Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances, 19231-19238 [granule309]
Download as PDF
19231
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
under 40 CFR 180.920 for sulfonic
acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts
(CAS Reg. No. 85711–69–9) and sulfonic
acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts
(CAS Reg. No. 97489–15–1) when used
as inert ingredients (surfactant) in
pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops at not more than 40% by
weight of the pesticide formulation.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
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 action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 exemption 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 action 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 action. In addition, this action
does not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (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
(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: March 10, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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 § 180.920, add alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to the table
to read as follows:
■
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
*
*
*
*
*
Inert ingredients
Limits
*
*
*
Sulfonic acids, C13-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No.
85711–69–9).
Sulfonic acids, C14-17-sec-alkane, sodium salts (CAS Reg. No.
97489–15–1).
*
*
*
Not to exceed 40% by weight in non-residential use pesticide
formulation only.
Not to exceed 40% by weight in non-residential pesticide formulation only.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–08218 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798; FRL–9925–02]
Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Final rule.
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Uses
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Surfactant.
Surfactant.
*
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of pyraclostrobin
in or on the herb subgroup 19A, dill
seed, the stone fruit group 12–12, and
the tree nut group 14–12, except
pistachio. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR–4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective April
10, 2015. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
19232
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
June 9, 2015, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798, 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), West William
Jefferson Clinton 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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main 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).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 Publishing Office’s eCFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:02 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2013–0798 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 June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0798, 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.html.
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 February
25, 2014 (79 FR 10458) (FRL–9906–77),
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 3E8216) by IR–4,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin,
carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)1H-pyrazol-3yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl
ester and its desmethoxy metabolite
(methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1Hpyrazol-3yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF
500–3), expressed as parent compound,
in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 85 ppm;
and dill, seed at 100 ppm and by
changing the existing entries for ‘‘fruit,
stone, group 12’’ at 2.5 ppm to ‘‘fruit,
stone, group 12–12’’ at 2.5 ppm; and
‘‘nut, tree, group 14’’ at 0.04 ppm to
‘‘nut, tree, group 14–12, except
pistachio’’ at 0.04 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by BASF, 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
modified the levels at which tolerances
are being established for some
commodities. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for pyraclostrobin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with pyraclostrobin 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.
There are no concerns for
reproductive susceptibility,
neurotoxicity, mutagenicity,
genotoxicity, or immunotoxicity. The
most consistently observed effects
resulting from pyraclostrobin exposure
across species, genders, and treatment
durations were diarrhea and decreased
body weight, body weight gain, and
food consumption. Pyraclostrobin also
causes intestinal disturbances, as
indicated by increased incidence of
diarrhea or duodenum mucosal
thickening. These intestinal effects
appeared to be related to the irritating
action on the mucus membranes as
demonstrated by irritation seen in the
primary eye irritation study. In the rat
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies, neuropathology and behavior
changes were not observed.
In the rat developmental toxicity
study, developmental toxicity including
an increased incidence of dilated renal
pelvis and cervical ribs occurred at a
dose greater than the dose causing
maternal toxicity (including decreased
body weights and body weight gains
and reduced food consumption and
reduced food efficiency). The rabbit
developmental toxicity study indicates
qualitative evidence of increased
developmental susceptibility based on
increased resorptions per litter,
increased post-implantation loss and
dams with total resorptions, in the
presence of maternal toxicity (reduced
body weight gain, food consumption,
and food efficiency). In a dose rangefinding 1-generation reproduction
study, systemic toxicity was manifested
as decreased body weight and body
weight gain in both the parents and
offspring. The effects occurred at the
same dose levels for both parental and
the offspring, but the decrease in pup
weight was more than that in the
parental animals. However, the body
weight effect was not found in the
guideline 2-generation reproduction
study in either parental or offspring
animals at similar dose level. No
reproductive toxicity was seen.
Pyraclostrobin has been classified as
not likely to be carcinogenic to humans
based on the lack of treated related
increase in tumor incidence in
adequately conducted carcinogenicity
studies in rats and mice. Pyraclostrobin
did not cause mutagenicity or
genotoxicity in the in vivo and in vitro
assays, nor did it cause immunotoxicity
in T-cell dependent antibody response
assays in mice with preliminary review.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by pyraclostrobin as well
as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Pyraclostrobin—Human Health Risk
Assessment for a Section 3 Registration
of New Uses on Herb Subgroup 19A and
Dill Seed, Plus Crop Group Conversions
19233
on Stone Fruit Group 12–12 and Tree
Nut Group 14–12’’ at page 29 in docket
ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798.
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 pyraclostrobin used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PYRACLOSTROBIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Acute dietary (Females 13–50
years of age).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children).
Chronic dietary (All populations)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL = 300 mg/
kg/day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL = 3.4 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.05
mg/kg/day.
aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/
day
Developmental Toxicity—Rabbit
LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on developmental toxicity findings of increased resorptions.
Acute RfD = 3.0 mg/
kg/day.
aPAD = 3.0 mg/kg/
day
Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight
gain in males.
Chronic RfD = 0.034
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.034 mg/
kg/day
Carcinogenicity—Rat
LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, kidney tubular casts and atrophy in both sexes; increased incidence of liver necrosis and erosion/ulceration of the glandular-stomach and fore-stomach in males.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
19234
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PYRACLOSTROBIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
LOC for MOE = 100
Subchronic Toxicity—Dog
LOAEL = 12.9 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of diarrhea, clinical chemistry changes, duodenum mucosal hypertrophy, and decreased body weight and food efficiency.
LOC for MOE = 100
Developmental Toxicity—Rabbit
LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on developmental toxicity findings of increased resorptions and maternal toxicity based on
decreased food efficiency.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days) and intermediate-term
(1 to 6 months).
NOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Oral study NOAEL =
5.0 mg/kg/day
(dermal absorption
rate = 14%).
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Inhalation study
NOAEL = 0.010
mg/kg/day.
UFA = 3x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
fHandler =
16.7 L/min
HECHandler =
0.00131 mg/L
HECBystander =
0.00023 mg/L
HEDHandler =
0.038 mg/kg/day
LOC for MOE = 30 ..
Inhalation Toxicity—Rat
LOAEL = 6.9 mg/kg/day (air concentration = 0.03 mg/L) based
on duodenum mucosal hyperplasia and respiratory system
findings including alveolar histiocytosis and olfactory atrophy/
necrosis in nasal tissue.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classification: ‘‘Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ based on the absence of significant tumor increases
in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies.
Exposure/scenario
Incidental oral short-term (1 to
30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
Dermal short-term (1 to 30
days) and intermediate-term
(1 to 6 months).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c =
chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in
sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). HEC = Human Equivalent Concentration. HED = Human Equivalent Dose. f =
Respiratory frequency.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyraclostrobin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing pyraclostrobin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.582. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
food, EPA used tolerance-level residues
or highest field trial residues, 100
percent crop treated (PCT), and
empirical or default processing factors.
Experimentally-derived processing
factors were used for fruit juices,
tomato, sugarcane, and wheat
commodities. For all other processed
commodities, DEEM default processing
factors were assumed.
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 included tolerance-level or average
field trial residues, average PCT
estimates when available, and empirical
processing factors. Experimentallyderived processing factors were used for
fruit juices, tomato, sugar cane, and
wheat commodities. For all other
processed commodities, DEEM default
processing factors were assumed.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyraclostrobin does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available
data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in
food. If EPA relies on such information,
EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5
years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating
that the levels in food are not above the
levels anticipated. For the present
action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of
these tolerances.
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
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 PCT for
existing uses as follows:
Almonds 40%; apples 15%; apricots
25%; barley 10%; green beans <2.5%;
blueberries 45%; broccoli 5%; cabbage
10%; caneberries 50%; cantaloupes
15%; carrots 35%; cauliflower <2.5%;
celery <2.5%; cherries 50%; corn 10%;
cotton <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment)
10%; cucumber 10%; dry beans/peas
10%; garlic 10%; grapefruit 30%; grapes
30%; hazelnuts (filberts) 20%; lemons
<2.5%; lettuce 5%; nectarines 10%;
onions 25%; oranges 5%; peaches 20%;
peanuts 25%; pears 15%; green peas
5%; pecans <2.5%; peppers 10%;
pistachios 30%; plums/prunes 5%;
potatoes 20%; pumpkins 20%; rice
<1%; soybeans 5%; soybeans (seed
treatment) 5%; spinach 5%; squash
15%; strawberries 65%; sugar beets
45%; sweet corn 5%; tangelos 15%;
tangerines 10%; tomatoes 25%; walnuts
<1%; watermelons 30%; wheat 5%;
wheat (seed treatment) <1%.
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%.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
pyraclostrobin. 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 for Groundwater
(PRZM–GW) models, the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are
estimated to be 35.6 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.02 ppb for
ground water. Chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.02
ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 35.6 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 2.3 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19235
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).
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered
for the following uses that could result
in residential handler and postapplication exposures: Treated gardens,
fruit or nut trees, tomato transplants,
and turf. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following
assumptions: Short-term adult handler
exposures via the dermal and inhalation
routes resulting from application of
pyraclostrobin to gardens, trees, and
turf. Short-term dermal post-application
exposures were assessed for adults,
youth 11 to 16 years old, and children
6 to 11 years old. Short-term dermal and
incidental oral exposures were assessed
for children 1 to <2 years old. Based on
the registered uses of pyraclostrobin on
residential and golf course turf,
intermediate-term post-application
exposures are possible. However, since
the short- and intermediate-term
endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral
routes are the same, the short-term
exposure and risk estimates are
considered to be protective of potential
intermediate-term exposure and risk.
For the aggregate assessment,
inhalation and dermal exposures were
not aggregated together because the
toxicity effect from the inhalation route
of exposure was different than the effect
from the dermal route of exposure. The
scenarios with the highest residential
exposures that were used in the shortterm aggregate assessment for
pyraclostrobin are as follows:
• Adult short-term aggregate
assessment—residential dermal postapplication exposure via activities on
treated turf.
• Youth (11–16 years old) short-term
aggregate assessment—residential
dermal exposure from post-application
golfing on treated turf.
• Children (6–11 years old) shortterm aggregate assessment—residential
dermal exposures from post-application
activities in treated gardens.
• Children (1<2 years old) short-term
aggregate assessment—residential
dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures
from post-application exposure to
treated turf.
Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
19236
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 pyraclostrobin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
pyraclostrobin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that pyraclostrobin 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.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin
results in increased susceptibility in rats
or rabbits in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the 2generation reproduction study.
Although there is qualitative evidence
of increased susceptibility in the
prenatal development study in rabbits,
the Agency did not identify any residual
uncertainties after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional UFs to be
used in the risk assessment of
pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern
for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is
low.
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:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
i. The toxicity database for
pyraclostrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
pyraclostrobin is a neurotoxic chemical.
Effects seen in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies in rats are
considered to reflect perturbations in
mitochondrial respiration leading to
effects on energy production rather than
signs of neurotoxicity; therefore, there is
no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to
account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
pyraclostrobin results in increased
susceptibility in rats in the prenatal
developmental study or in young rats in
the 2-generation reproduction study.
The prenatal rabbit developmental
toxicity study showed qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility to
prenatal rabbits; however, this study
was chosen for endpoint selection for
the acute dietary (females 13–49) and
short-term dermal exposure scenarios.
This study has a clearly defined NOAEL
of 5.0 mg/kg/day. EPA did not identify
any residual uncertainties after
establishing toxicity endpoints and
traditional UFs to be used in the risk
assessment of pyraclostrobin. The
degree of concern for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity is low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute dietary exposure assessments
were performed assuming 100 PCT and
tolerance-level or highest field trial
residues. The chronic dietary exposure
assessments were performed using
average PCT estimates, when available,
and tolerance-level or highest field trial
residues. These data are reliable and are
not expected to underestimate risks to
adults or children. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to
pyraclostrobin in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by pyraclostrobin.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure
from food and water to pyraclostrobin
will occupy 87% of the aPAD for
females 13–49 years old, the population
group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to pyraclostrobin
from food and water will utilize 27% of
the cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in
Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of pyraclostrobin is not
expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Pyraclostrobin is
currently registered for uses that could
result in short-term residential
exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short-term residential
exposures to pyraclostrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 110 for children 1–2 years old,
380 for children 6–11 years old, 1,600
for youth 11–16 years old, and 230 for
adults from post-application exposures.
Because EPA’s level of concern for
pyraclostrobin is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for
uses that could result in intermediateterm residential exposure; however,
since the short- and intermediate-term
endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral
routes are the same, the short-term
exposure and risk estimates are
considered to be protective of potential
intermediate-term exposure and risk
and an intermediate-term aggregate
assessment was not performed.
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
pyraclostrobin is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to
pyraclostrobin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Two adequate methods are available
to enforce the tolerance expression for
residues of pyraclostrobin and the
metabolite BF 500–3 in or on plant
commodities: A liquid chromatography
with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/
MS/MS) method, BASF Method D9908;
and a high-performance LC with
ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV)
method, Method D9904. The methods
may be found in the Pesticide Analytical
Manual, Volume I.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
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 and U.S. residue
definitions for pyraclostrobin residues
on plant commodities are different. The
Codex definition is pyraclostrobin,
whereas the U.S. definition is
pyraclostrobin and its desmethoxy
metabolite. Codex has not established
MRLs for pyraclostrobin on herbs or dill
seed, and therefore there are no
harmonization issues for those
commodities. Codex has established
MRLs for some members of the stone
fruit group, i.e., cherries (3 mg/kg),
peach/nectarine (0.3 mg/kg), and plums
(0.8 ppm), but does not have a group
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
tolerance. EPA has decided to issue a
single group tolerance as requested for
the stone fruit crop group, rather than
harmonize with the individual MRLs for
cherry, peach/nectarine, and plum,
because adequate data supports the crop
group tolerance. Codex has established
a tree nut group tolerance at 0.02 mg/
kg. The U.S. tolerance cannot be
lowered, as it includes parent and a
metabolite, each at 0.02 ppm, or 0.04
ppm total.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
The tolerances being established for
the herb subgroup 19A (40 ppm) and
dill seed (40 ppm) are different than
what the petitioner requested (85 ppm
and 100 ppm, respectively). The
requested tolerance levels for the herb
subgroup 19A and dill seed were based
on the use of field trial data without
adjustment for the exaggerated
application rate (2.7X) represented by
those trials. Each of the two applications
of pyraclostrobin were conducted at
2.7X the label rate, and the total
seasonal rate was 2.7X the label rate.
Using the assumption of
proportionality, i.e., that the residue
levels are proportional to the rate of
application, the residue results may be
adjusted to the concentrations expected
at the 1X rate. The tolerance estimates
at the 1X rate are 40 ppm for herb
subgroup 19A and 40 ppm for dill seed.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of pyraclostrobin, carbamic
acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1Hpyrazol-3yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl
ester and its desmethoxy metabolite
(methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1Hpyrazol-3yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF
500–3), expressed as parent compound,
in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 40 ppm;
and dill, seed at 40 ppm. Additionally,
the existing entries for ‘‘fruit, stone,
group 12’’ at 2.5 ppm is modified to
read ‘‘fruit, stone, group 12–12’’ at 2.5
ppm; and ‘‘nut, tree, group 14’’ at 0.04
ppm is modified to read ‘‘nut, tree,
group 14–12, except pistachio’’ at 0.04
ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action 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 action
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19237
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action 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 action. In
addition, this action does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (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
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
19238
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 300–3
[FTR Amendment 2015–02; FTR Case 2014–
301; Docket No. 2014–0012; Sequence No.
1]
RIN 3090–AJ44
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage’’,
‘‘Spouse’’, and ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’
Office of Government-wide
Policy, U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) by
adding terms and definitions for
‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’, and by
revising the definition of ‘‘Domestic
Partnership’’.
PART 180—[AMENDED]
DATES:
SUMMARY:
Dated: April 1, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.582:
a. Add alphabetically the entries for
‘‘Dill, seed’’, ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12–
12’’, ‘‘Herb subgroup19A’’, and ‘‘Nut,
tree, group 14–12, except pistachio’’ to
the table in paragraph (a)(1).
■ b. Remove the entries for ‘‘Fruit,
stone, group 12’’, and ‘‘Nut, tree, group
14’’ in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
§ 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for
residues.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
This rule is effective April 10,
2015, subject to retroactivity principles
as discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Mr. Rick
Miller, Office of Government-wide
Policy (MA), Travel and Relocation
Policy Division, U.S. General Services
Administration, at 202–501–3822 or
email at rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Contact
the U.S. General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20405–0001, 202–501–
4755, for information pertaining to
status or publication schedules. Please
cite FTR Amendment 2015–02, FTR
Case 2014–301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage
Parts per
Act (DOMA), codified at 1 U.S.C. 7,
Commodity
million
provided that, when used in Federal
law, the term ‘‘marriage’’ would mean
only a legal union between one man and
*
*
*
*
*
Dill, seed ...............................
40 one woman as husband and wife, and
that the term ‘‘spouse’’ referred only to
*
*
*
*
*
a person of the opposite sex who is a
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .....
2.5 husband or a wife. Because of DOMA,
the Federal Government had been
*
*
*
*
*
prohibited from recognizing marriages
Herb subgroup 19A ..............
40
of same-sex couples for all Federal
purposes, including travel and
*
*
*
*
*
relocation entitlements.
Nut, tree, group 14–12, exOn June 17, 2009, President Obama
cept pistachio ....................
0.04
signed a Presidential Memorandum on
Federal Benefits and Non*
*
*
*
*
Discrimination stating that ‘‘[t]he heads
*
*
*
*
*
of all other executive departments and
[FR Doc. 2015–08079 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
agencies, in consultation with the Office
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
of Personnel Management, shall conduct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:04 Apr 09, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
a review of the benefits provided by
their respective departments and
agencies to determine what authority
they have to extend such benefits to
same-sex domestic partners of Federal
employees.’’ As part of its review, GSA
identified a number of changes to the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) that
could be made. Subsequently, on June 2,
2010, President Obama signed a
Presidential Memorandum directing
agencies to immediately take actions,
consistent with existing law, to extend
certain benefits, including travel and
relocation benefits, to same-sex
domestic partners of Federal employees,
and where applicable, to the children of
same-sex domestic partners of Federal
employees.
GSA published an interim rule and a
final rule, respectively in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2010, and on
September 28, 2011 (75 FR 67629 and
76 FR 59914), that fulfilled the
Presidential Memorandum by, among
other things, amending the definition of
‘‘immediate family’’ in the FTR to
include same-sex domestic partners and
their dependents.
On June 26, 2013, in United States v.
Windsor, 570 U.S. 12, 133 S. Ct. 2675
(2013), the Supreme Court of the United
States (Supreme Court) held Section 3 of
DOMA unconstitutional. As a result of
this decision, GSA is now able to extend
travel and relocation entitlements to
Federal employees who are legally
married to spouses of the same sex.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the
Administrator of General Services is
authorized to prescribe necessary
regulations to implement laws regarding
Federal employees who are traveling
while in the performance of official
business away from their official
stations. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 5738
mandates that the Administrator of
General Services prescribe regulations
relating to official relocation. The
overall implementing authority is the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR),
codified in Title 41 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Chapters 300–304
(41 CFR Chapters 300–304).
GSA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on June 26, 2014 (79
FR 36279). The proposed rule
recommended adding a definition for
the terms ‘‘Marriage’’ and ‘‘Spouse’’,
and revising the definition of the term
‘‘Domestic Partnership’’.
B. Summary of Comments Received
In response to the proposed rule, GSA
received comments from six different
entities (one Federal agency, one
Federal employee, two individuals, and
two associations). Some comments
received were generally supportive as to
E:\FR\FM\10APR1.SGM
10APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19231-19238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: granule309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798; FRL–9925–02]
Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyraclostrobin in or on the herb subgroup 19A, dill seed, the stone
fruit group 12–12, and the tree nut group 14–12, except
pistachio. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4)
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April 10, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before
[[Page 19232]]
June 9, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; main
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:
&sbull; Crop production (NAICS code 111).
&sbull; Animal production (NAICS code 112).
&sbull; Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
&sbull; 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
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798 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 June 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand
delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798, by one of the following
methods:
&sbull; 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.
&sbull; Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001.
&sbull; 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.html. 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 February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10458)
(FRL–9906–77), 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 3E8216) by IR–4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its
desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF 500–3), expressed as parent
compound, in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 85 ppm; and dill, seed at 100
ppm and by changing the existing entries for “fruit, stone, group
12” at 2.5 ppm to “fruit, stone, group 12–12”
at 2.5 ppm; and “nut, tree, group 14” at 0.04 ppm to
“nut, tree, group 14–12, except pistachio” at 0.04
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
BASF, 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
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for some
commodities. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.”
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean
that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which
there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to
“ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for pyraclostrobin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
[[Page 19233]]
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyraclostrobin
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.
There are no concerns for reproductive susceptibility,
neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, or immunotoxicity. The most
consistently observed effects resulting from pyraclostrobin exposure
across species, genders, and treatment durations were diarrhea and
decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption.
Pyraclostrobin also causes intestinal disturbances, as indicated by
increased incidence of diarrhea or duodenum mucosal thickening. These
intestinal effects appeared to be related to the irritating action on
the mucus membranes as demonstrated by irritation seen in the primary
eye irritation study. In the rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies, neuropathology and behavior changes were not observed.
In the rat developmental toxicity study, developmental toxicity
including an increased incidence of dilated renal pelvis and cervical
ribs occurred at a dose greater than the dose causing maternal toxicity
(including decreased body weights and body weight gains and reduced
food consumption and reduced food efficiency). The rabbit developmental
toxicity study indicates qualitative evidence of increased
developmental susceptibility based on increased resorptions per litter,
increased post-implantation loss and dams with total resorptions, in
the presence of maternal toxicity (reduced body weight gain, food
consumption, and food efficiency). In a dose range-finding 1-generation
reproduction study, systemic toxicity was manifested as decreased body
weight and body weight gain in both the parents and offspring. The
effects occurred at the same dose levels for both parental and the
offspring, but the decrease in pup weight was more than that in the
parental animals. However, the body weight effect was not found in the
guideline 2-generation reproduction study in either parental or
offspring animals at similar dose level. No reproductive toxicity was
seen.
Pyraclostrobin has been classified as not likely to be carcinogenic
to humans based on the lack of treated related increase in tumor
incidence in adequately conducted carcinogenicity studies in rats and
mice. Pyraclostrobin did not cause mutagenicity or genotoxicity in the
in vivo and in vitro assays, nor did it cause immunotoxicity in T-cell
dependent antibody response assays in mice with preliminary review.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyraclostrobin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document “Pyraclostrobin—Human
Health Risk Assessment for a Section 3 Registration of New Uses on Herb
Subgroup 19A and Dill Seed, Plus Crop Group Conversions on Stone Fruit
Group 12–12 and Tree Nut Group 14–12” at page 29 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0798.
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 pyraclostrobin used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyraclostrobin 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 NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/ Developmental
13–50 years of age). day. kg/day. Toxicity—Rabbit
UFA = 10x........... aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x........... day. developmental toxicity findings
FQPA SF = 1x........ of increased resorptions.
Acute dietary (General population NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 3.0 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat
including infants and children). day. kg/day. LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on
UFA = 10x........... aPAD = 3.0 mg/kg/ decreased body weight gain in
UFH = 10x........... day. males.
FQPA SF = 1x........
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 3.4 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.034 Carcinogenicity—Rat
day. mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day based on
UFA = 10x........... cPAD = 0.034 mg/kg/ decreased body weight, kidney
UFH = 10x........... day. tubular casts and atrophy in both
FQPA SF = 1x........ sexes; increased incidence of
liver necrosis and erosion/
ulceration of the glandular-
stomach and fore-stomach in
males.
[[Page 19234]]
Incidental oral short-term (1 to NOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100.. Subchronic Toxicity—Dog
30 days) and intermediate-term day. LOAEL = 12.9 mg/kg/day based on
(1 to 6 months). UFA = 10x........... increased incidence of diarrhea,
UFH = 10x........... clinical chemistry changes,
FQPA SF = 1x........ duodenum mucosal hypertrophy, and
decreased body weight and food
efficiency.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = 100.. Developmental
and intermediate-term (1 to 6 5.0 mg/kg/day Toxicity—Rabbit
months). (dermal absorption LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day based on
rate = 14%). developmental toxicity findings
UFA = 10x........... of increased resorptions and
UFH = 10x........... maternal toxicity based on
FQPA SF = 1x........ decreased food efficiency.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 Inhalation study LOC for MOE = 30... Inhalation Toxicity—Rat
days) and intermediate-term (1 NOAEL = 0.010 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 6.9 mg/kg/day (air
to 6 months). day. concentration = 0.03 mg/L) based
UFA = 3x............ on duodenum mucosal hyperplasia
UFH = 10x........... and respiratory system findings
FQPA SF = 1x........ including alveolar histiocytosis
fHandler =.......... and olfactory atrophy/necrosis in
16.7 L/min.......... nasal tissue.
HECHandler =........
0.00131 mg/L........
HECBystander =......
0.00023 mg/L........
HEDHandler =........
0.038 mg/kg/day.....
-----------------------
&qdrt;Cancer (Oral, dermal, Classification: “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based
inhalation). on the absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent
carcinogenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
members of the human population (intraspecies). HEC = Human Equivalent Concentration. HED = Human Equivalent
Dose. f = Respiratory frequency.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyraclostrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pyraclostrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.582. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin.
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 used
tolerance-level residues or highest field trial residues, 100 percent
crop treated (PCT), and empirical or default processing factors.
Experimentally-derived processing factors were used for fruit juices,
tomato, sugarcane, and wheat commodities. For all other processed
commodities, DEEM default processing factors were assumed.
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
included tolerance-level or average field trial residues, average PCT
estimates when available, and empirical processing factors.
Experimentally-derived processing factors were used for fruit juices,
tomato, sugar cane, and wheat commodities. For all other processed
commodities, DEEM default processing factors were assumed.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyraclostrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
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:
&sbull; Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to
[[Page 19235]]
show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
&sbull; Condition b: The exposure estimate does not
underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
&sbull; 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 PCT for existing uses as follows:
Almonds 40%; apples 15%; apricots 25%; barley 10%; green beans
<2.5%; blueberries 45%; broccoli 5%; cabbage 10%; caneberries 50%;
cantaloupes 15%; carrots 35%; cauliflower <2.5%; celery <2.5%;
cherries 50%; corn 10%; cotton <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment) 10%;
cucumber 10%; dry beans/peas 10%; garlic 10%; grapefruit 30%; grapes
30%; hazelnuts (filberts) 20%; lemons <2.5%; lettuce 5%; nectarines
10%; onions 25%; oranges 5%; peaches 20%; peanuts 25%; pears 15%; green
peas 5%; pecans <2.5%; peppers 10%; pistachios 30%; plums/prunes 5%;
potatoes 20%; pumpkins 20%; rice <1%; soybeans 5%; soybeans (seed
treatment) 5%; spinach 5%; squash 15%; strawberries 65%; sugar beets
45%; sweet corn 5%; tangelos 15%; tangerines 10%; tomatoes 25%; walnuts
<1%; watermelons 30%; wheat 5%; wheat (seed treatment) <1%.
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 pyraclostrobin 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 pyraclostrobin in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyraclostrobin. 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 for Groundwater
(PRZM–GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 35.6
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground
water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be
2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.02 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 35.6 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 2.3 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).
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential handler and post-application exposures:
Treated gardens, fruit or nut trees, tomato transplants, and turf. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Short-
term adult handler exposures via the dermal and inhalation routes
resulting from application of pyraclostrobin to gardens, trees, and
turf. Short-term dermal post-application exposures were assessed for
adults, youth 11 to 16 years old, and children 6 to 11 years old.
Short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures were assessed for
children 1 to <2 years old. Based on the registered uses of
pyraclostrobin on residential and golf course turf, intermediate-term
post-application exposures are possible. However, since the short- and
intermediate-term endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral routes are the
same, the short-term exposure and risk estimates are considered to be
protective of potential intermediate-term exposure and risk.
For the aggregate assessment, inhalation and dermal exposures were
not aggregated together because the toxicity effect from the inhalation
route of exposure was different than the effect from the dermal route
of exposure. The scenarios with the highest residential exposures that
were used in the short-term aggregate assessment for pyraclostrobin are
as follows:
&sbull; Adult short-term aggregate
assessment—residential dermal post-application exposure via
activities on treated turf.
&sbull; Youth (11–16 years old) short-term aggregate
assessment—residential dermal exposure from post-application
golfing on treated turf.
&sbull; Children (6–11 years old) short-term aggregate
assessment—residential dermal exposures from post-application
activities in treated gardens.
&sbull; Children (1<2 years old) short-term aggregate
assessment—residential dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from
post-application exposure to treated turf.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
[[Page 19236]]
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 pyraclostrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyraclostrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyraclostrobin 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 &fnl;http:/
/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. There is no evidence that
pyraclostrobin results in increased susceptibility in rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-
generation reproduction study. Although there is qualitative evidence
of increased susceptibility in the prenatal development study in
rabbits, the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after
establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the
risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for prenatal
and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
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 pyraclostrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that pyraclostrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical. Effects seen in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies in rats are considered to reflect perturbations in
mitochondrial respiration leading to effects on energy production
rather than signs of neurotoxicity; therefore, there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that pyraclostrobin results in increased
susceptibility in rats in the prenatal developmental study or in young
rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. The prenatal rabbit
developmental toxicity study showed qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility to prenatal rabbits; however, this study was chosen for
endpoint selection for the acute dietary (females 13–49) and
short-term dermal exposure scenarios. This study has a clearly defined
NOAEL of 5.0 mg/kg/day. EPA did not identify any residual uncertainties
after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in
the risk assessment of pyraclostrobin. The degree of concern for
prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary exposure assessments were performed
assuming 100 PCT and tolerance-level or highest field trial residues.
The chronic dietary exposure assessments were performed using average
PCT estimates, when available, and tolerance-level or highest field
trial residues. These data are reliable and are not expected to
underestimate risks to adults or children. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyraclostrobin in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
pyraclostrobin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
pyraclostrobin will occupy 87% of the aPAD for females 13–49
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyraclostrobin from food and water will utilize 27% of the cPAD for
children 1–2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
pyraclostrobin is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to pyraclostrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 110 for children
1–2 years old, 380 for children 6–11 years old, 1,600 for
youth 11–16 years old, and 230 for adults from post-application
exposures. Because EPA's level of concern for pyraclostrobin is a MOE
of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for uses that could
result in intermediate-term residential exposure; however, since the
short- and intermediate-term endpoints and PODs for dermal and oral
routes are the same, the short-term exposure and risk estimates are
considered to be protective of potential intermediate-term exposure and
risk and an intermediate-term aggregate assessment was not performed.
[[Page 19237]]
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, pyraclostrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Two adequate methods are available to enforce the tolerance
expression for residues of pyraclostrobin and the metabolite BF
500–3 in or on plant commodities: A liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, BASF Method D9908; and a
high-performance LC with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV) method, Method
D9904. The methods may be found in the Pesticide Analytical Manual,
Volume I.
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 and U.S. residue definitions for pyraclostrobin residues
on plant commodities are different. The Codex definition is
pyraclostrobin, whereas the U.S. definition is pyraclostrobin and its
desmethoxy metabolite. Codex has not established MRLs for
pyraclostrobin on herbs or dill seed, and therefore there are no
harmonization issues for those commodities. Codex has established MRLs
for some members of the stone fruit group, i.e., cherries (3 mg/kg),
peach/nectarine (0.3 mg/kg), and plums (0.8 ppm), but does not have a
group tolerance. EPA has decided to issue a single group tolerance as
requested for the stone fruit crop group, rather than harmonize with
the individual MRLs for cherry, peach/nectarine, and plum, because
adequate data supports the crop group tolerance. Codex has established
a tree nut group tolerance at 0.02 mg/kg. The U.S. tolerance cannot be
lowered, as it includes parent and a metabolite, each at 0.02 ppm, or
0.04 ppm total.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
The tolerances being established for the herb subgroup 19A (40 ppm)
and dill seed (40 ppm) are different than what the petitioner requested
(85 ppm and 100 ppm, respectively). The requested tolerance levels for
the herb subgroup 19A and dill seed were based on the use of field
trial data without adjustment for the exaggerated application rate
(2.7X) represented by those trials. Each of the two applications of
pyraclostrobin were conducted at 2.7X the label rate, and the total
seasonal rate was 2.7X the label rate. Using the assumption of
proportionality, i.e., that the residue levels are proportional to the
rate of application, the residue results may be adjusted to the
concentrations expected at the 1X rate. The tolerance estimates at the
1X rate are 40 ppm for herb subgroup 19A and 40 ppm for dill seed.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester and its desmethoxy
metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenylcarbamate) (BF 500–3), expressed as parent
compound, in or on herb, subgroup 19A at 40 ppm; and dill, seed at 40
ppm. Additionally, the existing entries for “fruit, stone, group
12” at 2.5 ppm is modified to read “fruit, stone, group
12–12” at 2.5 ppm; and “nut, tree, group 14” at
0.04 ppm is modified to read “nut, tree, group 14–12,
except pistachio” at 0.04 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action 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 action
has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action
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 action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action 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 action. In addition, this action does not impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
[[Page 19238]]
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: April 1, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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 §&thnsp;180.582:
0
a. Add alphabetically the entries for “Dill, seed”,
“Fruit, stone, group 12–12”, “Herb
subgroup19A”, and “Nut, tree, group 14–12, except
pistachio” to the table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Remove the entries for “Fruit, stone, group 12”, and
“Nut, tree, group 14” in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
The amendments read as follows:
§&thnsp;180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * &em
sp;* *
Dill, seed.............................................. 40
* * * &em
sp;* *
Fruit, stone, group 12–12......................... 2.5
* * * &em
sp;* *
Herb subgroup 19A....................................... 40
* * * &em
sp;* *
Nut, tree, group 14–12, except pistachio.......... 0.04
* * * &em
sp;* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015–08079 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P?>