerances
expired on June 14, 1999.
The petition, PP 0E7802, also
proposed to amend 40 CFR 180.441 by
combining the tables for sections (a)(1)
and (a)(3) into one table under section
(a)(1), and by removing section (a)(3). It
further proposed to revise the tolerance
expression under section (a)(1). The
petition, PP 0E7802, additionally
proposed to revise the tolerance
expression under section (a)(2).
Finally, PP 0E7802 proposed to revise
the tolerance expression under section
(c). That notice referenced a summary of
the petition prepared on behalf of IR–4
by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There were
no comments received in response to
the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance level
and/or commodity definition for several
commodities. The Agency has also
removed the established tolerance on
canola, meal, as the data were used to
establish a tolerance on rapeseed meal,
the preferred commodity terminology.
The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for quizalofop ethyl
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with quizalofop ethyl
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.
Quizalofop ethyl has low acute
toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not
an eye or dermal irritant nor a skin
sensitizer. The liver has been identified
as the target organ, as evidenced by
increased liver weights and
histopathological changes in the liver.
There were no effects observed in the
oral toxicity studies that could be
attributable to a single-dose exposure
and no observed toxicity in a
subchronic dermal toxicity study in
rabbits. Following subchronic oral
exposures, decreased body weight gains,
increased liver weight and centrilobular
liver cell enlargement were noted in
rats, and an increased incidence of
testicular atrophy was noted in dogs. A
combined chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in rats noted an
increased incidence of centrilobular
enlargement of the liver in both sexes
and mild anemia in males. No
treatment-related effects on brain weight
or histopathology of the nervous system
were observed in studies that measured
those endpoints.
In developmental toxicity studies in
rats and rabbits, maternal effects,
including decreased body weight gains
and food consumption, were noted at a
level that did not result in
developmental effects. In the 2generation reproduction study in rats,
maternal effects including decreased
body weight and body weight gains
were noted at the same dose level that
resulted in prenatal and postnatal
effects (decreased percentage of pups
born alive and decreased pup weights).
Carcinogenicity studies in rats and
mice disclosed no more than very
limited data suggestive of a potential for
carcinogenic risk. No evidence of
carcinogenicity was seen in female mice
and in male or female rats. Liver tumors
were found in male mice. However,
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
these tumors were seen only at an
excessive dose, occurred at low
incidence, showed marginal statistical
significance at the high dose (no dose
response), and were not accompanied
with corroborative pre-neoplastic
lesions. Further, liver tumors are
common and occur with a high degree
of variability in male mice. In addition,
mutagenicity studies conducted on
quizalofop ethyl did not demonstrate
evidence of mutagenic potential.
Consequently, there is no concern for
the carcinogenicity following exposure
to quizalofop ethyl.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by quizalofop ethyl as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effectlevel (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed
-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document:
‘‘Quizalofop-P-ethyl: Human Health
Risk Assessment for New Uses on
Sorghum, Rapeseed Crop Group 20 A,
and Field Corn,’’ at pp. 33–34 in docket
ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1018.
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
23627
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 quizalofop ethyl used for
human risk assessment is shown in the
Table of this unit.
TABLE —SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR QUIZALOFOP ETHYL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (All populations).
No appropriate endpoint was identified. There were no effects observed in oral toxicity studies that could be attributed to a single-dose exposure.
Chronic dietary (All populations).
NOAEL = 0.9 mg/kg/day ...
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic RfD = 0.009 mg/
kg/day.
cPAD = 0.009 mg/kg/day.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Chronic toxicity/Carcinogenicity study in rats. LOAEL =
3.7 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of
centrilobular enlargement of the liver in both sexes
and mild anemia in males.
No concern as to human carcinogenicity.
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. Mg/kg/day= milligrams/kilograms/day.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to quizalofop ethyl, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing quizalofop ethyl tolerances in
40 CFR 180.441. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop ethyl; 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA incorporated tolerancelevel residues and 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that there is no concern with
regard to carcinogenicity. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is not
needed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for quizalofop ethyl. Tolerance level
residues and/or 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for quizalofop ethyl in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
quizalofop ethyl. 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
quizalofop ethyl for chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 2 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 1.29 ppb for
ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
23628
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
water concentration of value 2 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).
Quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop ethyl to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
quizalofop ethyl does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that quizalofop ethyl 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 Web site 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.
The quizalofop ethyl toxicity database is
adequate to evaluate potential increased
susceptibility of infants and children,
and includes developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits and a 2generation reproduction study in rats. In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits, maternal effects, including
decreased body weight gains and food
consumption, were noted (100 mg/kg/
day for rats and 60 mg/kg/day for
rabbits) in the absence of developmental
effects. In the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats, maternal effects
(decreased body weight and body
weight gains) were noted at 20 mg/kg/
day, the same dose level that resulted in
prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased
percentage of pups born alive and
decreased pup weights).
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. The toxicity database for quizalofop
ethyl is complete except for acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity testing. Recent
changes to 40 CFR part 158 imposed
new data requirements for acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity testing
(OPPTS Guideline 870.6200) for
pesticide registration. HED has
determined from available studies in the
quizalofop ethyl toxicity database that
quizalofop does not have specific
neurotoxicity. More specifically, there
were no treatment-related effects on
brain weight or histopathology of the
nervous system seen in studies that
measured these endpoints. There was
no evidence of effects on functional
development observed in a postnatal
segment of the reproduction study in
rats. In addition, quizalofop ethyl does
not belong to a chemical class that is
considered neurotoxic. Although
clinical signs possibly indicative of
neurotoxicity were seen, they were only
observed at high doses and, even then,
were rare. The requested acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies are
expected to confirm that there are no
indications of neurotoxicity. Therefore,
EPA does not believe that conducting
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies will result in a NOAEL less than
the chronic NOAEL of 0.9 mg/kg/day
already set for quizalofop ethyl. Based
on the information in this unit, EPA has
also determined that there is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
ii. There is no evidence that
quizalofop ethyl results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The chronic dietary exposure
assessments were performed based on
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
100 PCT and tolerance-level residues,
and EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to quizalofop ethyl in drinking water.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by quizalofop ethyl.
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 aPAD and 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, quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop
ethyl from food and water will utilize
29% of the cPAD for children 1–2 years
old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for quizalofop ethyl.
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). Because no short- or
intermediate-term adverse effect was
identified, quizalofop ethyl is not
expected to pose a short- or
intermediate-term risk.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the information
described in Unit III.A., there is no
concern for human carcinogenicity.
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 quizalofop
ethyl residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(Morse Method Meth-147, a high
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
performance liquid chromatography
method) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression for plant
commodities. 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 United States
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. The
Codex has not established a MRL for
quizalofop ethyl.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
Based on analysis of the residue field
trial data supporting the petitions, EPA
revised the proposed tolerances on
rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax,
seed from 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm; sorghum,
grain, stover from 0.35 ppm to 0.30
ppm; crambe, meal from 1.5 ppm to 2.0
ppm; and gold of pleasure, meal from
1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The Agency revised
these tolerance levels based on analysis
of the residue field trial data using the
Agency’s Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency’s Guidance
for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based
on Field Trial Data.
Based on available canola processing
data, a tolerance for canola, meal was
previously established at 1.5 ppm.
Using the available canola processing
data, EPA has recommended a tolerance
for gold of pleasure, meal; and crambe,
meal at 2.0 ppm, by adjusting for the
proposed application rate. As such, the
previously established tolerance on
canola, meal at 1.5 ppm was also
revised to 2.0 ppm, and EPA is revising
the commodity definition for canola,
meal to rapeseed, meal in order to
reflect the correct commodity
terminology. Therefore, EPA determined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
that a tolerance should be established
on rapeseed, meal at 2.0 ppm, and the
established tolerance on canola, meal at
1.5 ppm should be removed.
The Agency also revised several other
proposed and established commodity
definitions to reflect the correct
terminology, as follows: Bean, dry to
bean, dry seed; sorghum, grain to
sorghum, grain, grain; sorghum, forage
to sorghum, grain, forage; sorghum,
stover to sorghum, grain, stover;
sorghum, aspirated grain to sorghum,
grain, aspirated grain fractions; and
soybean to soybean, seed.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of quizalofop ethyl, ethyl-2[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl
oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, in or on
crambe, meal at 2.0 ppm; gold of
pleasure, meal at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed,
meal at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed, subgroup
20A, except flax, seed at 1.5 ppm;
sorghum, grain, grain at 0.20 ppm;
sorghum, grain, forage at 0.20 ppm;
sorghum, grain, stover at 0.30 ppm; and
sorghum, grain, aspirated grain fractions
at 1.0 ppm. This final rule additionally
removes the established tolerances for
canola, seed at 1.0 ppm; and canola,
meal at 1.5 ppm. This regulation also
deletes time-limited tolerances for
quizalofop ethyl on beet, sugar,
molasses at 0.2 ppm; beet, sugar, roots
at 0.1 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm;
vegetable, foliage of legume, except
soybean, subgroup 7A at 3.0 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.25 ppm,
as the tolerances expired on June 14,
1999. Finally, this final rule revises the
tolerance expression to clarify:
1. That, as provided in FFDCA section
408(a)(3), the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of
quizalofop ethyl not specifically
mentioned; and
2. That compliance with the specified
tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the specific compounds
mentioned in the tolerance expression.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23629
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
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
23630
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 77 / Friday, April 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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: April 11, 2012.
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 180.441 is amended as
follows:
■ i. Revise paragraph (a)(1);
■ ii. Revise paragraph (a)(2)
introductory text;
■ iii. Remove paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4); and
■ iv. Revise paragraph (c) introductory
text.
The revisions read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Parts per
million
Commodity
Cowpea, forage ..................
Cowpea, hay .......................
Crambe, meal .....................
Flax, seed ...........................
Gold of pleasure, meal .......
Lentil, seed .........................
Pea, dry ..............................
Pea, field, hay .....................
Pea, field, vines ..................
Pea, succulent ....................
Peppermint, tops ................
Rapeseed, meal .................
Rapeseed subgroup 20A,
except flax, seed .............
Sorghum, grain, aspirated
grain fractions .................
Sorghum, grain, forage .......
Sorghum, grain, grain .........
Sorghum, grain, stover .......
Soybean, flour ....................
Soybean, hulls ....................
Soybean, meal ....................
Soybean, seed ....................
Soybean, soapstock ...........
Spearmint, tops ..................
Sunflower, seed ..................
Wheat, forage .....................
Wheat, grain .......................
Wheat, hay .........................
Wheat, straw .......................
3.0
3.0
2.0
0.05
2.0
0.05
0.25
3.0
3.0
0.3
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.5
0.02
0.5
0.05
1.0
2.0
1.9
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of the herbicide quizalofop
ethyl, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in
the following table. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in the
following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl
§ 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for
residues convertible to quizalofop (2-[4residues.
(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl(a) General. (1) Tolerances are
oxy)phenoxy]propanoic acid), expressed
established for residues of the herbicide as quizalofop, in or on the commodity.
quizalofop ethyl, including its
*
*
*
*
*
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
(c) Tolerances with regional
commodities in the following table.
registrations. Tolerances with regional
Compliance with the tolerance levels
registration are established for residues
specified in the following table is to be
of the herbicide quizalofop ethyl,
determined by measuring only those
quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in
2-methoxy-6-chloroquinoxaline,
expressed as the stoichiometric
the following table. Compliance with
equivalent of quizalofop ethyl, in or on
the tolerance levels specified in the
the commodity.
following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl
Parts per
residues convertible to 2-methoxy-6Commodity
million
chloroquinoxaline, expressed as the
Barley, grain .......................
0.05 stoichiometric equivalent of quizalofop
Barley, hay ..........................
0.05 ethyl, in or on the commodity.
Barley, straw .......................
0.05 *
*
*
*
*
Bean, dry, seed ..................
Bean, succulent ..................
Beet, sugar, molasses ........
Beet, sugar, roots ...............
Beet, sugar, tops ................
Cotton, undelinted seed .....
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:08 Apr 19, 2012
0.4
0.25
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
Jkt 226001
[FR Doc. 2012–9447 Filed 4–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 54
[WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 03–109, 12–23 and
CC Docket No. 96–45; Report No. 2948]
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and
Modernization; Advancing Broadband
Availability Through Digital Literacy
Training, et al.
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for
reconsideration.
AGENCY:
In this document, Petitions
for Reconsideration (Petitions) have
been filed in the Commission’s
Rulemaking proceeding concerning
rules that comprehensively reform and
modernize the Lifeline program to
strengthen protections against waste,
fraud and abuse; improve program
administration and accountability;
improve enrollment and consumer
disclosures; initiate modernization of
the program for broadband; and
constrain the growth of the program.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions
must be filed by May 7, 2012. Replies
to an opposition must be filed May 15,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim
Scardino or Garnet Hanly, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1500 or
TTY: (202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of Commission’s document,
Report No. 2948, released April 5, 2012.
The full text of this document is
available for viewing and copying in
Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC or may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–
800–378–3160). The Commission will
not send a copy of this Notice pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice
does not have an impact on any rules of
particular applicability.
Subject: Lifeline and Link Up Reform
and Modernization; Advancing
Broadband Availability through Digital
Literacy Training, et al., published at 77
FR 12952, March 2, 2012 in WC Docket
Nos. 11–42, 03–109, 12–23 and CC
Docket No. 96–45, and published
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules (47
CFR 1.4(b)(1)).
Number of Petitions Filed: 8.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23625-23630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9447]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018; FRL-9340-5]
Quizalofop Ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
quizalofop ethyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. This regulation additionally removes
established tolerances on canola seed and canola meal, as they will be
superseded by new tolerances. Finally, this regulation removes several
time-limited tolerances, as they have expired. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances, under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April 20, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 19, 2012, 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-2010-1018. 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: Laura Nollen, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7390; email address: nollen.laura@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 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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the
harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document electronically,
please go to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and
Guidelines,'' which is listed under ``Documents related to our
mission.''
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-2010-1018 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
[[Page 23626]]
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before June 19, 2012. 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-2010-1018, 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 Tolerances
In the Federal Register of February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10584) (FRL-
8863-3), 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
0E7802, by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.441 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide quizalofop ethyl,
ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A, except
flax, seed at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); gold of pleasure, meal at
1.5 ppm; crambe, meal at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain at 0.2 ppm; sorghum,
forage at 0.2 ppm; sorghum, stover at 0.35 ppm; and sorghum, aspirated
grain at 1.0 ppm. The petition additionally requested that EPA amend
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.441 by removing the established tolerance for
canola, seed at 1.0 ppm from the table in paragraph (a)(3), as the
individual tolerance will be superseded by inclusion in rapeseed
subgroup 20A, except flax, seed. The petition also proposed to remove
the tolerances in Sec. 180.441(a)(4), as these tolerances expired on
June 14, 1999.
The petition, PP 0E7802, also proposed to amend 40 CFR 180.441 by
combining the tables for sections (a)(1) and (a)(3) into one table
under section (a)(1), and by removing section (a)(3). It further
proposed to revise the tolerance expression under section (a)(1). The
petition, PP 0E7802, additionally proposed to revise the tolerance
expression under section (a)(2).
Finally, PP 0E7802 proposed to revise the tolerance expression
under section (c). That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared on behalf of IR-4 by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance level and/or commodity definition for
several commodities. The Agency has also removed the established
tolerance on canola, meal, as the data were used to establish a
tolerance on rapeseed meal, the preferred commodity terminology. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
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 quizalofop ethyl
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
quizalofop ethyl 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.
Quizalofop ethyl has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or dermal irritant nor
a skin sensitizer. The liver has been identified as the target organ,
as evidenced by increased liver weights and histopathological changes
in the liver. There were no effects observed in the oral toxicity
studies that could be attributable to a single-dose exposure and no
observed toxicity in a subchronic dermal toxicity study in rabbits.
Following subchronic oral exposures, decreased body weight gains,
increased liver weight and centrilobular liver cell enlargement were
noted in rats, and an increased incidence of testicular atrophy was
noted in dogs. A combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in
rats noted an increased incidence of centrilobular enlargement of the
liver in both sexes and mild anemia in males. No treatment-related
effects on brain weight or histopathology of the nervous system were
observed in studies that measured those endpoints.
In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, maternal
effects, including decreased body weight gains and food consumption,
were noted at a level that did not result in developmental effects. In
the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, maternal effects including
decreased body weight and body weight gains were noted at the same dose
level that resulted in prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased
percentage of pups born alive and decreased pup weights).
Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice disclosed no more than
very limited data suggestive of a potential for carcinogenic risk. No
evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in female mice and in male or
female rats. Liver tumors were found in male mice. However,
[[Page 23627]]
these tumors were seen only at an excessive dose, occurred at low
incidence, showed marginal statistical significance at the high dose
(no dose response), and were not accompanied with corroborative pre-
neoplastic lesions. Further, liver tumors are common and occur with a
high degree of variability in male mice. In addition, mutagenicity
studies conducted on quizalofop ethyl did not demonstrate evidence of
mutagenic potential. Consequently, there is no concern for the
carcinogenicity following exposure to quizalofop ethyl.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by quizalofop ethyl 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: ``Quizalofop-P-ethyl: Human Health
Risk Assessment for New Uses on Sorghum, Rapeseed Crop Group 20 A, and
Field Corn,'' at pp. 33-34 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1018.
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 quizalofop ethyl used
for human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
Table --Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Quizalofop Ethyl 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 (All populations).... No appropriate endpoint was identified. There were no effects observed in
oral toxicity studies that could be attributed to a single-dose exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations).. NOAEL = 0.9 mg/kg/day. Chronic RfD = 0.009 mg/ Chronic toxicity/
UFA = 10x............. kg/day. Carcinogenicity study in
UFH = 10x............. cPAD = 0.009 mg/kg/ rats. LOAEL = 3.7 mg/kg/
FQPA SF = 1x.......... day.. day based on increased
incidence of centrilobular
enlargement of the liver
in both sexes and mild
anemia in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).. No concern as to human carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Mg/kg/day= milligrams/kilograms/day.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to quizalofop ethyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing quizalofop ethyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.441. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop ethyl;
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 USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As
to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues
and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that there is no concern with regard to carcinogenicity.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is not needed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for quizalofop ethyl. Tolerance level residues and/or 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 quizalofop ethyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of quizalofop ethyl. 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
quizalofop ethyl for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.29
ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the
[[Page 23628]]
water concentration of value 2 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). Quizalofop ethyl 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 quizalofop ethyl to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and quizalofop ethyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
quizalofop ethyl 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 Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative 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. The quizalofop ethyl
toxicity database is adequate to evaluate potential increased
susceptibility of infants and children, and includes developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction
study in rats. In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits,
maternal effects, including decreased body weight gains and food
consumption, were noted (100 mg/kg/day for rats and 60 mg/kg/day for
rabbits) in the absence of developmental effects. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, maternal effects (decreased body weight and
body weight gains) were noted at 20 mg/kg/day, the same dose level that
resulted in prenatal and postnatal effects (decreased percentage of
pups born alive and decreased pup weights).
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. The toxicity database for quizalofop ethyl is complete except
for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40
CFR part 158 imposed new data requirements for acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200) for pesticide
registration. HED has determined from available studies in the
quizalofop ethyl toxicity database that quizalofop does not have
specific neurotoxicity. More specifically, there were no treatment-
related effects on brain weight or histopathology of the nervous system
seen in studies that measured these endpoints. There was no evidence of
effects on functional development observed in a postnatal segment of
the reproduction study in rats. In addition, quizalofop ethyl does not
belong to a chemical class that is considered neurotoxic. Although
clinical signs possibly indicative of neurotoxicity were seen, they
were only observed at high doses and, even then, were rare. The
requested acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are expected to
confirm that there are no indications of neurotoxicity. Therefore, EPA
does not believe that conducting acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies will result in a NOAEL less than the chronic NOAEL of 0.9 mg/
kg/day already set for quizalofop ethyl. Based on the information in
this unit, EPA has also determined that there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
ii. There is no evidence that quizalofop ethyl results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, and EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to quizalofop ethyl in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by quizalofop ethyl.
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
aPAD and 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,
quizalofop ethyl 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
quizalofop ethyl from food and water will utilize 29% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for quizalofop ethyl.
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). Because no short- or
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, quizalofop ethyl is
not expected to pose a short- or intermediate-term risk.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
information described in Unit III.A., there is no concern for human
carcinogenicity.
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 quizalofop ethyl residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (Morse Method Meth-147, a high
[[Page 23629]]
performance liquid chromatography method) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression for plant commodities. 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
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 United
States 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. The Codex has not
established a MRL for quizalofop ethyl.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Based on analysis of the residue field trial data supporting the
petitions, EPA revised the proposed tolerances on rapeseed subgroup
20A, except flax, seed from 1.0 ppm to 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover
from 0.35 ppm to 0.30 ppm; crambe, meal from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm; and
gold of pleasure, meal from 1.5 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The Agency revised
these tolerance levels based on analysis of the residue field trial
data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the
Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial
Data.
Based on available canola processing data, a tolerance for canola,
meal was previously established at 1.5 ppm. Using the available canola
processing data, EPA has recommended a tolerance for gold of pleasure,
meal; and crambe, meal at 2.0 ppm, by adjusting for the proposed
application rate. As such, the previously established tolerance on
canola, meal at 1.5 ppm was also revised to 2.0 ppm, and EPA is
revising the commodity definition for canola, meal to rapeseed, meal in
order to reflect the correct commodity terminology. Therefore, EPA
determined that a tolerance should be established on rapeseed, meal at
2.0 ppm, and the established tolerance on canola, meal at 1.5 ppm
should be removed.
The Agency also revised several other proposed and established
commodity definitions to reflect the correct terminology, as follows:
Bean, dry to bean, dry seed; sorghum, grain to sorghum, grain, grain;
sorghum, forage to sorghum, grain, forage; sorghum, stover to sorghum,
grain, stover; sorghum, aspirated grain to sorghum, grain, aspirated
grain fractions; and soybean to soybean, seed.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of quizalofop
ethyl, ethyl-2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl oxy)phenoxy]propanoate, in
or on crambe, meal at 2.0 ppm; gold of pleasure, meal at 2.0 ppm;
rapeseed, meal at 2.0 ppm; rapeseed, subgroup 20A, except flax, seed at
1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, forage at
0.20 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover at 0.30 ppm; and sorghum, grain,
aspirated grain fractions at 1.0 ppm. This final rule additionally
removes the established tolerances for canola, seed at 1.0 ppm; and
canola, meal at 1.5 ppm. This regulation also deletes time-limited
tolerances for quizalofop ethyl on beet, sugar, molasses at 0.2 ppm;
beet, sugar, roots at 0.1 ppm; beet, sugar, tops at 0.5 ppm; vegetable,
foliage of legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 3.0 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.25 ppm, as the tolerances expired on
June 14, 1999. Finally, this final rule revises the tolerance
expression to clarify:
1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of quizalofop ethyl not specifically
mentioned; and
2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.
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
[[Page 23630]]
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: April 11, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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 180.441 is amended as follows:
0
i. Revise paragraph (a)(1);
0
ii. Revise paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
iii. Remove paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4); and
0
iv. Revise paragraph (c) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to 2-
methoxy-6-chloroquinoxaline, expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent
of quizalofop ethyl, in or on the commodity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain........................................... 0.05
Barley, hay............................................. 0.05
Barley, straw........................................... 0.05
Bean, dry, seed......................................... 0.4
Bean, succulent......................................... 0.25
Beet, sugar, molasses................................... 0.2
Beet, sugar, roots...................................... 0.1
Beet, sugar, tops....................................... 0.5
Cotton, undelinted seed................................. 0.1
Cowpea, forage.......................................... 3.0
Cowpea, hay............................................. 3.0
Crambe, meal............................................ 2.0
Flax, seed.............................................. 0.05
Gold of pleasure, meal.................................. 2.0
Lentil, seed............................................ 0.05
Pea, dry................................................ 0.25
Pea, field, hay......................................... 3.0
Pea, field, vines....................................... 3.0
Pea, succulent.......................................... 0.3
Peppermint, tops........................................ 2.0
Rapeseed, meal.......................................... 2.0
Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax, seed................ 1.5
Sorghum, grain, aspirated grain fractions............... 1.0
Sorghum, grain, forage.................................. 0.20
Sorghum, grain, grain................................... 0.20
Sorghum, grain, stover.................................. 0.30
Soybean, flour.......................................... 0.5
Soybean, hulls.......................................... 0.02
Soybean, meal........................................... 0.5
Soybean, seed........................................... 0.05
Soybean, soapstock...................................... 1.0
Spearmint, tops......................................... 2.0
Sunflower, seed......................................... 1.9
Wheat, forage........................................... 0.05
Wheat, grain............................................ 0.05
Wheat, hay.............................................. 0.05
Wheat, straw............................................ 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to
quizalofop (2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl-oxy)phenoxy]propanoic acid),
expressed as quizalofop, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registration are established for residues of the herbicide
quizalofop ethyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only those quizalofop ethyl residues convertible to 2-
methoxy-6-chloroquinoxaline, expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent
of quizalofop ethyl, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-9447 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P