Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances, 42693-42699 [2013-16911]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
414–747–7148, email
Joseph.P.Mccollum@uscg.mil.
The Coast
Guard will enforce the Safety Zone;
Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast,
Chicago, IL listed in 33 CFR 165.931 for
the following events:
(1) Navy Pier Fireworks with times
and dates as follows:
July 17, 2013 from 9:15 p.m. through
9:45 p.m.;
July 20, 2013 from 10:00 p.m. through
10:30 p.m.;
July 24, 2013 from 9:15 p.m. through
9:45 p.m.;
July 27, 2013 from 10:00 p.m. through
10:30 p.m.;
July 31, 2013 from 9:15 p.m. through
9:45 p.m.;
August 3, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.;
August 7, 2013 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.;
August 8, 2013 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.;
August 9, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.;
August 10, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.;
August 14, 2013 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.;
August 17, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.;
August 21, 2013 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.;
August 24, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.;
August 28, 2013 from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:45 p.m.;
August 31, 2013 from 10:00 p.m.
through 10:30 p.m.
This safety zone encompasses the
waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago
Harbor between the east end of the
Chicago Lock guide wall and the
Chicago Harbor breakwater beginning at
41°53′24″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then south
to 41°53′09″ N, 087°35′26″ W; then west
to 41°53′09″ N, 087°36′09″ W; then
north to 41°53′24″ N, 087°36′09″ W;
then back to the point of origin. All
vessels must obtain permission from the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or
his or her on-scene representative to
enter, move within or exit the safety
zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall
obey all lawful orders or directions of
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or his or her on-scene representative.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.931 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
In addition to this notice in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide
the maritime community with advance
notification of these enforcement
periods via broadcast Notice to Mariners
or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
determines that the safety zone need not
be enforced for the full duration stated
in this notice, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant
general permission to enter the safety
zone. The Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.
Dated: July 1, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013–17104 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2013–0140]
Safety Zone; USA Triathlon; Milwaukee
Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of
regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard will enforce
the safety zone on Lake Michigan within
Milwaukee Harbor, Wisconsin for the
2013 Olympic and Sprint Distance
National Championships. This action is
necessary and intended to ensure safety
of life on the navigable waters during
the 2013 Olympic and Sprint Distance
National Championships. During the
aforementioned periods, the Coast
Guard will enforce restrictions upon,
and control movement of, vessels in a
specified safety zone. During the
enforcement periods, no person or
vessel may enter the safety zone without
permission of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan.
DATES: This zone will be enforced from
10:15 a.m. until 1:15 p.m. on August 9,
from 6:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on
August 10, and from 6:30 a.m. until
10:30 a.m. on August 11, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this notice, call
or email MST1 Joseph McCollum,
Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at
(414) 747–7148, email
Joseph.P.McCollum@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast
Guard will enforce the safety zone listed
in 33 CFR 165.T09–0140 Safety Zone;
USA Triathlon, Milwaukee Harbor,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the 2013
Olympic and Sprint Distance National
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42693
Championships from 10:15 a.m. until
1:15 p.m. on August 9, from 6:30 a.m.
until 11:30 a.m. on August 10, and from
6:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on August 11,
2013. This zone encompasses all waters
of Milwaukee Harbor, including
Lakeshore inlet and Discovery World
Marina, west of a line across the
entrance to the Discovery World Marina
connecting 43°02′15.1″ N, 087°53′37.4″
W and 43°01′44.2″ N, 087°53′44.6″ W
(NAD 83).
All vessels must obtain permission
from the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene
representative to enter, move within, or
exit a safety zone. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety
zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or a designated
representative.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.T09–0140 and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Federal Register, the Coast Guard will
provide the maritime community with
advance notification of this event via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local
Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her onscene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.
Dated: July 1, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013–17107 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0412; FRL–9391–1]
Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
new tolerances and revises existing
tolerances for residues of hexythiazox in
or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. Gowan Company and the
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4) requested the tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective July
17, 2013. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 16, 2013, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
42694
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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–2013–0412, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., 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: Olga
Odiott, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9369; email address:
odiott.olga@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2013–0412 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 September 16, 2013. 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 (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(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 the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0412, 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 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.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of September
28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL–9364–6),
January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL–
9375–4), and August 22, 2012 (77 FR
50661) (FRL–9358–9), EPA issued
notices pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide
petitions (PP 2F8054 and PP 2F8073 by
Gowan Company, P.O. Box 556, Yuma,
AZ 85336; and PP 2E8016 by the
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide hexythiazox,
(trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3carboxamide) and its metabolites
containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in
or on grain, sorghum, grain at 3.0 parts
per million (ppm); grain, sorghum,
forage at 5 ppm; grain, sorghum, stover
at 6 ppm; egg at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat
at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts
at 0.05 ppm; by increasing the
established tolerance for milk from 0.02
ppm to 0.05 ppm and the established
tolerances for ruminant meat
byproducts from 0.05 ppm to 0.5 ppm
(PP 2F8054); and by amending the
regional restriction of the tolerances for
cotton, gin byproducts; and cotton,
undelinted seed by including Arizona
(PP 2F8073). Petition 2E8016 requested
that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
hexythiazox in or on pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8–10B at 1.5 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11–10 at 0.25 ppm; caneberry
subgroup 13–07A at 1.0 ppm; fruit,
small, vine climbing, except fuzzy
kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F at 1.0 ppm;
and berry, low growing, subgroup 13–
07G at 3.0 ppm. The documents
referenced summaries of the petitions,
which are available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov by docket ID
numbers EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0624 (PP
2F8054), EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0923 (PP
2F8073), and EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0357
(PP 2E8016). There were no comments
received in response to the notices of
filing.
Based on EPA’s review of the data
supporting the petitions, Gowan
Company revised their petition PP
2F8054 by adding a request for an
increase in the established tolerance for
grain, aspirated fractions; deleting the
proposed tolerance for poultry, meat;
and by deleting the proposed changes to
the established tolerances for milk; and
for poultry, meat byproducts.
The IR–4 revised their petition PP
2E8016 by increasing the proposed
tolerances for fruit, pome, group 11–10;
and for berry, low growing,
subgroup13–07G. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 hexythiazox
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with hexythiazox 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. The toxicity
database for hexythiazox is complete.
Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by
the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes
of exposure. It produces mild eye
irritation, is not a dermal irritant, and is
negative for dermal sensitization.
Hexythiazox is associated with toxicity
of the liver and adrenals following
subchronic and chronic exposure to
dogs, rats, and mice, with the dog being
the most sensitive species. The prenatal
developmental studies in rabbits and
rats and the two-generation
reproduction study in rats showed no
indication of increased susceptibility to
in utero and/or postnatal exposure to
hexythiazox. Reproductive toxicity was
not observed. There is no concern for
immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity
following exposure to hexythiazox. The
toxicology database for hexythiazox
does not show any evidence of
treatment-related effects on the immune
system. Hexythiazox is classified as
‘‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans;’’
however, the evidence as a whole is not
strong enough to warrant a quantitative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
estimation of human risk. Since the
effects seen in the study that serves as
the basis for the chronic reference dose
(RfD) occurred at doses substantially
below the lowest dose that induced
tumors, the Agency concluded that
quantification of risk using a non-linear
approach; i.e., RfD, for hexythiazox will
adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to
hexythiazox.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by hexythiazox as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support New Uses on
Grain Sorghum, Pepper/Eggplant
Subgroup 8–10B, Pome Fruit Group 11–
10, Caneberry Subgroup 13–07A, Small
Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit
Subgroup 13–07F, and Low Growing
Berry Subgroup 13–07G’’ in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0412.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for hexythiazox used for
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42695
human risk assessment is discussed in
Unit III.B. of the final rule published in
the Federal Register of February 8, 2013
(78 FR 9322) (FRL–9376–9).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hexythiazox, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40
CFR 180.448. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from hexythiazox in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies
for hexythiazox; therefore, a quantitative
acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s 2003–2008 National
Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels
in food, EPA used tolerance level
residues, assumed 100 percent crop
treated (PCT), and incorporated DEEM
default processing factors when
processing data were not available.
iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether
quantitative cancer exposure and risk
assessments are appropriate for a fooduse pesticide based on the weight of the
evidence from cancer studies and other
relevant data. Cancer risk is quantified
using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the
carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is
used and a cancer RfD is calculated
based on an earlier noncancer key event.
If carcinogenic mode of action data are
not available, or if the mode of action
data determines a mutagenic mode of
action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the
data summarized in Unit III.A. of the
Federal Register of March 17, 2010 (75
FR 12691) (FRL–8813–7), EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD
approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to hexythiazox. Cancer risk
was assessed using the same exposure
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for hexythiazox. Tolerance level
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
42696
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
residues and/or 100% CT were assumed
for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for hexythiazox in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
hexythiazox. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for
non-cancer and cancer assessments is
estimated to be 4.31 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water. Since surface
water residues value greatly exceed
groundwater EDWCs, surface water
residues were used in the dietary risk
assessment. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were
directly entered into the dietary
exposure model.
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).
Hexythiazox is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Ornamental
plantings, turf, and fruit and nut trees in
residential settings. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following
assumptions: Residential handler
exposures are expected to be short-term
(1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or
inhalation routes of exposures. Since a
quantitative dermal risk assessment is
not needed for hexythiazox; MOEs were
calculated for the inhalation route of
exposure only. Both adults and children
may be exposed to hexythiazox residues
from contact with treated lawns or
treated residential plants. Adult
postapplication exposures were not
assessed since no quantitative dermal
risk assessment is needed for
hexythiazox and inhalation exposures
are typically negligible in outdoor
settings. The exposure assessment for
children included incidental oral
exposure resulting from transfer of
residues from the hands or objects to the
mouth, and from incidental ingestion of
soil. Post application hand-to-mouth
and object-to-mouth exposures are
expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days)
in duration due to the intermittent
nature of applications in residential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
environments. Given the long half-life of
hexythiazox in soil, intermediate-term
(1 to 6 months) exposure is also possible
from incidental ingestion of soil.
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 hexythiazox to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and hexythiazox does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that
hexythiazox does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding
EPA’s efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism
of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals,
see EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
The prenatal and postnatal toxicology
data base indicates no increased
susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in
utero and/or postnatal exposure to
hexythiazox.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
i. The toxicity database for
hexythiazox is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
hexythiazox is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
hexythiazox results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% CT and
tolerance-level residues. The dietary
risk assessment is highly conservative
and not expected to underestimate risk.
EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess postapplication exposure of
children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by hexythiazox.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, hexythiazox is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to hexythiazox
from food and water will utilize 82% of
the cPAD for children 1–2 years of age
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
hexythiazox is not expected.
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Hexythiazox 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 hexythiazox.
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
MOEs of 9,100 for adults and 1,300 for
children. Because EPA’s level of
concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100
or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Hexythiazox is currently registered for
uses that could result in intermediateterm residential exposure, and the
Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposures
to hexythiazox.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for intermediateterm exposures, EPA has concluded that
the combined intermediate-term food,
water, and residential exposures result
in aggregate MOEs of 9,300 for adults
and 1,500 for children. Because EPA’s
level of concern for hexythiazox is a
MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are
not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. As discussed in Unit III.
C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation
based on the chronic reference dose will
be protective for both chronic and
carcinogenic risks. As noted in this unit
there are no chronic risks of concern.
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 hexythiazox
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(high performance liquid
chromatography method with UV
detection (HPLC/UV)) is available for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
the enforcement of tolerances for
residues of hexythiazox and its
metabolites containing the PT–1–3
moiety in crop and livestock
commodities. This method is listed in
the U.S. EPA Index of Residue
Analytical Methods under hexythiazox
as method AMR–985–87.
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.
Codex MRLs for plant commodities
are established for eggplant at 0.1 ppm,
pome fruit at 0.4 ppm, grapes at 1.0
ppm, and strawberry at 6 ppm
(proposed) for residues of hexythiazox
and its metabolites containing the PT–
1–3-moiety, expressed as hexythiazox.
The U.S. is currently harmonized with
Codex with respect to residue definition
in plants, and is recommending
tolerances for CG 11–10 (pome fruit),
CSG 13–07F (small, vine climbing fruit,
except kiwifruit), and CSG 13–07G (low
growing berry) that are harmonized with
the current Codex MRLs for pome fruit,
grapes (representative commodity of
CSG 13–07F), and strawberry
(representative commodity of CSG 13–
07G). The current Codex MRL of 0.1
ppm for eggplant is based on a use in
the Netherlands at a significantly lower
application rate than the use currently
proposed in the U.S. The Codex MRL
would not cover residues seen in the
U.S. field trial data; therefore
harmonization with codex with respect
to eggplants is not possible at this time.
The Agency is currently harmonized
with Codex with respect to the residue
definition in livestock commodities.
The current milk tolerance of 0.05 ppm
is harmonized with the Codex MRL for
milk. The Agency is recommending an
increase in the ruminant meat
byproduct tolerances to 0.5 ppm and an
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42697
increase in the current egg tolerance to
0.05 ppm to harmonize with Codex.
The Agency classified the use on
poultry meat at § 180.6(a)(3), no
reasonable expectation of finite
residues; therefore the U.S. will not
need to set a tolerance for this
commodity. The relevant Codex MRL
has been set at 0.05 ppm with a footnote
that states ‘‘absent at the limit of
quantitation’’. Effectively, the Codex
MRL acknowledges the absence of
residues and the U.S. determination that
no tolerance is required results in a
harmonized approach to residues in
poultry meat. There are no Canadian or
Mexican MRLs currently established for
hexythiazox.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
Based on EPA’s review of the data
supporting the petitions, Gowan
Company revised their petition PP
2F8054 as follows:
• By adding a request for an increase
in the established tolerance for grain,
aspirated fractions from 0.5 ppm to 5
ppm. The submitted residue chemistry
data show that sorghum residues
concentrate in aspirated grain fractions
(AGF), and that an increased tolerance
of 5 ppm is needed to cover residues in
sorghum AGF.
• By deleting the proposed tolerance
for poultry, meat; and the proposed
changes to the established tolerances for
milk; and poultry, meat byproducts.
Poultry metabolism and feeding studies
demonstrate that there are not likely to
be residues in poultry meat; therefore a
tolerance on poultry meat is not
required. The data also shows that the
current tolerances for milk; and poultry,
meat byproducts; are adequate and no
changes are required at this time.
The IR–4 revised their petition PP
2E8016 as follows:
• By increasing the proposed
tolerances for fruit, pome, group,11–10
from 0.25 ppm to 0.4 ppm; and for
berry, low growing, subgroup13–07G
from 3 ppm to 6 ppm. The Agency is
recommending these changes to
harmonize with Codex MRLs.
The Agency is also removing the
established tolerances for fruit, pome,
group 11; caneberry subgroup 13A;
grape; and strawberry from 40 CFR.
These tolerances are being replaced by
the fruit, pome, group 11–10; caneberry
subgroup 13–07A; fruit, small, vine
climbing, subgroup 13–07F, except
fuzzy kiwifruit; and berry, low growing,
subgroup 13–07G, respectively. The
Agency concluded that based on the
residue data, these changes are required
to support the new uses.
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
42698
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of hexythiazox and its
metabolites containing the (4chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3thiazolidine moiety, as requested in the
petitions.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
‘‘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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
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).
■
VII. Congressional Review Act
*
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Cattle, meat byproducts ...........
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, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
e. Add alphabetically the
commodities to the table in paragraph
(c).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 180.448 Hexythiazox; tolerance for
residues.
(a) General. * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
Berry, low growing, subgroup
13–07G .................................
Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6
1
*
0.5
*
Egg ...........................................
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 .........
Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13–07F, except fuzzy
kiwifruit ..................................
*
*
*
*
0.05
0.4
1
*
Goat, meat byproducts .............
Grain, aspirated fractions .........
*
*
*
*
0.5
5
*
Horse, meat byproducts ...........
*
*
*
*
0.5
*
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–
10B ........................................
*
*
*
*
1.5
*
Sheep, meat byproducts ..........
PART 180—[AMENDED]
*
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
0.5
*
*
*
*
*
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.448:
a. Remove the following commodities
in the table in paragraph (a) ‘‘Caneberry
subgroup 13A;’’ ‘‘Fruit, pome, group
11;’’ ‘‘Grape;’’ and ‘‘Strawberry.’’
■ b. Revise the following commodities
in the table in paragraph (a) ‘‘Cattle,
meat byproducts;’’ ‘‘Egg;’’ ‘‘Goat, meat
byproducts;’’ ‘‘Grain, aspirated
fractions;’’ ‘‘Horse, meat byproducts;’’
and ‘‘Sheep, meat byproducts.’’
■ c. Add alphabetically the
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a).
■ d. Revise the following commodities
in the table in paragraph (c) ‘‘Cotton, gin
byproducts, CA only;’’ and ‘‘Cotton,
undelinted seed, CA only.’’
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
Cotton, gin byproducts, CA and
AZ only ..................................
Cotton, undelinted seed, CA
and AZ only ...........................
*
*
*
*
Sorghum, grain, forage (EPA
Regions 6–8 only) .................
Sorghum, grain, grain (EPA Regions 6–8 only) .....................
Sorghum, grain, stover (EPA
Regions 6–8 only) .................
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
3.0
0.20
*
5
3
6
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 17, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–16911 Filed 7–16–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 54
[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 13–81]
Application for Review of a Decision of
the Wireline Competition Bureau by
Dooly County School System; Schools
and Libraries Universal Service
Support Mechanism
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission), denies in part and
dismisses in part an Application for
Review filed by the Dooly County
School System and rescinds the
remaining interim filing procedures
established by the Commission in the
2001 Interim Filing Procedures Order.
These actions are needed to provide
clarity and certainty as to the filing
deadline for applications for review
arising from Universal Service
Administrative Company-related
proceedings.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective August 16, 2013.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regina Brown, Attorney, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418–0792 or
TTY: (202) 418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of that portion of the
Commission’s Order which rescinds the
remaining interim filing procedure
established by the Commission in the
2001 Interim Filing Procedures Order in
CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 13–81,
released on June 10, 2013. The full text
of this document is available for public
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554 or at the
following Internet address: https://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
Daily_Business/2012/db0425/DA–12–
646A1.pdf.
1. As codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations, the Commission’s rules
state that ‘‘the application for review
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Jul 16, 2013
Jkt 229001
and any [supplement] thereto shall be
filed within 30 days of public notice of
such action.’’ Dooly County’s
Application for Review was filed on
January 10, 2012, which was more than
30 days after public notice of the
Bureau’s Al-Ihsan Academy Order,
which was released on December 5,
2011. Therefore, in its Application for
Review, Dooly County also seeks a
waiver of the application for review
filing deadline, if needed. As an initial
matter, however, Dooly County argues
that a waiver of the deadline for filing
an application for review is unnecessary
because the current deadline for filing
an application for review arising from
USAC-related proceedings is 60 days
from public notice of such action as
established in the Commission’s
December 2001 Interim Filing
Procedures Order, 67 FR 3441, January
24, 2002, and not 30 days as provided
in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Because we dismiss in part Dooly
County’s Application for Review on the
basis that Dooly County did not afford
the Bureau an opportunity to address
the arguments raised in its Application
for Review, and deny it in part with
respect to its argument previously raised
with and denied by the Bureau, and
because Dooly County did not
demonstrate good cause exists
warranting a waiver of the
Commission’s rules, we need not
address the question of whether Dooly
County’s filing was timely.
2. However, to provide clarity and
certainty as to the filing deadline for
applications for review arising from
USAC-related proceedings, we take this
opportunity to rescind the interim
emergency filing procedures for
applications for review arising from
USAC-related proceedings established
by the Commission the Interim Filing
Procedures Order. In the Interim Filing
Procedures Order, due to emergency
events in Washington, DC arising from
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
the Commission amended its procedural
rules ‘‘on an emergency, interim basis
. . . to extend the period of filing a
request for review, or applications for
review arising from [USAC-related]
proceedings, from the current 30 day
period to 60 days, to provide applicants
with the option of electronic filing (via
either electronic mail or facsimile) for
requests for review and petitions for
reconsideration or applications for
review that arise from such pleadings.’’
until further notice. Subsequently, in
April 2003, the Commission released
the Schools and Libraries Second Report
and Order, 68 FR 36931, June 20, 2003,
which permanently extended the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42699
deadline for filing initial appeals with
USAC or the Commission to 60 days.
The Schools and Libraries Second
Report and Order did not, however,
address the extended filing period for
applications for review. Subsequently,
the Commission rescinded all other
emergency filing procedures adopted in
late 2001 with the exception of the
emergency filing procedures established
in the Interim Filing Procedures Order.
By this Order, we therefore rescind the
interim filing procedures established by
the Commission in the Interim Filing
Procedures Order. As stated by the
Commission in the Interim Filing
Procedures Rescission Order, mail
delivery in the Washington, DC area has
greatly improved since 2001 and the
United States Postal Service has greatly
reduced the delay in processing mail.
Also, the Commission has since 2001
expanded it electronic filing
capabilities, and implemented its own
processes to combat the threat of
contamination of incoming mail. Given
these circumstances, we conclude that
the interim electronic filing procedures
adopted by the Commission in 2001 are
no longer necessary. Accordingly, we
rescind those procedures, effective 30
days after publication of this Order in
the Federal Register. Thereafter, filings
of applications for review arising from
USAC-related proceedings will no
longer be accepted by facsimile or email
and will be due within 30 days from
public notice of such action, as
provided in the Commission’s rules.
Once these clarifications take effect, the
Bureau will issue a Public Notice
announcing their effectiveness and
explaining the correct procedures.
3. This document does not contain
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
4. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority of section 4(i)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), the interim
electronic filing procedures adopted in
the Interim Filing Procedures Order,
FCC 01–376, are rescinded.
5. It is further ordered that the
rescission of the interim electronic filing
procedures adopted in the Interim Filing
Procedures Order shall become effective
August 16, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\17JYR1.SGM
17JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42693-42699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0412; FRL-9391-1]
Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes new tolerances and revises
existing tolerances for residues of hexythiazox in or on multiple
commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document.
Gowan Company and the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
requested the tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective July 17, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 16, 2013,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions
[[Page 42694]]
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-2013-0412, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., 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: Olga Odiott, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-9369; email address: odiott.olga@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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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 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-2013-0412 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
September 16, 2013. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0412, 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 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.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of September 28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL-
9364-6), January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3377) (FRL-9375-4), and August 22,
2012 (77 FR 50661) (FRL-9358-9), EPA issued notices pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petitions (PP 2F8054 and PP 2F8073 by Gowan Company, P.O. Box
556, Yuma, AZ 85336; and PP 2E8016 by the Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide hexythiazox,
(trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-
carboxamide) and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-
methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in or on grain, sorghum, grain at
3.0 parts per million (ppm); grain, sorghum, forage at 5 ppm; grain,
sorghum, stover at 6 ppm; egg at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.05 ppm;
poultry, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm; by increasing the established
tolerance for milk from 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm and the established
tolerances for ruminant meat byproducts from 0.05 ppm to 0.5 ppm (PP
2F8054); and by amending the regional restriction of the tolerances for
cotton, gin byproducts; and cotton, undelinted seed by including
Arizona (PP 2F8073). Petition 2E8016 requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of hexythiazox in or on
pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 1.5 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.0 ppm; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.0 ppm; and
berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 3.0 ppm. The documents
referenced summaries of the petitions, which are available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov by docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0624 (PP 2F8054), EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0923 (PP 2F8073), and EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0357 (PP 2E8016). There were no comments received in response
to the notices of filing.
Based on EPA's review of the data supporting the petitions, Gowan
Company revised their petition PP 2F8054 by adding a request for an
increase in the established tolerance for grain, aspirated fractions;
deleting the proposed tolerance for poultry, meat; and by deleting the
proposed changes to the established tolerances for milk; and for
poultry, meat byproducts.
The IR-4 revised their petition PP 2E8016 by increasing the
proposed tolerances for fruit, pome, group 11-10; and for berry, low
growing, subgroup13-07G. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
[[Page 42695]]
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 hexythiazox including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox 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. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is complete.
Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation
routes of exposure. It produces mild eye irritation, is not a dermal
irritant, and is negative for dermal sensitization. Hexythiazox is
associated with toxicity of the liver and adrenals following subchronic
and chronic exposure to dogs, rats, and mice, with the dog being the
most sensitive species. The prenatal developmental studies in rabbits
and rats and the two-generation reproduction study in rats showed no
indication of increased susceptibility to in utero and/or postnatal
exposure to hexythiazox. Reproductive toxicity was not observed. There
is no concern for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following exposure to
hexythiazox. The toxicology database for hexythiazox does not show any
evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Hexythiazox
is classified as ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans;'' however, the
evidence as a whole is not strong enough to warrant a quantitative
estimation of human risk. Since the effects seen in the study that
serves as the basis for the chronic reference dose (RfD) occurred at
doses substantially below the lowest dose that induced tumors, the
Agency concluded that quantification of risk using a non-linear
approach; i.e., RfD, for hexythiazox will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to hexythiazox.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by hexythiazox as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support New Uses on Grain Sorghum, Pepper/Eggplant
Subgroup 8-10B, Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A,
Small Vine Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit Subgroup 13-07F, and Low
Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-
0412.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of February 8, 2013 (78 FR 9322)
(FRL-9376-9).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR
180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for hexythiazox; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA U.S.
Department of Agriculture's 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues, assumed 100
percent crop treated (PCT), and incorporated DEEM default processing
factors when processing data were not available.
iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available,
a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is
calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic
mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data
determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope
factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit
III.A. of the Federal Register of March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12691) (FRL-
8813-7), EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to hexythiazox. Cancer risk was assessed
using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for hexythiazox. Tolerance level
[[Page 42696]]
residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer and cancer
assessments is estimated to be 4.31 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water. Since surface water residues value greatly exceed groundwater
EDWCs, surface water residues were used in the dietary risk assessment.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
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). Hexythiazox is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Ornamental plantings, turf, and fruit and nut
trees in residential settings. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are expected
to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or inhalation
routes of exposures. Since a quantitative dermal risk assessment is not
needed for hexythiazox; MOEs were calculated for the inhalation route
of exposure only. Both adults and children may be exposed to
hexythiazox residues from contact with treated lawns or treated
residential plants. Adult postapplication exposures were not assessed
since no quantitative dermal risk assessment is needed for hexythiazox
and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings.
The exposure assessment for children included incidental oral exposure
resulting from transfer of residues from the hands or objects to the
mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil. Post application hand-to-
mouth and object-to-mouth exposures are expected to be short-term (1 to
30 days) in duration due to the intermittent nature of applications in
residential environments. Given the long half-life of hexythiazox in
soil, intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) exposure is also possible from
incidental ingestion of soil. 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
hexythiazox to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and hexythiazox does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that hexythiazox does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology data base indicates no increased susceptibility of rats or
rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is complete.
ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. The dietary risk assessment is
highly conservative and not expected to underestimate risk. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by hexythiazox.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 82% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years of age 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
hexythiazox is not expected.
[[Page 42697]]
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Hexythiazox
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 hexythiazox.
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 MOEs of 9,100 for adults
and 1,300 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result
in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to
hexythiazox.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 9,300 for adults and 1,500 for children. Because
EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III. C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation based on the chronic
reference dose will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic
risks. As noted in this unit there are no chronic risks of concern.
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 hexythiazox residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography method with UV detection (HPLC/UV)) is available for the
enforcement of tolerances for residues of hexythiazox and its
metabolites containing the PT-1-3 moiety in crop and livestock
commodities. This method is listed in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue
Analytical Methods under hexythiazox as method AMR-985-87.
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.
Codex MRLs for plant commodities are established for eggplant at
0.1 ppm, pome fruit at 0.4 ppm, grapes at 1.0 ppm, and strawberry at 6
ppm (proposed) for residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites
containing the PT-1-3-moiety, expressed as hexythiazox. The U.S. is
currently harmonized with Codex with respect to residue definition in
plants, and is recommending tolerances for CG 11-10 (pome fruit), CSG
13-07F (small, vine climbing fruit, except kiwifruit), and CSG 13-07G
(low growing berry) that are harmonized with the current Codex MRLs for
pome fruit, grapes (representative commodity of CSG 13-07F), and
strawberry (representative commodity of CSG 13-07G). The current Codex
MRL of 0.1 ppm for eggplant is based on a use in the Netherlands at a
significantly lower application rate than the use currently proposed in
the U.S. The Codex MRL would not cover residues seen in the U.S. field
trial data; therefore harmonization with codex with respect to
eggplants is not possible at this time.
The Agency is currently harmonized with Codex with respect to the
residue definition in livestock commodities. The current milk tolerance
of 0.05 ppm is harmonized with the Codex MRL for milk. The Agency is
recommending an increase in the ruminant meat byproduct tolerances to
0.5 ppm and an increase in the current egg tolerance to 0.05 ppm to
harmonize with Codex.
The Agency classified the use on poultry meat at Sec. 180.6(a)(3),
no reasonable expectation of finite residues; therefore the U.S. will
not need to set a tolerance for this commodity. The relevant Codex MRL
has been set at 0.05 ppm with a footnote that states ``absent at the
limit of quantitation''. Effectively, the Codex MRL acknowledges the
absence of residues and the U.S. determination that no tolerance is
required results in a harmonized approach to residues in poultry meat.
There are no Canadian or Mexican MRLs currently established for
hexythiazox.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Based on EPA's review of the data supporting the petitions, Gowan
Company revised their petition PP 2F8054 as follows:
By adding a request for an increase in the established
tolerance for grain, aspirated fractions from 0.5 ppm to 5 ppm. The
submitted residue chemistry data show that sorghum residues concentrate
in aspirated grain fractions (AGF), and that an increased tolerance of
5 ppm is needed to cover residues in sorghum AGF.
By deleting the proposed tolerance for poultry, meat; and
the proposed changes to the established tolerances for milk; and
poultry, meat byproducts. Poultry metabolism and feeding studies
demonstrate that there are not likely to be residues in poultry meat;
therefore a tolerance on poultry meat is not required. The data also
shows that the current tolerances for milk; and poultry, meat
byproducts; are adequate and no changes are required at this time.
The IR-4 revised their petition PP 2E8016 as follows:
By increasing the proposed tolerances for fruit, pome,
group,11-10 from 0.25 ppm to 0.4 ppm; and for berry, low growing,
subgroup13-07G from 3 ppm to 6 ppm. The Agency is recommending these
changes to harmonize with Codex MRLs.
The Agency is also removing the established tolerances for fruit,
pome, group 11; caneberry subgroup 13A; grape; and strawberry from 40
CFR. These tolerances are being replaced by the fruit, pome, group 11-
10; caneberry subgroup 13-07A; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup
13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-
07G, respectively. The Agency concluded that based on the residue data,
these changes are required to support the new uses.
[[Page 42698]]
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of hexythiazox
and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety, as requested in the petitions.
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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
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).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2013.
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. In Sec. 180.448:
0
a. Remove the following commodities in the table in paragraph (a)
``Caneberry subgroup 13A;'' ``Fruit, pome, group 11;'' ``Grape;'' and
``Strawberry.''
0
b. Revise the following commodities in the table in paragraph (a)
``Cattle, meat byproducts;'' ``Egg;'' ``Goat, meat byproducts;''
``Grain, aspirated fractions;'' ``Horse, meat byproducts;'' and
``Sheep, meat byproducts.''
0
c. Add alphabetically the commodities to the table in paragraph (a).
0
d. Revise the following commodities in the table in paragraph (c)
``Cotton, gin byproducts, CA only;'' and ``Cotton, undelinted seed, CA
only.''
0
e. Add alphabetically the commodities to the table in paragraph (c).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 180.448 Hexythiazox; tolerance for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G........................ 6
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A.................................. 1
* * * * *
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................... 0.5
* * * * *
Egg........................................................ 0.05
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................... 0.4
Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy 1
kiwifruit.................................................
* * * * *
Goat, meat byproducts...................................... 0.5
Grain, aspirated fractions................................. 5
* * * * *
Horse, meat byproducts..................................... 0.5
* * * * *
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B............................. 1.5
* * * * *
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................... 0.5
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts, CA and AZ only..................... 3.0
Cotton, undelinted seed, CA and AZ only.................... 0.20
* * * * *
Sorghum, grain, forage (EPA Regions 6-8 only).............. 5
Sorghum, grain, grain (EPA Regions 6-8 only)............... 3
Sorghum, grain, stover (EPA Regions 6-8 only).............. 6
[[Page 42699]]
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-16911 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P