Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances, 8301-8308 [2014-03077]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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: January 27, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.132, revise the introductory
text of paragraph (a) and revise the entry
for ‘‘Strawberry’’ in the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
Thiram; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances for residues of
the fungicide thiram (tetramethyl
thiuram disulfide), including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified is to be determined by
measuring only thiram.
*
*
Strawberry ........
*
*
Expiration/
revocation
date
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
20
*
*
None.
*
[FR Doc. 2014–03074 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0791; FRL–9905–22]
Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of linuron in or
on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. This regulation additionally
removes a tolerance with regional
registrations in or on parsley leaves, as
it will be superseded by a tolerance
without regional registrations. IR–4
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective
February 12, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before April 14, 2014, and must
be filed in accordance with instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
DATES:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0791, 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
ADDRESSES:
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
§ 180.132
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8301
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: Lois
Rossi, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@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/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
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–2012–0791 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 April 14, 2014. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
8302
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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–
2012–0791, 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 November
7, 2012 (77 FR 66781) (FRL–9367–5),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 2E8083) by IR–4,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W.,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.184 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide linuron, 3-(3,4dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1methylurea), and its metabolites, in or
on cilantro, dried leaves at 27 parts per
million (ppm); cilantro, fresh leaves at
3 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves at 7.1
ppm; dillweed, fresh leaves at 1.5 ppm;
dill oil at 4.8 ppm; dill seed at 0.3 ppm;
horseradish at 0.050 ppm; parsley, dried
leaves at 8.3 ppm; parsley leaves at 3
ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.08 ppm.
The petition additionally requested to
delete the regional tolerance in 40 CFR
180.184(c) for residues of linuron in or
on parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm upon
approval of the requested tolerances for
parsley leaves. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared on behalf of IR–4 by Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant,
which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
were received on the notice of filing.
EPA’s response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
Subsequent to the publication of the
November 7, 2012 Federal Register
notice, the petitioner submitted a
second petition, in which it requested
again the same tolerances noticed in the
November 7, 2012 Federal Register
document and added a new request for
a tolerance for residues of linuron and
its metabolites in or on coriander seed
at 0.01 ppm. So, in the Federal Register
of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL–
9392–9), EPA issued another document
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing
of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8083) by
IR–4, seeking tolerances for
commodities as noted in the November
7, 2012 document as well as a tolerance
for coriander seed at 0.01 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared on behalf of IR–4 by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has revised
the tolerances for several proposed
commodities. The Agency has also
determined that the tolerance
expression should be revised for all
commodities. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 linuron including
exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with linuron 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.
With repeated dosing in test animals,
linuron produces two primary effects:
(1) Changes in the hematopoetic system
in rats, mice, and dogs and; (2) changes
in the male reproductive system in
developing rats. Lowest observed
adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for
hematological effects produced by
linuron were substantially lower than
LOAELs for reproductive effects. Dogs
were shown to be most sensitive to the
hematological effects, including
hemolytic anemia characterized by
slightly reduced hemoglobin,
hematocrit, and erythrocyte counts
accompanied by hemosiderin
deposition in liver Kupffer cells.
Secondary erythropogenic activity
(erythroid hyperplasia of bone marrow)
was also found. Systemic toxicity
observed in mice included increased
methemoglobin formation, vacuolation
and hemosiderosis of the spleen, and
decreased erythrocyte counts. In the
chronic rat study, microscopic
observations consistent with hemolysis
(hemosiderin in Kupffer cells and
increased hemosiderosis in bone
marrow, spleen, and/or mesenteric
lymph nodes) were found.
The rat developmental study showed
increased post-implantation loss, fetal
resorptions, decreased litter size, and
decreased fetal body weight. In the
rabbit developmental toxicity study, an
increased incidence of fetuses with
skeletal skull variations was found. In
the 2-generation reproductive toxicity
study, rats exposed to linuron during
both development and adulthood had
gross lesions of the testes (including
reduction in size); abnormally soft and
small epididymides, deformities of the
epididymides, decreased pup survival,
decreased weanling body weights,
decreased liver and kidney weights; and
increased incidence of offspring liver
atrophy.
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The developmental effects on the
reproductive system seen in the
guideline studies are consistent with
those reported in the published
literature, though it should be noted that
most of the literature studies employed
dose levels of 100 milligrams/kilogram
(mg/kg) or greater. The available data
indicate that linuron inhibits
transcriptional activity of
dihydrotestosterone (DHT), human
androgen receptor (hAR) in vitro, and
steroidogenic enzymes. Additional
findings indicate that linuron exposure
decreases anogenital distance; may
increase retention of areole/nipples in
male rat offspring following in utero
exposure; increases luteinizing hormone
(LH) levels in F0 and F1 male rats;
reduces the size of androgen dependent
tissues such as seminal vesicles,
epididymis, and ventral prostate; and
demonstrates a weak affinity for
androgen receptors, which may decrease
fetal testosterone synthesis (Refs 1, 2, 3,
and 4). At this time, linuron has not
been demonstrated to be an estrogen
receptor antagonist (Ref 5). It should be
emphasized that the toxicity endpoints
based on the hematological effects for
chronic exposures were derived from
the chronic oral toxicity study in dogs.
The point of departure (POD) for
hematological effects was approximately
40X lower than the LOAEL that caused
the testicular effects seen in the rat
reproduction toxicity study.
In rat and mouse carcinogenicity
studies, linuron induced interstitial cell
adenomas in the testes of rats and
hepatocellular adenomas in mice. In a
special study with aged rats, linuron
induced hyperplasia and adenomas of
the testes within 6 to 12 months.
However, EPA has concluded that
quantification of cancer risk is not
necessary because both interstitial cell
adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas
were benign and show no progression
towards malignancy. In addition,
linuron was not mutagenic in bacteria or
in cultured mammalian cells. There was
also no indication of a clastogenic effect
up to toxic doses in vivo. Finally, the
cRFD is a NOAEL of 0.77 mg/kg/day,
which would be protective of any
tumors caused by linuron in the rat and
mouse carcinogenicity study at higher
doses.
At the highest dose tested, the acute
neurotoxicity study demonstrated that
linuron produced changes in the
parameters of the field observation
battery (FOB). These changes included
rats holding their heads low, crusty
deposits on the nose, impaired mobility,
ataxia, low arousal, decreased rearing,
no reaction to tail pinch or startle,
decreased righting reflex, reduced or no
hindlimb extensor strength, decreased
grip strength in both hindlimbs and
forelimbs, reduced rotarod performance,
decreased hindlimb footsplay, and
increased catalepsy. At the lowestobserved-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL),
linuron produced decreases in motor
activity and rearing. No compoundrelated changes in neurohistopathology
were observed at any of the tested dose
levels. In addition, linuron did not show
any signs of immunotoxicity in the
submitted immunotoxicity study up to
the highest dose tested.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by linuron as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the LOAEL from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document:
‘‘Linuron: Section 3 Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Use on
Coriander, Dill, Horseradish, Parsley,
8303
Celeriac, Rhubarb, and Pea (Dry).’’ at
pages 33–38 in docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2012–0791. References for the
published toxicity studies cited in this
section may be found Unit VI.
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 linuron used
for human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR LINURON FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
Exposure/scenario
Acute dietary (Females 13–49 years of
age).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (General population including infants and children).
Chronic dietary (All populations) ............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
NOAEL = 12 mg/
kg/day
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 1X
NOAEL = 20 mg/
kg/day.
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 1X
NOAEL= 0.77 mg/
kg/day.
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 1X
PO 00000
Frm 00051
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute RfD = 0.12
mg/kg/day
aPAD = 0.12 mg/
kg/day
Rat Developmental Toxicity.
LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on increased post-implantation loss and fetal/litter resorptions.
Acute RfD = 0.2
mg/kg/day.
aPAD = 0.2 mg/kg/
day
Acute Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
LOAEL = 100 mg/kg based on decreases in rearing and in
motor activity.
Chronic RfD =
0.0077 mg/kg/
day.
cPAD = 0.0077
mg/kg/day
Chronic Oral Dog Study.
LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day based on hematological effects
(increased met- and sulf-hemoglobin levels).
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
8304
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR LINURON FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
Exposure/scenario
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) ...........
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Quantification of human cancer risk is not necessary for reasons stated in Unit III.A.
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligrams/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference
dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
of the human population (intraspecies).
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to linuron, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing linuron
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from linuron
in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. Such effects were identified
for linuron. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM–FCID) Version 3.16, which uses
food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, ‘‘What We Eat in
America’’ (NHANES/WWEIA) from
2003 through 2008. As to residue levels
in food, EPA utilized tolerance-level
residues, DEEM (Ver. 7.81) default
processing factors as necessary, and 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all
commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment. EPA used the food
consumption data from the USDA’s
2003–2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to
residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance-level residues for all
commodities, and DEEM default
processing factors. The Agency utilized
average PCT estimates, when available,
and 100 PCT for all other commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a cancer exposure
assessment is not necessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of
FFDCA states that the Agency may use
data on the actual percent of food
treated for assessing chronic dietary risk
only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide
for periodic evaluation of any estimates
used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F),
EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the average
PCT for existing uses for use in the
chronic dietary assessment as follows:
Asparagus, 25%; carrots, 85%; celery,
25%; corn, 1.0%; cotton, 1.0%;
potatoes, 5.0%; sorghum, 1.0%;
soybeans, 1.0%; sweet corn, 1.0%; and
wheat, 1.0%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the
National Pesticide Use Database for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average
PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis.
The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations
in which the average PCT is less than
one. In those cases, 1% is used as the
average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated
is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which linuron may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for linuron in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of linuron.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of linuron for
surface water are estimated to be 89.05
parts per billion (ppb) for acute
exposures and 48.69 ppb for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments.
The EDWCs of linuron for groundwater
are estimated to be 48.8 ppb for acute
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 89.05 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 48.8 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets). Linuron
is not registered for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not
found linuron to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and linuron does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that linuron 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.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
The following acceptable studies are
available to assess the prenatal and
postnatal sensitivity to linuron: rat and
rabbit developmental toxicity studies, a
2-generation rat reproductive toxicity
study, and a 3-generation rat
reproductive toxicity study. There is no
qualitative or quantitative evidence of
increased susceptibility of rabbits in the
developmental study; developmental
effects were seen at a dose higher than
those causing maternal toxicity. In the
rat developmental study, increases in
post-implantation losses and increases
in fetal resorptions/litter were seen at a
dose that caused decreases in maternal
body weight and food consumption.
Since increases in resorptions were
marginal and there was no change in the
number of live fetuses to corroborate the
increases in post-implantation losses,
these effects were not indicative of
qualitative evidence of susceptibility.
There was no quantitative evidence of
susceptibility in either the 2-generation
or the 3-generation reproduction
studies. In the 2-generation study,
reduced body weight gains of pups were
seen at the same dose that caused
decreases in parental body weights. In
the 3-generation study, offspring effects
including deceased pup survival and
pup body weight were seen a dose (44
mg/kg/day) higher than the dose that
caused decreases in body weight gain in
the parental animals (9 mg/kg/day).
However, when reproductive effects
were examined, testicular atrophy was
seen at the same dose (45 mg/kg/day) in
both studies. In both studies, while the
F0 males were not affected, testicular
lesions and reduced fertility were seen
in the F1 males. This effect in the F1
males is an indication of qualitative
evidence of susceptibility.
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 linuron is
complete.
ii. In an acute neurotoxicity study,
FOB findings of impaired mobility,
alterations in gait, lack of coordination,
lowered body temperature, no reaction
to stimuli, low arousal, and decreases in
motor activity were seen at the time of
peak effect (7 hours post dosing) on
study day 0. These observations were
mostly seen in the 500 mg/kg group and
no pathological changes were found in
nervous system tissues. A clear NOAEL
(20 mg/kg/day) was established, and
this NOAEL was approximately 2–26X
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8305
greater than most PODs selected for risk
assessment. The nervous system was not
a target organ for linuron. The
requirement of a subchronic
neurotoxicity study was waived by the
Agency because the target systems for
linuron toxicity are the hematopoietic
and endocrine systems and not the
nervous system as shown by all
available/required toxicity studies.
There is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study because linuron
affects testes and hematological
parameters but did not produce an
increased susceptibility in young rats.
Therefore, the concern for neurotoxicity
is low, and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that linuron
results in increased susceptibility in in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies. While increased
qualitative susceptibility was identified
from the reproductive findings in the 2generation and 3-generation rat toxicity
studies, clear NOAELs were established
for the effects on the reproductive
system. Furthermore, the point of
departure (POD) selected for assessment
of chronic effects, is approximately 40X
lower than the LOAEL that caused the
testicular effects seen in the rat
reproduction toxicity study; therefore,
EPA considers the PODs for risk
assessment to be protective of the effects
seen on the male reproductive system
and an additional safety factor to
account for this qualitative
susceptibility is not necessary.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on tolerance-level
residues, 100 PCT for the acute
assessment and average PCT for
available commodities in the chronic
dietary assessment. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground-water and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to
linuron in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by linuron.
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
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
8306
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to linuron
will occupy 10% of the aPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the most
highly exposed U.S. population
subgroup; and 5.7% of the aPAD for
females 13–49 years old.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to linuron from
food and water will utilize 60% of the
cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses
for linuron.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were
identified; however, linuron is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in short- or intermediateterm residential exposure. Short- and
intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there are no
short- or intermediate-term residential
exposures and chronic dietary exposure
has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to
assess short- or intermediate-term risks),
no further assessments of short- or
intermediate-term risk are necessary,
and EPA relies on the chronic dietary
risk assessment for evaluating the shortand intermediate-term risks for linuron.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the discussion of
carcinogenicity for linuron in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that the cPAD
is protective of possible cancer effects.
Given the results of the chronic risk
assessment, EPA has concluded that
linuron does not pose a cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to linuron
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology,
Method ABC–68406–M, is available to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
enforce the tolerance expression. This
method involves reflux of crop samples
in strong base to hydrolyze residues of
linuron and its metabolites to 3,4-DCA,
which is analyzed using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS).
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 not established a MRL
for linuron.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment to the
notice of filing from November 7, 2012
which opposed the use of linuron on
any food. The commenter expressed a
general opposition to the use of ‘‘toxic
chemicals’’ on food and further noted
that ‘‘red blood cells are harmed in
animals from this toxic chemical.’’ The
Agency understands the commenter’s
concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that certain
pesticide chemicals should not be
permitted in our food. However, the
existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the FFDCA states that
tolerances may be set when the
pesticide meets the safety standard
imposed by that statute. The Agency is
required by Section 408 of the FFDCA
to estimate the risk of the potential
exposure to these residues. EPA has
concluded, based on data submitted in
support of the petition and other
reliable data, that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate human exposure to linuron
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
residues from these uses. The points of
departure selected for risk assessment
are protective of any effects on the
hematopoietic system, including red
blood cells. Additionally, testing
requirements for pesticide tolerances
have been specified by rulemaking after
allowing for notice and comment by the
public and peer review by appropriate
scientific bodies. See 40 CFR part 158
for further information.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-for
Tolerances
Based on the data supporting the
petition, EPA has revised the proposed
tolerances for several commodities, as
follows: Cilantro, dried leaves from 27
ppm to 10 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves
from 7.1 ppm to 5.0 ppm; dill, seed from
0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm; dill, oil from 4.8
ppm to 2.0 ppm; parsley, leaves from
3.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; parsley, dried
leaves from 8.3 ppm to 9.0 ppm; and
pea, dry, seed from 0.08 ppm to 0.09
ppm. The Agency revised the cilantro,
fresh leaves; dillweed, fresh leaves, and
pea, dry seed tolerance levels based on
analysis of the residue field trial data
using the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
tolerance calculation procedures. Due to
a limited number of field trials, EPA
used the formula of 5X the mean in
order to establish tolerance levels for
coriander, seed; dill, seed; and parsley,
leaves. Finally, for the dried herbs
(cilantro, dillweed, and parsley) and dill
oil, the formula of the highest average
field trial (HAFT), multiplied by the
concentration factor was used to
calculate the recommended tolerance
levels for these commodities. These
concentration factors were derived from
dividing the average dried or oil
commodity residue by the average fresh
commodity residue. Based on this
calculation method, all four tolerance
levels were decreased.
Finally, the Agency has revised the
tolerance expression to clarify (1) that,
as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3),
the tolerance covers metabolites and
degradates of linuron not specifically
mentioned; and (2) that compliance
with the specified tolerance levels is to
be determined by measuring only
residues of linuron convertible to 3,4dichloroaniline.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of linuron, 3-(3,4dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1methylurea), and its metabolites, in or
on cilantro, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm;
cilantro, dried leaves at 10 ppm;
coriander, seed at 0.01 ppm; dillweed,
fresh leaves at 1.5 ppm; dillweed, dried
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
8307
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
leaves at 5.0 ppm; dill, seed at 0.5 ppm;
dill, oil at 2.0 ppm; horseradish at 0.05
ppm; parsley, leaves at 4.0 ppm;
parsley, dried leaves at 9.0 ppm; and
pea, dry, seed at 0.09 ppm. The
regulation additionally removes the
tolerance in or on parsley, leaves at 0.25
ppm from 40 CFR 180.184(c).
VI. References
The following literature was
referenced in the preamble of this
document.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Gray, L; Wolf, C; Lambright, C; Mann, P;
Price, M; Cooper, R; Ostby, J. 1999.
Administration of potentially
antiandrogenic pesticides (procymidone,
linuron, iprodione, chlozolinate, p,p’DDE, and ketoconazole) and toxic
substances (dibutyl- and diethylhexyl
phthalate, PCB 169, and ethane
dimethane sulphonate) during sexual
differentiation produces diverse profiles
of reproductive malformations in the
male rat. Toxicol Ind Health, 15 (1–
2):94–118.
2. Hotchkiss, A; Parks-Saldutti, L; Ostby, J;
Lambright, C; Furr, J; Vandenbergh, J; &
Gray, L. 2004. A mixture of the
‘‘antiandrogens’’ linuron and butyl
benzyl phthalate alters sexual
differentiation of the male rats in a
cumulative fashion. Biol.of Reprod
71:1852–1861.
3. Lambright, C; Ostby, J; Bobseine, K;
Wilson, V; Hotchkiss, A; Mann, PC;
Gray, L. 2000. Cellular and molecular
mechanisms of action of linuron: an
antiandrogenic herbicide that produces
reproductive malformations in male rats.
Toxicol Sci. 56(2):389–99.
4. McIntyre, B; Barlow, N; Wallace, D;
Maness, S; Gaido, K; Foster, P. 2000.
Effects of in utero exposure to linuron on
androgen-dependent reproductive
development in the male Crl:CD(SD)BR
rat. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 167(2):87–
9.
5. Vinggaard, A., Breinholt, V., and Larsen,
J. 1999. Screening of selected pesticides
for oestrogen receptor activation in vitro.
Food Addit Contam. 16(12):533–542.
VII. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 tolerances 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).
VIII. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: January 24, 2014.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.184:
a. Revise the introductory text in
paragraph (a).
■ b. Add ‘‘Cilantro, dried leaves’’,
Cilantro, fresh leaves’’, ‘‘Coriander,
seed’’, ‘‘Dill, oil’’, ‘‘Dill, seed’’,
‘‘Dillweed, dried leaves’’, Dillweed,
fresh leaves’’, Horseradish’’, ‘‘Parsley,
dried leaves’’, ‘‘Parsley, leaves’’, and
‘‘Pea, dry, seed’’ to the table in
paragraph (a).
■ c. Revise the introductory text in
paragraph (b).
■ d. Revise the introductory text in
paragraph (c).
■ e. Remove ‘‘Parsley, leaves’’ from the
table in paragraph (c).
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
§ 180.184
Linuron; tolerance for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide
linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1methoxy-1-methylurea), including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only those linuron residues
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline,
calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of linuron, in or on the
commodity:
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
Cilantro, dried leaves ..........
Cilantro, fresh leaves ..........
Coriander, seed ..................
*
*
10
3.0
0.01
*
*
*
Dill, oil .................................
Dill, seed .............................
Dillweed, dried leaves ........
Dillweed, fresh leaves ........
*
*
2.0
0.5
5.0
1.5
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
8308
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has adopted many
changes in its rules, which governs
licensing and operation of space stations
*
*
*
*
*
and earth stations. Collectively, the
Horseradish ........................
0.05
changes adopted in this document will
streamline the Commission’s
*
*
*
*
*
regulations, fostering more rapid
Parsley, dried leaves ..........
9.0
deployment of services to the public,
Parsley, leaves ...................
4.0
greater investment, and new
*
*
*
*
*
innovations in satellite services.
Pea, dry, seed ....................
0.09 DATES: The rules in this document
contain information collection
*
*
*
*
*
requirements that have not been
approved by Office of Management and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Budget. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register
Time-limited tolerances are established
announcing such OMB approval, the
for residues of the herbicide linuron [3effective date of all of the rule
(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1amendments adopted in the Report and
methylurea], including its metabolites
Order, and the approval date of the
and degradates, in or on the
incorporation by reference of a certain
commodities in the table below,
publication listed in the rule.
resulting from use of the pesticide
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
pursuant to FIFRA section 18
William Bell (202) 418–0741, Satellite
emergency exemptions. Compliance
Division, International Bureau, Federal
with the tolerance levels specified
below is to be determined by measuring Communications Commission,
Washington, DC 20554. For additional
only those linuron residues convertible
to 3.4-dichloroaniline, calculated as the information concerning the information
collection(s) contained in this
stoichiometric equivalent of linuron, in
document, contact Leslie Smith at 202–
or on the commodity. The tolerance
418–0217, or via the Internet at
expires and is revoked on the date
Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.
specified in the table.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
*
*
*
*
*
summary of the Commission’s Report
(c) Tolerances with regional
and Order in IB Docket No. 12–267, FCC
registrations. Tolerances with regional
registrations, as defined in § 180.1(l), are 13–111, adopted and released on August
established for residues of the herbicide 9, 2013. The full text of the Report and
Order is available for public inspection
linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1and copying during regular business
methoxy-1-methylurea), including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
commodities in the table below.
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
This document may also be purchased
specified below is to be determined by
from the Commission’s duplicating
measuring only those linuron residues
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
calculated as the stoichiometric
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
equivalent of linuron, in or on the
telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile
commodity.
202–488–5563, or via email FCC@
*
*
*
*
*
BCPIWEB.com. The full text may also be
[FR Doc. 2014–03077 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am]
downloaded at https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
document/view?id=7520937207 https://
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are
available to person with disabilities by
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
COMMISSION
calling the Consider & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice),
47 CFR Part 25
or 202–418–0432 (tty).
Commodity
Parts per
million
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
[IB Docket No. 12–267; FCC 13–111]
Comprehensive Review of Licensing
and Operating Rules for Satellite
Services
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:45 Feb 11, 2014
Jkt 232001
SUMMARY:
Synopsis
1. In September 2012, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 77 FR
67172, November 8, 2012 proposing
extensive changes in part 25 of its rules,
which governs licensing and operation
of space stations and earth stations for
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the provision of satellite communication
services. Sixteen parties filed comments
in response to the NPRM and 10 parties
filed reply comments. In this Report and
Order, we adopt most of the changes
proposed previously and discuss
recommendations for further changes. In
all, we revise over 150 rule provisions
in part 25 to better reflect evolving
technology; eliminate unnecessary
information filing requirements for
licensees and applicants; eliminate
unnecessary technical restrictions;
reorganize existing requirements;
eliminate redundancy and unnecessary
verbiage; clarify vague, confusing, or
ambiguous provisions; resolve
inconsistencies; and codify existing
policies to improve transparency. These
changes will better enable the
Commission to assess the interference
potential of proposed operations; afford
more operational flexibility for satellite
licensees; enable applicants and
licensees to conserve time, effort, and
expense in preparing applications and
reports; ease administrative burdens for
the Commission; and make the rules
easier to understand.
Paperwork Reduction Act
2. This document contains new or
modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to
comment on the new or modified
information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding.
3. Pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),
we previously sought specific comment
on how the Commission might further
reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees. We received
no comments on this issue. We have
assessed the effects of the revisions
adopted that might impose information
collection burdens on small business
concerns, and find that the impact on
businesses with fewer than 25
employees will be an overall reduction
in burden. The amendments adopted in
this Report and Order eliminate
unnecessary information filing
requirements for licensees and
applicants; eliminate unnecessary
technical restrictions and enable
applicants and licensees to conserve
time, effort, and expense in preparing
applications and reports. Overall, these
changes may have a greater positive
E:\FR\FM\12FER1.SGM
12FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8301-8308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03077]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791; FRL-9905-22]
Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of linuron
in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later
in this document. This regulation additionally removes a tolerance with
regional registrations in or on parsley leaves, as it will be
superseded by a tolerance without regional registrations. IR-4
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective February 12, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791, 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: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@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-2012-0791 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
April 14, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
[[Page 8302]]
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-2012-0791, 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 November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66781) (FRL-
9367-5), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8083) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.184 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide linuron, 3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea), and its metabolites, in or on
cilantro, dried leaves at 27 parts per million (ppm); cilantro, fresh
leaves at 3 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves at 7.1 ppm; dillweed, fresh
leaves at 1.5 ppm; dill oil at 4.8 ppm; dill seed at 0.3 ppm;
horseradish at 0.050 ppm; parsley, dried leaves at 8.3 ppm; parsley
leaves at 3 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.08 ppm. The petition
additionally requested to delete the regional tolerance in 40 CFR
180.184(c) for residues of linuron in or on parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm
upon approval of the requested tolerances for parsley leaves. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-
4 by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available
in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on
the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in
Unit IV.C.
Subsequent to the publication of the November 7, 2012 Federal
Register notice, the petitioner submitted a second petition, in which
it requested again the same tolerances noticed in the November 7, 2012
Federal Register document and added a new request for a tolerance for
residues of linuron and its metabolites in or on coriander seed at 0.01
ppm. So, in the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) (FRL-
9392-9), EPA issued another document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 2E8083) by IR-4, seeking tolerances for commodities as
noted in the November 7, 2012 document as well as a tolerance for
coriander seed at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerances for several proposed commodities. The Agency has
also determined that the tolerance expression should be revised for all
commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with 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 linuron including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with linuron 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.
With repeated dosing in test animals, linuron produces two primary
effects: (1) Changes in the hematopoetic system in rats, mice, and dogs
and; (2) changes in the male reproductive system in developing rats.
Lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for hematological
effects produced by linuron were substantially lower than LOAELs for
reproductive effects. Dogs were shown to be most sensitive to the
hematological effects, including hemolytic anemia characterized by
slightly reduced hemoglobin, hematocrit, and erythrocyte counts
accompanied by hemosiderin deposition in liver Kupffer cells. Secondary
erythropogenic activity (erythroid hyperplasia of bone marrow) was also
found. Systemic toxicity observed in mice included increased
methemoglobin formation, vacuolation and hemosiderosis of the spleen,
and decreased erythrocyte counts. In the chronic rat study, microscopic
observations consistent with hemolysis (hemosiderin in Kupffer cells
and increased hemosiderosis in bone marrow, spleen, and/or mesenteric
lymph nodes) were found.
The rat developmental study showed increased post-implantation
loss, fetal resorptions, decreased litter size, and decreased fetal
body weight. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, an increased
incidence of fetuses with skeletal skull variations was found. In the
2-generation reproductive toxicity study, rats exposed to linuron
during both development and adulthood had gross lesions of the testes
(including reduction in size); abnormally soft and small epididymides,
deformities of the epididymides, decreased pup survival, decreased
weanling body weights, decreased liver and kidney weights; and
increased incidence of offspring liver atrophy.
[[Page 8303]]
The developmental effects on the reproductive system seen in the
guideline studies are consistent with those reported in the published
literature, though it should be noted that most of the literature
studies employed dose levels of 100 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) or
greater. The available data indicate that linuron inhibits
transcriptional activity of dihydrotestosterone (DHT), human androgen
receptor (hAR) in vitro, and steroidogenic enzymes. Additional findings
indicate that linuron exposure decreases anogenital distance; may
increase retention of areole/nipples in male rat offspring following in
utero exposure; increases luteinizing hormone (LH) levels in F0 and F1
male rats; reduces the size of androgen dependent tissues such as
seminal vesicles, epididymis, and ventral prostate; and demonstrates a
weak affinity for androgen receptors, which may decrease fetal
testosterone synthesis (Refs 1, 2, 3, and 4). At this time, linuron has
not been demonstrated to be an estrogen receptor antagonist (Ref 5). It
should be emphasized that the toxicity endpoints based on the
hematological effects for chronic exposures were derived from the
chronic oral toxicity study in dogs. The point of departure (POD) for
hematological effects was approximately 40X lower than the LOAEL that
caused the testicular effects seen in the rat reproduction toxicity
study.
In rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies, linuron induced
interstitial cell adenomas in the testes of rats and hepatocellular
adenomas in mice. In a special study with aged rats, linuron induced
hyperplasia and adenomas of the testes within 6 to 12 months. However,
EPA has concluded that quantification of cancer risk is not necessary
because both interstitial cell adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas
were benign and show no progression towards malignancy. In addition,
linuron was not mutagenic in bacteria or in cultured mammalian cells.
There was also no indication of a clastogenic effect up to toxic doses
in vivo. Finally, the cRFD is a NOAEL of 0.77 mg/kg/day, which would be
protective of any tumors caused by linuron in the rat and mouse
carcinogenicity study at higher doses.
At the highest dose tested, the acute neurotoxicity study
demonstrated that linuron produced changes in the parameters of the
field observation battery (FOB). These changes included rats holding
their heads low, crusty deposits on the nose, impaired mobility,
ataxia, low arousal, decreased rearing, no reaction to tail pinch or
startle, decreased righting reflex, reduced or no hindlimb extensor
strength, decreased grip strength in both hindlimbs and forelimbs,
reduced rotarod performance, decreased hindlimb footsplay, and
increased catalepsy. At the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL), linuron produced decreases in motor activity and rearing. No
compound-related changes in neurohistopathology were observed at any of
the tested dose levels. In addition, linuron did not show any signs of
immunotoxicity in the submitted immunotoxicity study up to the highest
dose tested.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by linuron as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in document: ``Linuron: Section 3
Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Coriander, Dill,
Horseradish, Parsley, Celeriac, Rhubarb, and Pea (Dry).'' at pages 33-
38 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0791. References for the
published toxicity studies cited in this section may be found Unit VI.
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 linuron used for human risk assessment is shown in Table
1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Linuron for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49 NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day Acute RfD = 0.12 mg/ Rat Developmental Toxicity.
years of age). UFA = 10X........... kg/day LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10X........... aPAD = 0.12 mg/kg/ increased post-implantation loss
FQPA SF = 1X........ day. and fetal/litter resorptions.
Acute dietary (General population NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day Acute RfD = 0.2 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study (Rat).
including infants and children). UFA = 10X........... kg/day. LOAEL = 100 mg/kg based on
UFH = 10X........... aPAD = 0.2 mg/kg/ decreases in rearing and in motor
FQPA SF = 1X........ day. activity.
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 0.77 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = Chronic Oral Dog Study.
day. 0.0077 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 3.5 mg/kg/day based on
UFA = 10X........... cPAD = 0.0077 mg/kg/ hematological effects (increased
UFH = 10X........... day. met- and sulf-hemoglobin levels).
FQPA SF = 1X........
[[Page 8304]]
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Quantification of human cancer risk is not necessary for reasons stated in
Unit III.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population
adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation
from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
population (intraspecies).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to linuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing linuron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.184. EPA assessed dietary exposures from linuron in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for linuron. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What We Eat in America'' (NHANES/WWEIA)
from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA utilized
tolerance-level residues, DEEM (Ver. 7.81) default processing factors
as necessary, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment. EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's 2003-
2008 NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-
level residues for all commodities, and DEEM default processing
factors. The Agency utilized average PCT estimates, when available, and
100 PCT for all other commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a cancer exposure assessment is not necessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(F)
of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of
food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the average PCT for existing uses for use in
the chronic dietary assessment as follows:
Asparagus, 25%; carrots, 85%; celery, 25%; corn, 1.0%; cotton,
1.0%; potatoes, 5.0%; sorghum, 1.0%; soybeans, 1.0%; sweet corn, 1.0%;
and wheat, 1.0%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which linuron may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for linuron in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of linuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of linuron for
surface water are estimated to be 89.05 parts per billion (ppb) for
acute exposures and 48.69 ppb for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments. The EDWCs of linuron for groundwater are estimated to be
48.8 ppb for acute
[[Page 8305]]
and chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 89.05 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 48.8 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Linuron is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found linuron
to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
linuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that linuron 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 following acceptable
studies are available to assess the prenatal and postnatal sensitivity
to linuron: rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, a 2-
generation rat reproductive toxicity study, and a 3-generation rat
reproductive toxicity study. There is no qualitative or quantitative
evidence of increased susceptibility of rabbits in the developmental
study; developmental effects were seen at a dose higher than those
causing maternal toxicity. In the rat developmental study, increases in
post-implantation losses and increases in fetal resorptions/litter were
seen at a dose that caused decreases in maternal body weight and food
consumption. Since increases in resorptions were marginal and there was
no change in the number of live fetuses to corroborate the increases in
post-implantation losses, these effects were not indicative of
qualitative evidence of susceptibility.
There was no quantitative evidence of susceptibility in either the
2-generation or the 3-generation reproduction studies. In the 2-
generation study, reduced body weight gains of pups were seen at the
same dose that caused decreases in parental body weights. In the 3-
generation study, offspring effects including deceased pup survival and
pup body weight were seen a dose (44 mg/kg/day) higher than the dose
that caused decreases in body weight gain in the parental animals (9
mg/kg/day). However, when reproductive effects were examined,
testicular atrophy was seen at the same dose (45 mg/kg/day) in both
studies. In both studies, while the F0 males were not affected,
testicular lesions and reduced fertility were seen in the F1 males.
This effect in the F1 males is an indication of qualitative evidence of
susceptibility.
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 linuron is complete.
ii. In an acute neurotoxicity study, FOB findings of impaired
mobility, alterations in gait, lack of coordination, lowered body
temperature, no reaction to stimuli, low arousal, and decreases in
motor activity were seen at the time of peak effect (7 hours post
dosing) on study day 0. These observations were mostly seen in the 500
mg/kg group and no pathological changes were found in nervous system
tissues. A clear NOAEL (20 mg/kg/day) was established, and this NOAEL
was approximately 2-26X greater than most PODs selected for risk
assessment. The nervous system was not a target organ for linuron. The
requirement of a subchronic neurotoxicity study was waived by the
Agency because the target systems for linuron toxicity are the
hematopoietic and endocrine systems and not the nervous system as shown
by all available/required toxicity studies. There is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study because linuron affects testes and
hematological parameters but did not produce an increased
susceptibility in young rats. Therefore, the concern for neurotoxicity
is low, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that linuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies. While increased qualitative susceptibility was
identified from the reproductive findings in the 2-generation and 3-
generation rat toxicity studies, clear NOAELs were established for the
effects on the reproductive system. Furthermore, the point of departure
(POD) selected for assessment of chronic effects, is approximately 40X
lower than the LOAEL that caused the testicular effects seen in the rat
reproduction toxicity study; therefore, EPA considers the PODs for risk
assessment to be protective of the effects seen on the male
reproductive system and an additional safety factor to account for this
qualitative susceptibility is not necessary.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT for the acute assessment and
average PCT for available commodities in the chronic dietary
assessment. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground-water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
linuron in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by linuron.
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
[[Page 8306]]
residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate
MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to linuron will occupy 10% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year
old, the most highly exposed U.S. population subgroup; and 5.7% of the
aPAD for females 13-49 years old.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
linuron from food and water will utilize 60% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for linuron.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, linuron is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or
intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there are no short- or
intermediate-term residential exposures and chronic dietary exposure
has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD
(which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- or
intermediate-term risks), no further assessments of short- or
intermediate-term risk are necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating the short- and intermediate-term
risks for linuron.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion of carcinogenicity for linuron in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that the cPAD is protective of possible cancer effects. Given
the results of the chronic risk assessment, EPA has concluded that
linuron does not pose a cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to linuron residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology, Method ABC-68406-M, is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. This method involves reflux of
crop samples in strong base to hydrolyze residues of linuron and its
metabolites to 3,4-DCA, which is analyzed using gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC/MS).
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 not established a MRL for linuron.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment to the notice of filing from November 7,
2012 which opposed the use of linuron on any food. The commenter
expressed a general opposition to the use of ``toxic chemicals'' on
food and further noted that ``red blood cells are harmed in animals
from this toxic chemical.'' The Agency understands the commenter's
concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that certain
pesticide chemicals should not be permitted in our food. However, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states
that tolerances may be set when the pesticide meets the safety standard
imposed by that statute. The Agency is required by Section 408 of the
FFDCA to estimate the risk of the potential exposure to these residues.
EPA has concluded, based on data submitted in support of the petition
and other reliable data, that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate human exposure to linuron residues from
these uses. The points of departure selected for risk assessment are
protective of any effects on the hematopoietic system, including red
blood cells. Additionally, testing requirements for pesticide
tolerances have been specified by rulemaking after allowing for notice
and comment by the public and peer review by appropriate scientific
bodies. See 40 CFR part 158 for further information.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
Based on the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised the
proposed tolerances for several commodities, as follows: Cilantro,
dried leaves from 27 ppm to 10 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves from 7.1 ppm
to 5.0 ppm; dill, seed from 0.3 ppm to 0.5 ppm; dill, oil from 4.8 ppm
to 2.0 ppm; parsley, leaves from 3.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm; parsley, dried
leaves from 8.3 ppm to 9.0 ppm; and pea, dry, seed from 0.08 ppm to
0.09 ppm. The Agency revised the cilantro, fresh leaves; dillweed,
fresh leaves, and pea, dry seed tolerance levels based on analysis of
the residue field trial data using the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures.
Due to a limited number of field trials, EPA used the formula of 5X the
mean in order to establish tolerance levels for coriander, seed; dill,
seed; and parsley, leaves. Finally, for the dried herbs (cilantro,
dillweed, and parsley) and dill oil, the formula of the highest average
field trial (HAFT), multiplied by the concentration factor was used to
calculate the recommended tolerance levels for these commodities. These
concentration factors were derived from dividing the average dried or
oil commodity residue by the average fresh commodity residue. Based on
this calculation method, all four tolerance levels were decreased.
Finally, the Agency has revised the tolerance expression to clarify
(1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of linuron not specifically mentioned; and
(2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only residues of linuron convertible to 3,4-
dichloroaniline.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of linuron, 3-
(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea), and its metabolites, in
or on cilantro, fresh leaves at 3.0 ppm; cilantro, dried leaves at 10
ppm; coriander, seed at 0.01 ppm; dillweed, fresh leaves at 1.5 ppm;
dillweed, dried
[[Page 8307]]
leaves at 5.0 ppm; dill, seed at 0.5 ppm; dill, oil at 2.0 ppm;
horseradish at 0.05 ppm; parsley, leaves at 4.0 ppm; parsley, dried
leaves at 9.0 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.09 ppm. The regulation
additionally removes the tolerance in or on parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm
from 40 CFR 180.184(c).
VI. References
The following literature was referenced in the preamble of this
document.
1. Gray, L; Wolf, C; Lambright, C; Mann, P; Price, M; Cooper, R;
Ostby, J. 1999. Administration of potentially antiandrogenic
pesticides (procymidone, linuron, iprodione, chlozolinate, p,p'-DDE,
and ketoconazole) and toxic substances (dibutyl- and diethylhexyl
phthalate, PCB 169, and ethane dimethane sulphonate) during sexual
differentiation produces diverse profiles of reproductive
malformations in the male rat. Toxicol Ind Health, 15 (1-2):94-118.
2. Hotchkiss, A; Parks-Saldutti, L; Ostby, J; Lambright, C; Furr, J;
Vandenbergh, J; & Gray, L. 2004. A mixture of the ``antiandrogens''
linuron and butyl benzyl phthalate alters sexual differentiation of
the male rats in a cumulative fashion. Biol.of Reprod 71:1852-1861.
3. Lambright, C; Ostby, J; Bobseine, K; Wilson, V; Hotchkiss, A;
Mann, PC; Gray, L. 2000. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of action
of linuron: an antiandrogenic herbicide that produces reproductive
malformations in male rats. Toxicol Sci. 56(2):389-99.
4. McIntyre, B; Barlow, N; Wallace, D; Maness, S; Gaido, K; Foster,
P. 2000. Effects of in utero exposure to linuron on androgen-
dependent reproductive development in the male Crl:CD(SD)BR rat.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 167(2):87-9.
5. Vinggaard, A., Breinholt, V., and Larsen, J. 1999. Screening of
selected pesticides for oestrogen receptor activation in vitro. Food
Addit Contam. 16(12):533-542.
VII. 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 tolerances 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).
VIII. 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: January 24, 2014.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting 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. 180.184:
0
a. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (a).
0
b. Add ``Cilantro, dried leaves'', Cilantro, fresh leaves'',
``Coriander, seed'', ``Dill, oil'', ``Dill, seed'', ``Dillweed, dried
leaves'', Dillweed, fresh leaves'', Horseradish'', ``Parsley, dried
leaves'', ``Parsley, leaves'', and ``Pea, dry, seed'' to the table in
paragraph (a).
0
c. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (b).
0
d. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (c).
0
e. Remove ``Parsley, leaves'' from the table in paragraph (c).
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 180.184 Linuron; tolerance for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea),
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below
is to be determined by measuring only those linuron residues
convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of linuron, in or on the commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Cilantro, dried leaves.................................. 10
Cilantro, fresh leaves.................................. 3.0
Coriander, seed......................................... 0.01
* * * * *
Dill, oil............................................... 2.0
Dill, seed.............................................. 0.5
Dillweed, dried leaves.................................. 5.0
Dillweed, fresh leaves.................................. 1.5
[[Page 8308]]
* * * * *
Horseradish............................................. 0.05
* * * * *
Parsley, dried leaves................................... 9.0
Parsley, leaves......................................... 4.0
* * * * *
Pea, dry, seed.......................................... 0.09
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide linuron [3-(3,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea], including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below, resulting from
use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only those linuron residues convertible to 3.4-
dichloroaniline, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
linuron, in or on the commodity. The tolerance expires and is revoked
on the date specified in the table.
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations, as defined in Sec. 180.1(l), are established
for residues of the herbicide linuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-
methoxy-1-methylurea), including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only those
linuron residues convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of linuron, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-03077 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P