Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances, 58493-58499 [2012-23352]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
No Takings Implications
PART 261—PROHIBITIONS
The Department has analyzed the
final rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria in E.O. 12630
and has determined that this final rule
will not pose the risk of a taking of
private property.
Subpart B—General Prohibitions
Civil Justice Reform
Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1531–1538), the Department has
assessed the effects of this final rule on
State, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. This final rule will
not compel the expenditure of $100
million or more by any State, local, or
tribal government or anyone in the
private sector. Therefore, a statement
under section 202 of the Act is not
required.
Energy Effects
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public
This final rule does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
or other information collection
requirements as defined in 5 CFR part
1320 that are not already required by
law or not already approved for use.
Accordingly, the review provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not
apply to this final rule.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. In § 261.52, revise paragraph (j) to
read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 261.52
Fire.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Operating or using any internal or
external combustion engine without a
spark arresting device that is properly
installed, maintained, and in effective
working order in accordance with U.S.
Forest Service Standard 5100–1.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 14, 2012.
Tim DeCoster,
Acting Chief, Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–23319 Filed 9–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0593; FRL–9358–3]
Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Department has reviewed this
final rule under E.O. 13211 of May 18,
2001, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply.
The Department has determined that
this final rule does not constitute a
significant energy action as defined in
the E.O.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 261
Law enforcement, National forests.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
the preamble, the Forest Service is
amending subpart B of part 261 of Title
36 of the Code of Federal Regulations to
read as follows:
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011(f); 16 U.S.C. 472,
551, 620(f), 1133(c), (d)(1), 1246(i).
■
The Department has reviewed this
final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil
justice reform. After adoption of this
final rule, (1) All State and local laws
and regulations that conflict with this
final rule or that impede its full
implementation will be preempted; (2)
no retroactive effect will be given to this
final rule; and (3) it will not require
administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court challenging
its provisions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
Jkt 226001
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of flumioxazin in
or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. Valent U.S.A. Corporation
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective
September 21, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before November 20, 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: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0593, is
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the OPP Docket in the
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA
West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58493
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bethany Benbow, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 347–8072; email address:
benbow.bethany@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.
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
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
58494
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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–2011–0593 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 November 20, 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–2011–0593, by one of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of August 26,
2011, 76 FR 53374 (FRL–8884–9), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 1F7886) by Valent U.S.A.
Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite
200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.568
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the herbicide,
flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole1,3(2H)-dione, in or on Pea and bean,
dried shelled (except soybean), crop
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
subgroup 6C at 0.1 parts per million
(ppm); Rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at
0.35 ppm for seed, 0.04 ppm for meal,
and 0.02 ppm for refined oil; Sunflower,
crop subgroup 20B at 0.5 ppm for seed,
0.03 for meal, 0.02 ppm for refined oil;
and Wheat at 0.35 ppm for grain, 5.0
ppm for straw, 0.02 ppm for forage, 0.02
ppm for hay, 0.35 ppm for bran, 0.05
ppm for flour, 0.35 ppm for germ, 0.08
ppm for middlings, 0.11 ppm for shorts,
110 ppm for aspirated grain fractions. In
addition, the petition requested
revocation of the existing tolerance for
residues of flumioxazin in or on beans,
dry seed, if a tolerance for Crop
subgroup 6C (which includes this
commodity) is set as requested. That
notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Valent U.S.A.
Corporation, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, EPA–HQ–OPP–
2011–0593 at 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 and use of the
OECD tolerance calculation procedures,
EPA has determined that a single
tolerance to cover all of the
commodities within each of the crop
subgroups is appropriate versus
individual tolerances for each of the
commodities within the crop subgroups.
In addition, EPA has determined that
several of the proposed tolerances for
wheat commodities, including wheat
bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts,
are not required. The reason 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 * * *.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for flumioxazin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with flumioxazin 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. A summary of the
toxicological findings are as follows:
Flumioxazin has mild or low acute
toxicity when administered orally,
dermally, or by inhalation. It is not an
eye or skin irritant, or a dermal
sensitizer. In general, the subchronic
and chronic toxicity studies
demonstrated that toxic effects
associated with flumioxazin include
anemia as well as effects on the liver
and the cardiovascular system.
Developmental effects were observed in
developmental rat studies but not in
developmental rabbit studies.
Hematologic (hematopoietic) effects of
anemia were noted in rats, consisting of
alterations in hemoglobin parameters.
Increased renal toxicity in male rats was
also reported following chronic
exposure. There is no evidence of
neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the
recently submitted guideline studies.
Increased quantitative susceptibility
was seen in the rat developmental
toxicity studies. Fetal effects were
observed in the absence of maternal
toxicity. In addition, both increased
qualitative and quantitative
susceptibility were observed in the rat
reproduction study. Severe fetal effects
were observed at lower doses than
milder parental effects. In most of the
available mutagenicity studies,
flumioxazin was negative for
mutagenicity; however, aberrations were
seen in a chromosomal aberration assay
(CHO cells). Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and
rats, flumioxazin 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 flumioxazin as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document,
Flumioxazin. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Uses on
Wheat, Sunflower, Safflower, Flax,
Lentils and Field Peas on page 20 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
0593.
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 (U/SF) 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
58495
margin of exposure (MOE). For nonthreshold 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 flumioxazin used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUMIOXAZIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (Females 13–50
years of age).
NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/
day UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
Acute RfD = aPAD =
0.03 mg/kg/day.
Oral Developmental and Supplemental Pre-natal Studies (Rat)
LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, based on cardiovascular effects in
fetuses.
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children).
No appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) were observed in oral toxicity studies including maternal effects in developmental studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, a dose and endpoint
were not identified for this risk assessment.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
NOAEL= 6.3 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
NOAEL = 6.3 mg/kg/
day (dermal absorption factor =
8%).
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
oral study NOAEL=
3 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption
rate = 100%).
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 10x.
UFDB.
NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/
day (inhalation absorption rate =
100%).
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 10x.
UFDB.
Exposure/scenario
Incidental oral short-term (1 to
30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
Dermal-Children short-term (1
to 30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
Dermal-Adults All Durations ......
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days) and Intermediate term
(1 to 6 months).
Inhalation Long-term (> 6
months).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Chronic RfD= cPAD
= 0.02 mg/kg/day.
2-Year Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study (Rat) LOAEL = 18 mg/
kg/day, based on increased chronic nephropathy in males
and decreased hematological parameters in females.
LOC for MOE = 100
2-Generation Reproduction Study (Rat) LOAEL = 12.7 mg/kg/
day, based on decreased pup body weight and testicular atrophy in F1 males.
LOC for MOE = 100
2-Generation Reproduction Study (Rat) LOAEL = 12.7 mg/kg/
day, based on decreased pup body weight and testicular atrophy in F1 males.
LOC for MOE = 100
Dermal Developmental Study (Rat) LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day,
based on cardiovascular effects in fetuses.
LOC for MOE =
1000.
Oral Developmental Study (Rat) LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, based
on cardiovascular effects in fetuses.
LOC for MOE =
1000.
2-Year Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study (Rat) LOAEL = 18 mg/
kg/day, based on increased chronic nephropathy in males
and decreased hematological parameters in females.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
58496
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUMIOXAZIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
‘‘Not likely to be a carcinogenic to humans,’’ based on the lack of carcinogenicity in a 2-year rat study, an 18month mouse study, and a battery of mutagenic studies.
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c =
chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use
of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term risk assessment.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flumioxazin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing flumioxazin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.568. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from flumioxazin 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.
Such effects were identified for
flumioxazin. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA assumed residues are
present in all commodities at the
tolerance level and that 100% of
commodities with tolerances are treated
with flumioxazin. In addition, EPA used
default concentration factors to estimate
residues of flumioxazin in processed
commodities. Acute dietary exposure
was only estimated for females 13–49
years old based on cardiovascular
effects in fetuses observed in the oral
developmental and supplemental prenatal rat studies. An endpoint of
concern was not established for acute
dietary assessment of the general
population.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998
CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed residues are present in all
commodities at the tolerance level and
that 100% of commodities with
tolerances are treated with flumioxazin.
In addition, EPA used default
concentration factors to estimate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
residues of flumioxazin in processed
commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flumioxazin does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk was not
conducted.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for flumioxazin in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of flumioxazin.
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.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations, based on the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) for
flumioxazin and its major degradates
(482–HA and APF) under the use as an
aquatic herbicide, were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 400 parts per
billion (ppb) was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration of value 142 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).
Flumioxazin is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Aquatic areas,
ornamental gardens, ornamental trees,
and turf in residential lawns, athletic
fields, parks, and golf courses. EPA
assessed residential exposure with the
assumption that homeowner handlers
wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks,
and shoes, and that they complete all
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
tasks associated with the use of a
pesticide product including mixing/
loading, if needed, as well as the
application. Residential handler
exposure scenarios for both dermal and
inhalation are considered to be shortterm only, due to the infrequent use
patterns associated with homeowner
products. EPA uses the term ‘‘postapplication’’ to describe exposure to
individuals that occur as a result of
being in an environment that has been
previously treated with a pesticide.
Flumioxazin can be used in many areas
that can be frequented by the general
population including residential areas,
golf courses, lakes, and ponds. As a
result, individuals can be exposed by
entering these areas if they have been
previously treated. Therefore, short-term
and intermediate dermal postapplication exposures and risks were
assessed for adults and children. In
addition, oral post-application
exposures and risks were assessed for
children to be protective of possible
hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and
soil ingestion activities that may occur
on treated turf areas. 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 flumioxazin to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and flumioxazin does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that
flumioxazin does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
Evidence of increased susceptibility to
fetuses was observed in the oral and
dermal developmental rat studies [i.e.
cardiovascular anomalies (ventricular
septal defect)] that occurred in the
absence of maternal toxicity.
Additionally, the rat reproduction study
demonstrated evidence of qualitative
and quantitative post-natal
susceptibility because reproductive
effects in offspring were observed at
doses lower than those that caused
parental/systemic toxicity, and because
the reproductive effects in offspring
were considered to be more severe than
the parental/systemic effects.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X for oral and dermal
exposures, but be retained at 10X for
inhalation exposures. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
flumioxazin is largely complete with the
exception of an inhalation
developmental study, which was
recently determined necessary, in order
to better assess route-specific inhalation
risks. In the absence of this study, a 10x
FQPA safety factor to account for
database uncertainty is needed to
protect the safety of infants and children
to assess risks for all inhalation
exposure scenarios. The toxicity profile
can be characterized for all effects,
including potential developmental and
reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
and neurotoxicity with the current
database.
ii. There is no indication that
flumioxazin is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. Although increased susceptibility
was seen in the rat developmental and
reproductive studies, EPA’s concern for
these effects is low, and there are no
residual uncertainties for pre- and/or
postnatal toxicity because: The
developmental toxicity NOAELs/
LOAELs are well characterized after oral
and dermal exposure; the offspring
toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well
characterized in the reproduction study
and; the Points of Departure (POD) for
assessing risk to developing fetuses,
infants, and children have been selected
either from the developmental and
reproductive toxicity studies from the
chronic study which established a lower
POD for chronic effects than the studies
in pre- and postnatal animals. Thus, the
regulatory endpoints for flumioxazin are
protective of the increased susceptibility
seen in the developmental and
reproduction studies, and there are no
residual concerns for these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
Because the acute and chronic dietary
exposure estimates were based on
several conservative assumptions (100%
of crops treated with residues present at
tolerance levels, default processing
factors and screening level drinking
water estimates), EPA is confident that
the dietary exposure assessments do not
underestimate risk to the general U.S.
population and various population
subgroups. Similarly, EPA does not
believe that the non-dietary residential
exposures are underestimated because
they are based on the conservative
assumptions of EPA’s Draft Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) for
Residential Exposure Assessments
(December 1997), and updates
contained in the Science Advisory
Council Policy 12 (February 2001) as
well as the uses specified in the
proposed labels.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58497
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Acute aggregate risk
takes into account exposure to residues
in food and drinking water alone.
Therefore, acute aggregate risk is
equivalent to the acute dietary risk as
discussed in Unit III.C.1.i. The acute
dietary exposure estimate for females
13–49 years old will utilize 68% of the
aPAD, which is below the Agency’s LOC
(100% of the aPAD).
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to flumioxazin
from food and water will utilize 54% of
the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year old)
the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the
explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic
residential exposure to residues of
flumioxazin is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Flumioxazin 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 flumioxazin.
Different methodologies were used for
the presentation of short-term aggregate
risk for adults and children. An
aggregate risk estimate (ARI) approach
was required to estimate short-term
adult aggregate risk because there are
different LOCs for adult dermal and
inhalation exposures, 100 and 1,000,
respectively. For short-term child
aggregate risk, the combined MOE
approach was used because the
endpoint of concern (decreased pup
weight) and the LOC are the same.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
ARI of 1.15 for adults and aggregate
MOE of 150 for children. Because EPA’s
LOC for flumioxazin is an ARI of 1 or
below and a MOE of 100 or below, these
aggregate risk estimates 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).
Since the short- and intermediate-term
toxicological endpoints for flumioxazin
are the same for each route of exposure,
only short-term exposures were
assessed.
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
58498
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
flumioxazin 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 flumioxazin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography/nitrogenphosphorus detection (GC/NPD)
method, Valent Method RM30–A–1) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
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
United Nations 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. There are no
MRLs established by Codex, Canada, or
Mexico for any of the proposed
commodities in the current registration
actions.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA has revised the requested
tolerances by adjusting the tolerance
values, substituting crop group
tolerances for individual tolerances, and
dropping unnecessary tolerances. The
tolerance levels were revised based on
analysis of the field trial data using the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculation procedures. EPA believes
they differ from the petitioner’s
proposed tolerances for dried pea,
rapeseed subgroup 20A, and wheat
grain and straw due to the petitioner
having possibly used the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NAFTA) tolerance
calculation procedures as opposed to
the OECD procedure. In addition, EPA
is setting single tolerances for the crop
subgroups (6C, 20A and 20B) versus
individual tolerances for each
commodity within the subgroups since
maximum residues of the commodities
within the crop subgroups differ by less
than 5X. The proposed tolerances for
wheat commodities (bran, flour, germ,
middlings, and shorts) are also not
necessary since they are covered by the
tolerance being set for wheat grain.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of flumioxazin, 2-[7-fluoro3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2 H
-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro1 H -isoindole-1,3(2 H)-dione, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the commodities as set forth in the
regulatory text. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only
flumioxazin.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 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.
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: September 10, 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 180.568 is amended by:
a. Alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a);
■ b. Removing the commodity, ‘‘bean,
dry seed’’ from the table in paragraph
(a).
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
§ 180.568 Flumioxazin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Grain, aspirated fractions .......
*
100
*
*
*
*
Pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup
6C ........................................
*
0.07
*
*
*
*
Rapeseed subgroup 20A ........
*
0.40
I. Background
The Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely
*
*
*
*
*
Wheat, forage .........................
0.02 Disabled (Committee) administers the
®
Wheat, grain ...........................
0.40 AbilityOne Program pursuant to the
authority of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day
Wheat, hay .............................
0.02
(JWOD) Act (41 U.S.C. 8501et seq.). The
Wheat, straw ...........................
6.0
AbilityOne Program provides
*
*
*
*
*
employment opportunities for people
[FR Doc. 2012–23352 Filed 9–20–12; 8:45 am]
who are blind or have other severe
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
disabilities through the manufacture
and delivery of products and services to
the Federal Government. 41 U.S.C.
8503(d) authorizes the Committee to
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM
make rules and regulations necessary to
PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR
carry out the purpose of the Act and the
SEVERELY DISABLED
Committee has done so at 41 CFR
41 CFR Parts 51–1
Chapter 51. Within the AbilityOne
Program, the term ‘‘severely disabled’’ is
Substitution of Term in a Definition;
used to describe people with severe
Addition and Adoption of the Use of
disabilities who qualify to participate in
Specific Interchangeable or
the program; however, within the
Synonymous Terms
Committee’s regulation, the terms other
severely handicapped and severely
AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From
handicapped individuals are used to
People Who Are Blind or Severely
define persons with severe disabilities.
Disabled.
The Committee is amending its
ACTION: Final rule.
regulation to correct the terminology
SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase
and remove references to ‘‘handicap’’ or
From People Who Are Blind or Severely ‘‘handicapped’’ in the list of definitions.
*
*
*
*
Sunflower subgroup 20B ........
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Disabled (the Committee) administers
the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to
the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day
(JWOD) Act. The Committee is
substituting the term ‘‘disabled’’ for
‘‘handicapped’’ in a term defined in its
regulation. Additionally, the Committee
has deliberated and unanimously voted
to approve the use of ‘‘severely’’
disabled and ‘‘significantly’’ disabled as
interchangeable or synonymous terms
when referring to people who are
severely disabled within the AbilityOne
Program. The Committee’s approval to
use ‘‘severely’’ and significantly’’ as
interchangeable or synonymous terms
within the AbilityOne Program
specifically does not make any change
to the definition of ‘‘severely disabled
individual’’ in the JWOD Act or expand
the population of individuals served
within the AbilityOne Program.
DATES: Effective Date: September 21,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The Committee office is
located at 1421 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA
22202–3259.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Lockard, General Counsel, by
telephone (703) 603–7740, or by
facsimile at (703) 603–0030, or by mail
at the Committee for Purchase From
People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,
Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202–3259.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 Sep 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
*
0.50
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58499
Additionally, the Committee is aware
that the term ‘‘severely disabled’’ is no
longer the description of choice of all
disability advocates and terms such as
‘‘significantly disabled’’ have gained
acceptance within the disability
communities. The Committee is also
cognizant that the term ‘‘individual with
a significant disability’’ (instead of
severe disability) was included and
defined in the 1998 reauthorization of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
term is being included in other
congressional actions and agency
regulations. In conjunction with the
broader use of the terms ‘‘significant’’
disability and ‘‘significantly’’ disabled,
the AbilityOne Program’s participants,
stakeholders and supporters have
increasingly accepted and used these
terms within the program.
Consequently, in order to ensure
alignment and consistency throughout
the AbilityOne Program, the Committee
has voted to permit use of the terms
‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘significantly’’ as
interchangeable or synonymous with
‘‘severe’’ or ‘‘severely’’ when describing
individuals with severe disabilities who
qualify to participate in the AbilityOne
Program. The action by the Committee
to use the terms interchangeably or
synonymously does not, however, result
in any change to the definition or
eligibility (either expand or narrow) of
the population served in the AbilityOne
Program under the authority of the
JWOD Act. In addition, this action does
not make any change to the statutory
name of the Committee or permit the
use of the synonymous term when
describing the Committee.
The Committee has issued a final rule
because this rule does not have a
significant effect beyond the internal
operating procedures of the AbilityOne
Program and does not have a significant
cost or administrative impact on others
not associated with the AbilityOne
Program. Therefore, public comment is
not required. This interpretive rule is
action by the Committee to ensure that
appropriate terminology is used within
the AbilityOne Program to describe a
significant portion of the people who
are served under this program.
II. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess costs, benefits
and burdens of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effective, distributive impacts, and
equity). This is not a significant
E:\FR\FM\21SER1.SGM
21SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58493-58499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23352]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593; FRL-9358-3]
Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flumioxazin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective September 21, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 20, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593, is available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Benbow, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 347-8072; email address: benbow.bethany@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.
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
[[Page 58494]]
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-2011-0593 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 November 20, 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-2011-0593, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of August 26, 2011, 76 FR 53374 (FRL-8884-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7886)
by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut
Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.568 be amended
by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, flumioxazin,
2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-
4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, in or on Pea and bean,
dried shelled (except soybean), crop subgroup 6C at 0.1 parts per
million (ppm); Rapeseed, crop subgroup 20A at 0.35 ppm for seed, 0.04
ppm for meal, and 0.02 ppm for refined oil; Sunflower, crop subgroup
20B at 0.5 ppm for seed, 0.03 for meal, 0.02 ppm for refined oil; and
Wheat at 0.35 ppm for grain, 5.0 ppm for straw, 0.02 ppm for forage,
0.02 ppm for hay, 0.35 ppm for bran, 0.05 ppm for flour, 0.35 ppm for
germ, 0.08 ppm for middlings, 0.11 ppm for shorts, 110 ppm for
aspirated grain fractions. In addition, the petition requested
revocation of the existing tolerance for residues of flumioxazin in or
on beans, dry seed, if a tolerance for Crop subgroup 6C (which includes
this commodity) is set as requested. That notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593 at 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 and use of
the OECD tolerance calculation procedures, EPA has determined that a
single tolerance to cover all of the commodities within each of the
crop subgroups is appropriate versus individual tolerances for each of
the commodities within the crop subgroups. In addition, EPA has
determined that several of the proposed tolerances for wheat
commodities, including wheat bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts,
are not required. The reason 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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for flumioxazin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with flumioxazin 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. A summary of the toxicological findings are as follows:
Flumioxazin has mild or low acute toxicity when administered
orally, dermally, or by inhalation. It is not an eye or skin irritant,
or a dermal sensitizer. In general, the subchronic and chronic toxicity
studies demonstrated that toxic effects associated with flumioxazin
include anemia as well as effects on the liver and the cardiovascular
system. Developmental effects were observed in developmental rat
studies but not in developmental rabbit studies. Hematologic
(hematopoietic) effects of anemia were noted in rats, consisting of
alterations in hemoglobin parameters. Increased renal toxicity in male
rats was also reported following chronic exposure. There is no evidence
of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the recently submitted guideline
studies. Increased quantitative susceptibility was seen in the rat
developmental toxicity studies. Fetal effects were observed in the
absence of maternal toxicity. In addition, both increased qualitative
and quantitative susceptibility were observed in the rat reproduction
study. Severe fetal effects were observed at lower doses than milder
parental effects. In most of the available mutagenicity studies,
flumioxazin was negative for mutagenicity; however, aberrations were
seen in a chromosomal aberration assay (CHO cells). Based on the lack
of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats, flumioxazin 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 flumioxazin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level
[[Page 58495]]
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the
document, Flumioxazin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed
Uses on Wheat, Sunflower, Safflower, Flax, Lentils and Field Peas on
page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0593.
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 (U/SF) 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 flumioxazin used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Flumioxazin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/day Acute RfD = aPAD = Oral Developmental and
years of age). UFA = 10x. 0.03 mg/kg/day. Supplemental Pre-natal Studies
UFH = 10x........... (Rat) LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, based
FQPA SF = 1x........ on cardiovascular effects in
fetuses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population No appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose)
including infants and children). were observed in oral toxicity studies including maternal effects in
developmental studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, a dose and endpoint
were not identified for this risk assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 2.0 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD= cPAD = 2-Year Chronic/Carcinogenicity
UFA = 10x........... 0.02 mg/kg/day. Study (Rat) LOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day,
UFH = 10x........... based on increased chronic
FQPA SF = 1x........ nephropathy in males and
decreased hematological
parameters in females.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to NOAEL= 6.3 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100.. 2-Generation Reproduction Study
30 days) and intermediate-term UFA = 10x........... (Rat) LOAEL = 12.7 mg/kg/day,
(1 to 6 months). UFH = 10x........... based on decreased pup body
FQPA SF = 1x........ weight and testicular atrophy in
F1 males.
Dermal-Children short-term (1 to NOAEL = 6.3 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100.. 2-Generation Reproduction Study
30 days) and intermediate-term day (dermal (Rat) LOAEL = 12.7 mg/kg/day,
(1 to 6 months). absorption factor = based on decreased pup body
8%). weight and testicular atrophy in
UFA = 10x........... F1 males.
UFH = 10x...........
FQPA SF = 1x........
Dermal-Adults All Durations...... NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/day. LOC for MOE = 100.. Dermal Developmental Study (Rat)
UFA = 10x........... LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day, based on
UFH = 10x........... cardiovascular effects in
FQPA SF = 1x........ fetuses.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 oral study NOAEL= 3 LOC for MOE = 1000. Oral Developmental Study (Rat)
days) and Intermediate term (1 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day, based on
to 6 months). (inhalation cardiovascular effects in
absorption rate = fetuses.
100%).
UFA = 10x...........
UFH = 10x...........
FQPA SF = 10x.......
UFDB................
Inhalation Long-term (> 6 months) NOAEL = 2 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 1000. 2-Year Chronic/Carcinogenicity
(inhalation Study (Rat) LOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day,
absorption rate = based on increased chronic
100%). nephropathy in males and
UFA = 10x........... decreased hematological
UFH = 10x........... parameters in females.
FQPA SF = 10x.......
UFDB................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58496]]
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) ``Not likely to be a carcinogenic to humans,'' based on the lack of
carcinogenicity in a 2-year rat study, an 18-month mouse study, and a
battery of mutagenic studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other
data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term
risk assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flumioxazin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flumioxazin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.568. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flumioxazin 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.
Such effects were identified for flumioxazin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, EPA assumed residues are present in all commodities at
the tolerance level and that 100% of commodities with tolerances are
treated with flumioxazin. In addition, EPA used default concentration
factors to estimate residues of flumioxazin in processed commodities.
Acute dietary exposure was only estimated for females 13-49 years old
based on cardiovascular effects in fetuses observed in the oral
developmental and supplemental pre-natal rat studies. An endpoint of
concern was not established for acute dietary assessment of the general
population.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed residues are
present in all commodities at the tolerance level and that 100% of
commodities with tolerances are treated with flumioxazin. In addition,
EPA used default concentration factors to estimate residues of
flumioxazin in processed commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flumioxazin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk was not conducted.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for flumioxazin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of flumioxazin. 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.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations, based on the
estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for flumioxazin and its
major degradates (482-HA and APF) under the use as an aquatic
herbicide, were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 400
parts per billion (ppb) was used to assess the contribution to drinking
water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 142 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). Flumioxazin is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Aquatic areas, ornamental gardens, ornamental
trees, and turf in residential lawns, athletic fields, parks, and golf
courses. EPA assessed residential exposure with the assumption that
homeowner handlers wear shorts, short-sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes,
and that they complete all tasks associated with the use of a pesticide
product including mixing/loading, if needed, as well as the
application. Residential handler exposure scenarios for both dermal and
inhalation are considered to be short-term only, due to the infrequent
use patterns associated with homeowner products. EPA uses the term
``post-application'' to describe exposure to individuals that occur as
a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated
with a pesticide. Flumioxazin can be used in many areas that can be
frequented by the general population including residential areas, golf
courses, lakes, and ponds. As a result, individuals can be exposed by
entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Therefore,
short-term and intermediate dermal post-application exposures and risks
were assessed for adults and children. In addition, oral post-
application exposures and risks were assessed for children to be
protective of possible hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil
ingestion activities that may occur on treated turf areas. 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
flumioxazin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and flumioxazin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flumioxazin does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
[[Page 58497]]
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. Evidence of increased
susceptibility to fetuses was observed in the oral and dermal
developmental rat studies [i.e. cardiovascular anomalies (ventricular
septal defect)] that occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity.
Additionally, the rat reproduction study demonstrated evidence of
qualitative and quantitative post-natal susceptibility because
reproductive effects in offspring were observed at doses lower than
those that caused parental/systemic toxicity, and because the
reproductive effects in offspring were considered to be more severe
than the parental/systemic effects.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for oral and dermal exposures, but be
retained at 10X for inhalation exposures. That decision is based on the
following findings:
i. The toxicity database for flumioxazin is largely complete with
the exception of an inhalation developmental study, which was recently
determined necessary, in order to better assess route-specific
inhalation risks. In the absence of this study, a 10x FQPA safety
factor to account for database uncertainty is needed to protect the
safety of infants and children to assess risks for all inhalation
exposure scenarios. The toxicity profile can be characterized for all
effects, including potential developmental and reproductive toxicity,
immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity with the current database.
ii. There is no indication that flumioxazin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although increased susceptibility was seen in the rat
developmental and reproductive studies, EPA's concern for these effects
is low, and there are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or
postnatal toxicity because: The developmental toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs
are well characterized after oral and dermal exposure; the offspring
toxicity NOAEL and LOAEL are well characterized in the reproduction
study and; the Points of Departure (POD) for assessing risk to
developing fetuses, infants, and children have been selected either
from the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies from the
chronic study which established a lower POD for chronic effects than
the studies in pre- and postnatal animals. Thus, the regulatory
endpoints for flumioxazin are protective of the increased
susceptibility seen in the developmental and reproduction studies, and
there are no residual concerns for these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. Because the acute and chronic dietary exposure estimates
were based on several conservative assumptions (100% of crops treated
with residues present at tolerance levels, default processing factors
and screening level drinking water estimates), EPA is confident that
the dietary exposure assessments do not underestimate risk to the
general U.S. population and various population subgroups. Similarly,
EPA does not believe that the non-dietary residential exposures are
underestimated because they are based on the conservative assumptions
of EPA's Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Residential
Exposure Assessments (December 1997), and updates contained in the
Science Advisory Council Policy 12 (February 2001) as well as the uses
specified in the proposed labels.
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. Acute aggregate risk takes into account exposure to
residues in food and drinking water alone. Therefore, acute aggregate
risk is equivalent to the acute dietary risk as discussed in Unit
III.C.1.i. The acute dietary exposure estimate for females 13-49 years
old will utilize 68% of the aPAD, which is below the Agency's LOC (100%
of the aPAD).
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flumioxazin from food and water will utilize 54% of the cPAD for all
infants (< 1 year old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
flumioxazin is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Flumioxazin 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
flumioxazin.
Different methodologies were used for the presentation of short-
term aggregate risk for adults and children. An aggregate risk estimate
(ARI) approach was required to estimate short-term adult aggregate risk
because there are different LOCs for adult dermal and inhalation
exposures, 100 and 1,000, respectively. For short-term child aggregate
risk, the combined MOE approach was used because the endpoint of
concern (decreased pup weight) and the LOC are the same. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures,
EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate ARI of 1.15 for adults and aggregate MOE
of 150 for children. Because EPA's LOC for flumioxazin is an ARI of 1
or below and a MOE of 100 or below, these aggregate risk estimates 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). Since the short- and intermediate-term toxicological endpoints
for flumioxazin are the same for each route of exposure, only short-
term exposures were assessed.
[[Page 58498]]
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, flumioxazin 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 flumioxazin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/nitrogen-
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method, Valent Method RM30-A-1) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
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 United Nations
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. There are no MRLs
established by Codex, Canada, or Mexico for any of the proposed
commodities in the current registration actions.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA has revised the requested tolerances by adjusting the tolerance
values, substituting crop group tolerances for individual tolerances,
and dropping unnecessary tolerances. The tolerance levels were revised
based on analysis of the field trial data using the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation
procedures. EPA believes they differ from the petitioner's proposed
tolerances for dried pea, rapeseed subgroup 20A, and wheat grain and
straw due to the petitioner having possibly used the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NAFTA) tolerance
calculation procedures as opposed to the OECD procedure. In addition,
EPA is setting single tolerances for the crop subgroups (6C, 20A and
20B) versus individual tolerances for each commodity within the
subgroups since maximum residues of the commodities within the crop
subgroups differ by less than 5X. The proposed tolerances for wheat
commodities (bran, flour, germ, middlings, and shorts) are also not
necessary since they are covered by the tolerance being set for wheat
grain.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flumioxazin,
2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2 H -1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-
4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-1 H -isoindole-1,3(2 H)-dione, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities as set forth in
the regulatory text. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified
below is to be determined by measuring only flumioxazin.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 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.
[[Page 58499]]
Dated: September 10, 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 180.568 is amended by:
0
a. Alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a);
0
b. Removing the commodity, ``bean, dry seed'' from the table in
paragraph (a).
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 180.568 Flumioxazin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Grain, aspirated fractions................................ 100
* * * * *
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C.. 0.07
* * * * *
Rapeseed subgroup 20A..................................... 0.40
* * * * *
Sunflower subgroup 20B.................................... 0.50
* * * * *
Wheat, forage............................................. 0.02
Wheat, grain.............................................. 0.40
Wheat, hay................................................ 0.02
Wheat, straw.............................................. 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-23352 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P