Spirotetramat; Proposed Pesticide Tolerances, 42736-42739 [2013-16904]
Download as PDF
42736
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act
on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his on-scene representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.
(e) Exemption. Public vessels, as
defined in paragraph (c) of this section,
are exempt from the requirements in
this section.
(f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative may waive any of the
requirements of this section, upon
finding that operational conditions or
other circumstances are such that
application of this section is
unnecessary or impractical for the
purposes of public or environmental
safety.
(g) Notification. The Captain of the
Port Buffalo will notify the public that
the safety zones in this section is or will
be enforced by all appropriate means to
the affected segments of the public
including publication in the Federal
Register as practicable, in accordance
with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of
notification may also include, but are
not limited to Broadcast Notice to
Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying
the public when enforcement of the
safety zone is cancelled.
Dated: June 27, 2013.
J. S. Imahori,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting
Captain of the Port Buffalo.
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107; FRL–9391–6]
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
RIN 2070–ZA16
Spirotetramat; Proposed Pesticide
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This document proposes to
establish tolerances for residues of
Jkt 229001
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.
A. Does this action apply to me?
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
14:22 Jul 16, 2013
Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0107, 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), (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.
ADDRESSES:
I. General Information
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Comments must be received on
or before August 16, 2013.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2013–17105 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
spirotetramat in or on persimmon and
sweet corn, kernel plus cob with husks
removed; and to revise established
tolerances in or on feijoa, papaya, and
Spanish lime under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. This Proposal
EPA, on its own initiative, under
FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), is proposing to establish a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide
spirotetramat, in or on corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husks removed at
1.5 parts per million (ppm).
Additionally, EPA has noted several
errors published in 40 CFR 180.641 that
the Agency is also proposing to correct.
Established tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya,
and Spanish lime in 40 CFR
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and
the previously recommended tolerance
for residues in or on persimmon is
missing. The tolerances are proposed to
be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm
to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60
ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5
ppm.
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. . . .’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. For
further discussion of the regulatory
requirements of FFDCA section 408 and
a complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
Consistent with 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,
consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husks removed;
feijoa; papaya; Spanish lime; and
persimmon. As discussed below, EPA is
relying upon the findings in the
preamble to the May 15, 2013 rule
establishing tolerances for spirotetramat
(78 FR 28507) (FRL–9382–8) and
supporting risk assessments to establish
and revise these tolerances.
On May 15, 2013, EPA published a
final rule establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide spirotetramat,
(cis-3-(2,5-dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:22 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl
carbonate) and its metabolites in or on
taro leaves; watercress; pomegranate;
banana; bulb vegetable group 3–07; low
growing berry, except strawberry,
subgroup 13–07H; bushberry subgroup
13–07B; globe artichoke; pome fruit
group 11–10; fruiting vegetable group 8–
10; citrus fruit group 10–10; pineapple;
coffee, green bean; and instant coffee,
based on EPA’s conclusion that
aggregate exposure to spirotetramat is
safe for the general population,
including infants and children. In
addition to the tolerances listed above,
EPA also considered the following uses
in the risk assessments that supported
the May 15, 2013 final rule: persimmon
and sweet corn, kernel plus cob with
husks removed; and revised tolerances
in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish
lime.
Since the publication of the May 15,
2013 final rule, the toxicity profile of
spirotetramat has not changed, and the
risk assessments that supported the
establishment of those spirotetramat
tolerances published in the May 15,
2013 Federal Register remain valid.
Those risk assessments also
recommended the proposed new uses
and revised tolerances listed above.
Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk
assessments in order to propose the new
and revised tolerances. For a detailed
discussion of the aggregate risk
assessments and determination of safety
for the proposed tolerances, please refer
to the May 15, 2013 Federal Register
document and its supporting
documents, available at https://
www.regulations.gov. EPA relies upon
those supporting risk assessments and
the findings made in the Federal
Register document in support of this
proposed rule.
IV. Background for This Proposal
On February 4, 2011, President Barack
Obama and the Prime Minister of
Canada, Stephen Harper, announced the
creation of the United States-Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC)
in order to increase regulatory
transparency and coordination between
the two countries. One of the areas of
focus of the RCC is in agricultural
production, in particular, the further
alignment of crop protection product
approvals and establishment of U.S.
tolerances and Canadian maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for major and
minor uses of pesticides in both
countries.
One action item identified through
the activities of the RCC was the
initiation of a pilot project for the joint
review of residue data for spirotetramat
in the United States and Canada,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42737
whereby both countries would work
together to further align practices and
tolerances/MRLs resulting from the joint
review of domestic and import
tolerances/MRLs in both countries.
Although Canada’s Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA) had
received a petition for the use of
spirotetramat on sweet corn in Canada,
EPA did not. So, as part of the RCC pilot
project to work together and align
tolerances/MRLs, EPA is proposing a
tolerance without U.S. registration for
residues of spirotetramat and its
metabolites and degradates in or on
corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed based on the evaluation of the
sweet corn residue data. As noted
above, EPA has also considered the
sweet corn use in its risk assessments,
and has made a determination of safety
finding for the use. Additional
information regarding the RCC pilot
project may be found at the following
Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/
international/naftatwg/us-canadarcc.html.
In addition to the proposed use of
spirotetramat in or on sweet corn, EPA
has identified several errors contained
in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA is also
proposing to correct these errors.
Established tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya,
and Spanish lime in 40 CFR
180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and
the previously recommended tolerance
for residues in or on persimmon is
missing. The tolerances are proposed to
be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm
to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60
ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5
ppm.
In the last risk assessment relied upon
for the May 15, 2013 rule, EPA took a
conservative approach by utilizing
tolerance values of 2.5 ppm for feijoa
(which is higher than the established
tolerance), papaya (which is the value of
the established tolerance), and
persimmon and 13 ppm for Spanish
lime (which is higher than the
established tolerance).
Based on the risk assessments and
information described above, 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
spirotetramat residues. Further
information about EPA’s risk assessment
and determination of safety supporting
the tolerances established in the May
15, 2013 Federal Register action, as well
as the proposed new and revised
spirotetramat tolerances can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the
document entitled: ‘‘Spirotetramat.
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
42738
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Human-Health Risk Assessment for the
Proposed Uses in/on Taro, Leaves;
Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana;
Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3–07; Low
growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H,
Except Strawberry and Lowbush
Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13–07B;
Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting,
Group 8–10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11–10;
Fruit, Citrus, Group 10–10; Pineapple;
and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S.
Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel
Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part
of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory
Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot
Project.’’ Further information regarding
correcting the errors for spirotetramat in
40 CFR 180.641 may be found in the
document: ‘‘Spirotetramat: Acute and
Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking
Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment
to Support the Section 3 Registration
Request For Use of Spirotetramat on
Taro, Leaves; Watercress; Pomegranate;
Banana; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3–07;
Low growing Berry Subgroup 13–07H,
Except Strawberry and Lowbush
Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13–07B;
Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting,
Group 8–10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11–10;
Fruit, Citrus, Group 10–10; Pineapple;
and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S.
Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel
Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part
of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory
Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot
Project.’’ Both documents may be found
in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2012–0107.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology,
a high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass
spectrometry (HPLC–MS/MS), 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.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:22 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
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.
The Codex has established a MRL for
spirotetramat in or on papaya at 0.4 mg/
kg. While the EPA originally assessed
for a tolerance in or on papaya at 0.35
ppm, the Agency is proposing to revise
the tolerance to 0.40 ppm in order to
harmonize with Codex. There is no risk
concern with proposing a tolerance in or
on papaya at 0.40 ppm because EPA
assessed the dietary estimates using the
conservative assumption of 2.5 ppm in
the risk assessments supporting the use.
Therefore, the dietary estimate is
expected to slightly decrease upon the
establishment of the revised papaya
tolerance.
VI. Conclusion
Tolerances are proposed for residues
of spirotetramat in corn, sweet, kernel
plus cob with husks removed at 1.5
ppm, and persimmon at 2.5 ppm.
Amended tolerances are also proposed
in or on feijoa from 0.30 ppm to 2.5
ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm;
and Spanish lime from 0.60 ppm to 13
ppm.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This proposed rule proposes to
establish tolerances under FFDCA
section 408(d). 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 proposed rule has been
exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this proposed 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). This proposed
rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or
impose any enforceable duty or contain
any unfunded mandate as described
under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994); or OMB review or any Agency
action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency
previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions
from tolerances, raising of tolerance
levels, expansion of exemptions, or
revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter,
these actions do not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. These analyses
for tolerance establishments and
modifications, and for tolerance
revocations were published on May 4,
1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December
17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively,
and were provided to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account
this analysis, and available information
concerning the pesticides listed in this
proposed rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will
not have significant negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Any comments about the
Agency’s determination should be
submitted to the EPA along with
comments on the proposal, and will be
addressed prior to issuing a final rule.
In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This proposed
rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).
For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this proposed rule does
not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’ as
described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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. In § 180.641, in the table in
paragraph (a), alphabetically add the
commodities ‘‘Corn, sweet, kernel plus
cob with husks removed’’ and
‘‘Persimmon’’ and revise the entries for
14:22 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
(a) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed 1 ............
1.5
*
*
*
*
Feijoa ........................................
*
2.5
*
*
*
*
Papaya ......................................
*
0.40
*
*
*
*
Persimmon ................................
*
2.5
*
*
*
*
*
Spanish lime .............................
*
*
*
*
13
*
*
1 There
are no U.S. registrations as of [date
of effective date of final rule] for use on corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–16904 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR parts 2, 24, 25, 30, 70, 90, and
188
[Docket No. USCG–2012–0919]
Lifesaving Devices—Uninspected
Commercial Barges and Sailing
Vessels
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes
aligning its regulations with the 2010
Coast Guard Authorization Act. Before
2010, uninspected commercial barges
and uninspected commercial sailing
vessels fell outside the scope of a statute
requiring the regulation of lifesaving
devices on uninspected vessels.
Lifesaving devices were required on
uninspected commercial barges and
sailing vessels only if they carried
passengers for hire. The 2010 Act
brought uninspected commercial barges
and sailing vessels within the scope of
the statutory requirement to carry
lifesaving devices even if they carry no
passengers. The Coast Guard proposes
SUMMARY:
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
§ 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for
residues.
RIN 1625–AB83
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
■
‘‘Feijoa’’, ‘‘Papaya’’ and ‘‘Spanish lime,’’
and footnote 1 to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42739
requiring use of wearable personal
flotation devices for individuals on
board uninspected commercial barges
and sailing vessels, and amending
several regulatory tables to reflect that
requirement. This rulemaking promotes
the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission.
DATES: Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before October 15, 2013 or reach
the Docket Management Facility by that
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2012–0919 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Martin Jackson,
Office of Design and Engineering
Standards Lifesaving and Fire Safety
Division (CG–ENG–4), Coast Guard;
telephone 202–372–1391, email
Martin.L.Jackson@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Ms. Barbara
Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E:\FR\FM\17JYP1.SGM
17JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42736-42739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16904]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0107; FRL-9391-6]
RIN 2070-ZA16
Spirotetramat; Proposed Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on persimmon and sweet corn, kernel plus cob with
husks removed; and to revise established tolerances in or on feijoa,
papaya, and Spanish lime under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0107, 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), (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.
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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. This Proposal
EPA, on its own initiative, under FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), is proposing to establish a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide spirotetramat, in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with
husks removed at 1.5 parts per million (ppm). Additionally, EPA has
noted several errors published in 40 CFR 180.641 that the Agency is
also proposing to correct. Established tolerances for residues of
spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish lime in 40 CFR
[[Page 42737]]
180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and the previously recommended
tolerance for residues in or on persimmon is missing. The tolerances
are proposed to be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30 ppm to 2.5
ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60 ppm to 13
ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 ppm.
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. . .
.''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of FFDCA section 408 and a complete description
of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
Consistent with 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, consistent with FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for residues of spirotetramat in or
on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; feijoa; papaya;
Spanish lime; and persimmon. As discussed below, EPA is relying upon
the findings in the preamble to the May 15, 2013 rule establishing
tolerances for spirotetramat (78 FR 28507) (FRL-9382-8) and supporting
risk assessments to establish and revise these tolerances.
On May 15, 2013, EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances
for residues of the insecticide spirotetramat, (cis-3-(2,5-
dimethlyphenyl)-8-methoxy-2-oxo-1-azaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl-ethyl
carbonate) and its metabolites in or on taro leaves; watercress;
pomegranate; banana; bulb vegetable group 3-07; low growing berry,
except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H; bushberry subgroup 13-07B; globe
artichoke; pome fruit group 11-10; fruiting vegetable group 8-10;
citrus fruit group 10-10; pineapple; coffee, green bean; and instant
coffee, based on EPA's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
spirotetramat is safe for the general population, including infants and
children. In addition to the tolerances listed above, EPA also
considered the following uses in the risk assessments that supported
the May 15, 2013 final rule: persimmon and sweet corn, kernel plus cob
with husks removed; and revised tolerances in or on feijoa, papaya, and
Spanish lime.
Since the publication of the May 15, 2013 final rule, the toxicity
profile of spirotetramat has not changed, and the risk assessments that
supported the establishment of those spirotetramat tolerances published
in the May 15, 2013 Federal Register remain valid. Those risk
assessments also recommended the proposed new uses and revised
tolerances listed above. Therefore, EPA is relying on those risk
assessments in order to propose the new and revised tolerances. For a
detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination
of safety for the proposed tolerances, please refer to the May 15, 2013
Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at
https://www.regulations.gov. EPA relies upon those supporting risk
assessments and the findings made in the Federal Register document in
support of this proposed rule.
IV. Background for This Proposal
On February 4, 2011, President Barack Obama and the Prime Minister
of Canada, Stephen Harper, announced the creation of the United States-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) in order to increase
regulatory transparency and coordination between the two countries. One
of the areas of focus of the RCC is in agricultural production, in
particular, the further alignment of crop protection product approvals
and establishment of U.S. tolerances and Canadian maximum residue
limits (MRLs) for major and minor uses of pesticides in both countries.
One action item identified through the activities of the RCC was
the initiation of a pilot project for the joint review of residue data
for spirotetramat in the United States and Canada, whereby both
countries would work together to further align practices and
tolerances/MRLs resulting from the joint review of domestic and import
tolerances/MRLs in both countries.
Although Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) had
received a petition for the use of spirotetramat on sweet corn in
Canada, EPA did not. So, as part of the RCC pilot project to work
together and align tolerances/MRLs, EPA is proposing a tolerance
without U.S. registration for residues of spirotetramat and its
metabolites and degradates in or on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with
husks removed based on the evaluation of the sweet corn residue data.
As noted above, EPA has also considered the sweet corn use in its risk
assessments, and has made a determination of safety finding for the
use. Additional information regarding the RCC pilot project may be
found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/us-canada-rcc.html.
In addition to the proposed use of spirotetramat in or on sweet
corn, EPA has identified several errors contained in 40 CFR 180.641.
EPA is also proposing to correct these errors. Established tolerances
for residues of spirotetramat in or on feijoa, papaya, and Spanish lime
in 40 CFR 180.641(a)(1) are incorrectly listed and the previously
recommended tolerance for residues in or on persimmon is missing. The
tolerances are proposed to be corrected as follows: Feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; Spanish lime from 0.60
ppm to 13 ppm; and persimmon at 2.5 ppm.
In the last risk assessment relied upon for the May 15, 2013 rule,
EPA took a conservative approach by utilizing tolerance values of 2.5
ppm for feijoa (which is higher than the established tolerance), papaya
(which is the value of the established tolerance), and persimmon and 13
ppm for Spanish lime (which is higher than the established tolerance).
Based on the risk assessments and information described above, 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 spirotetramat residues. Further information about EPA's
risk assessment and determination of safety supporting the tolerances
established in the May 15, 2013 Federal Register action, as well as the
proposed new and revised spirotetramat tolerances can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled: ``Spirotetramat.
[[Page 42738]]
Human-Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses in/on Taro, Leaves;
Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3-07; Low
growing Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Except Strawberry and Lowbush Blueberry;
Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B; Artichoke, Globe; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group
8-10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit, Citrus, Group 10-10; Pineapple;
and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S. Registration in/on Corn, Sweet,
Kernel Plus Cob with Husks Removed as Part of the U.S.-Canada
Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot Project.'' Further
information regarding correcting the errors for spirotetramat in 40 CFR
180.641 may be found in the document: ``Spirotetramat: Acute and
Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment
to Support the Section 3 Registration Request For Use of Spirotetramat
on Taro, Leaves; Watercress; Pomegranate; Banana; Vegetable, Bulb,
Group 3-07; Low growing Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Except Strawberry and
Lowbush Blueberry; Bushberry Subgroup 13-07B; Artichoke, Globe;
Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8-10; Fruit, Pome, Group 11-10; Fruit,
Citrus, Group 10-10; Pineapple; and Coffee; and Tolerances without U.S.
Registration in/on Corn, Sweet, Kernel Plus Cob with Husks Removed as
Part of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Pilot
Project.'' Both documents may be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0107.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology, a high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS), 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.
The Codex has established a MRL for spirotetramat in or on papaya
at 0.4 mg/kg. While the EPA originally assessed for a tolerance in or
on papaya at 0.35 ppm, the Agency is proposing to revise the tolerance
to 0.40 ppm in order to harmonize with Codex. There is no risk concern
with proposing a tolerance in or on papaya at 0.40 ppm because EPA
assessed the dietary estimates using the conservative assumption of 2.5
ppm in the risk assessments supporting the use. Therefore, the dietary
estimate is expected to slightly decrease upon the establishment of the
revised papaya tolerance.
VI. Conclusion
Tolerances are proposed for residues of spirotetramat in corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 1.5 ppm, and persimmon at
2.5 ppm. Amended tolerances are also proposed in or on feijoa from 0.30
ppm to 2.5 ppm; papaya from 2.5 ppm to 0.40 ppm; and Spanish lime from
0.60 ppm to 13 ppm.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This proposed rule proposes to establish tolerances under FFDCA
section 408(d). 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 proposed rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed
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). This proposed rule
does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 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); or OMB review or any
Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). 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) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether
establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of
tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might
significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for
tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and
on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning
the pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed action will not have significant negative
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any comments
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule.
In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
[[Page 42739]]
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter
the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section
408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be 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. In Sec. 180.641, in the table in paragraph (a), alphabetically add
the commodities ``Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed'' and
``Persimmon'' and revise the entries for ``Feijoa'', ``Papaya'' and
``Spanish lime,'' and footnote 1 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed \1\........ 1.5
* * * * *
Feijoa..................................................... 2.5
* * * * *
Papaya..................................................... 0.40
* * * * *
Persimmon.................................................. 2.5
* * * * *
Spanish lime............................................... 13
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of [date of effective date of
final rule] for use on corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-16904 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P