Mesotrione; Pesticide Tolerances, 30625-30630 [2015-12938]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 19, 2015.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
2. In § 180.617:
■ a. Remove the entries in the table in
paragraph (a) for ‘‘Canola seed,’’ ‘‘Fruit,
stone, group 12,’’ ‘‘Nut, tree, group 14,’’
and ‘‘Pistachio;’’
■ b. Add alphabetically the entries for
‘‘Fruit, stone, group 12–12’’, ‘‘Nut, tree,
group 14–12’’, ‘‘Pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C’’,
‘‘Rapeseed subgroup 20A’’, and
‘‘Sunflower subgroup 20B’’ to the table
in paragraph (a).
■ c. Revise paragraph (b).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
■
§ 180.617 Metconazole; tolerance for
residues.
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .......
*
Nut, tree, group 14–12 ...........
*
Pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup
6C ........................................
*
*
*
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
20:19 May 28, 2015
*
*
0.08
*
Sunflower subgroup 20B ........
*
*
0.15
Rapeseed subgroup 20A ........
*
*
0.2
0.04
*
*
0.7
*
Jkt 235001
ACTION:
Final rule.
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of mesotrione in
or on almond, hulls, fruit, citrus, group
10–10; fruit, pome, group 11–10; fruit,
stone, group 12–12; and nut, tree, group
14–12. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective May
29, 2015. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 28, 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).
DATES:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0303, 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:
(a) * * *
*
40 CFR Part 180
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
AGENCY:
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Mesotrione; Pesticide Tolerances
■
*
[FR Doc. 2015–12936 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am]
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0303; FRL–9927–75]
PART 180—[AMENDED]
*
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
*
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30625
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR 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–2014–0303 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 July 28, 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–
2014–0303, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
30626
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of September
2, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL–9911–67),
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 4F8240) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O.
Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part
180.571 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide,
mesotrione, in or on citrus fruit, crop
group 10–10 at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm); pome fruit, crop group 11–10 at
0.01 ppm; stone fruit, crop group 12–12
at 0.01 ppm; tree nuts, crop group 14–
12 at 0.01 ppm; and almond hulls at
0.015 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received in response to
the notice of filing. EPA’s response to
these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has revised
the tolerance for residues of mesotrione
in or on fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.01
ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 0.01
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 0.01
ppm; nut, tree, group 14–12 at 0.01
ppm; and almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm.
The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 May 28, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 mesotrione
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with mesotrione 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.
In subchronic and chronic oral
studies in the rat, mouse, and dog,
mesotrione produced ocular (ocular
discharge and corneal abnormalities and
lesions), kidney (increased organ
weights), and liver effects (increased
organ weights and hepatocyte fat
vacuolation), which are consistent with
the mammalian toxicity profile for
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase
(HPPD) inhibitors caused by high
tyrosine levels in the blood. Bodyweight decrements and decreased food
consumption were also noted in mice
and rats in multiple studies. Even
though the rat was found to be the most
sensitive species for these effects, the
mouse was identified as a more
appropriate model for assessing human
risk due to similar activity in mice and
humans of an enzyme involved in
tyrosine catabolism. There was evidence
of increased quantitative susceptibility
of rats and mice in the developmental
and reproduction toxicity studies.
Offspring effects in the developmental
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
toxicity studies were evidenced by
delayed ossification and ancillary ribs
and vertebrae at doses below or in the
absence of maternal toxicity in both
species. In the reproduction toxicity
studies, tyrosinemia and ocular
discharge were observed in offspring at
doses below those for parental toxicity,
which was evidenced by increased
organ weights (liver in the rat and
kidney in the mouse) and tyrosinemia.
Mesotrione was classified as having
low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal,
and inhalation routes (Toxicity
Categories III or IV). It is classified as a
mild eye irritant, but it is not a dermal
sensitizer or dermal irritant.
There was no evidence of
neurotoxicity, mutagenicity,
carcinogenic potential, or
immunotoxicity in relevant studies.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by mesotrione 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 titled,
‘‘Mesotrione. Human Health Risk
Assessment in Support of the Section 3
Request for Use of Mesotrione on Pome
Fruit, Stone Fruit, Citrus, and Tree
Nuts’’, on page 26–29 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0303.
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
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for mesotrione used for
30627
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR MESOTRIONE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (all populations) ..
Not applicable ..........
Not applicable ..........
No adverse effects attributable to a single dose were observed.
As a result, no hazard was identified and an endpoint was
not selected.
Chronic dietary (all populations)
LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x
Chronic RfD = 0.007
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.007 mg/
kg/day.
Reproduction study (mouse)
LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on tyrosinemia and
ocular discharge. NOAEL not established.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to
30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x
LOC for MOE = 300
Reproduction study (mouse)
LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on tyrosinemia and
ocular discharge. NOAEL not established.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30
days), intermediate-term (1 to
six months), and long-term
(>6 months).
LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x
LOC for MOE = 300
Reproduction study (mouse)
LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on tyrosinemia and
ocular discharge. NOAEL not established.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days), intermediate-term (1 to
6 months), and long-term (>6
months).
LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x
LOC for MOE = 300
Reproduction study (mouse)
LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on tyrosinemia and
ocular discharge. NOAEL not established.
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’ based upon lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats
and mice.
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). UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to mesotrione, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
mesotrione tolerances in 40 CFR
180.571. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from mesotrione in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure.
No such effects were identified in the
toxicological studies for mesotrione;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 May 28, 2015
Jkt 235001
from the USDA National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America 2003–2008. The chronic
analysis assumed 100% crop treated
(CT), Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model (DEEM 7.81) default processing
factors, and tolerance-level residues for
all foods. Drinking water was
incorporated directly into the dietary
assessment using the groundwater
concentration and the PRZM–GW
model. The chronic dietary risk
assessment shows that the chronic
dietary risk estimates are not of concern
(i.e., <100% chronic populationadjusted dose (cPAD)). The chronic
dietary risk estimate for the highest
exposed population subgroup, all
infants (<1 year old), is 17% of the
cPAD.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that mesotrione does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for mesotrione. Tolerance level residues
and/or 100% CT were assumed for all
food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for mesotrione in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of mesotrione.
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) for surface
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
30628
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
water and with Screening Concentration
in Ground Water (SCI–GROW) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM GW) for ground water, the
estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of mesiotrione for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 5.1 ppb (1—10 year
average) and 2.2 (30-year average) for
surface water and 18.4 ppb for ground
water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model.
For chronic dietary risk assessment,
the water concentration of value 18.4
ppb was used to assess the contribution
to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Mesotrione is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Golf course turf,
home lawns, and recreational turf. Both
liquid and granular formulations are
registered, resulting in potential
residential handler (dermal and
inhalation) and post-application (dermal
and incidental oral) exposures.
Residential handler (dermal plus
inhalation) exposures were assessed for
adults using various handheld
equipment. Post-application dermal
exposure was assessed for adults, as
well as children 11 to <16 years old,
children 6 to <11 years old, and
children 1 to <2 years old performing
various activities on turf. For children 1
to <2 years old, incidental oral (hand-tomouth) post-application exposure was
also assessed. These uses were assessed
using the revised 2012 Residential
Standard Operating Procedures. Further
information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/
science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
There are marked differences among
species in the ocular toxicity associated
with inhibition of HPPD. Ocular effects
following treatment with HPPD
inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 May 28, 2015
Jkt 235001
but not in the mouse. Monkeys also
seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular
toxicity induced by HPPD inhibition.
One explanation for this species-specific
response in ocular opacity may be
related to species differences in the
clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic
pathway exists to remove tyrosine from
the blood that involves the liver enzyme
TAT. In contrast to rats where ocular
toxicity is observed following exposure
to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, mice and
humans are unlikely to achieve the
levels of plasma tyrosine necessary to
produce ocular opacities because the
activity of TAT in these species is much
greater compared to rats.
HPPD inhibitors (e.g., nitisinone) are
used as an effective therapeutic agent to
treat patients suffering from rare genetic
diseases of tyrosine catabolism.
Treatment starts in childhood but is
often sustained throughout patient’s
lifetime. The human experience
indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/
kg/day dose) of nitisinone has an
excellent safety record in infants,
children, and adults and that serious
adverse health outcomes have not been
observed in a population followed for
approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular
effects are seen in patients with high
plasma tyrosine levels; however, these
effects are transient and can be readily
reversed upon adherence to a restricted
protein diet. This observation indicates
that an HPPD inhibitor in it and of itself
cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosineclearance mechanism in humans.
Therefore, exposures to
environmental residues of HPPDinhibiting herbicides are unlikely to
result in the high blood levels of
tyrosine and ocular toxicity in humans
due to an efficient metabolic process to
handle excess tyrosine. The Agency
continues to study the complex
relationships between elevated tyrosine
levels and biological effects in various
species. In the future, assessments of
HPPD-inhibiting herbicides may
consider more appropriate models and
cross species extrapolation methods.
Therefore, EPA has not conducted
cumulative risk assessment with other
HPPD inhibitors.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 was evidence of increased
quantitative susceptibility of rats and
mice in the developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies. Offspring
effects in the developmental toxicity
studies were evidenced by delayed
ossification and ancillary ribs and
vertebrae at doses below or in the
absence of maternal toxicity in both
species. In the reproduction toxicity
studies, tyrosinemia and ocular
discharge were observed in offspring at
doses below those for parental toxicity,
which was evidenced by increased
organ weights (liver in the rat and
kidney in the mouse) and tyrosinemia.
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 3x for use of a LOAEL
from the reproduction toxicity study.
That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for mesotrione
is adequate for FQPA assessment.
ii. There is no indication that
mesotrione is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to
account for neurotoxicity.
iii. The ocular discharge seen in the
reproduction toxicity study in mice
provided a highly conservative
endpoint. The LOAEL for this study is
currently the lowest dose tested. The
incidence of ocular discharge lacked a
clear dose response, but an effect was
evident at the highest dose tested
indicating that the choice of LOAEL in
this study may also be conservative.
iv. There is low concern for
susceptibility seen in the developmental
and reproduction toxicity studies
because the doses and endpoints
selected are protective of effects seen in
these studies. The doses and endpoints
are also protective of developmental
effects observed in the rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies.
v. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% CT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to mesotrione in
drinking water. The residential
exposure assessments are based upon
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
the Residential SOPs, which are based
upon reasonable worst-case
assumptions. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by mesotrione.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, mesotrione is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to mesotrione
from food and water will utilize 17% of
the cPAD for infants (<1 year old) the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Chronic aggregate risk
consists only of food and water and
does not include residential postapplication exposure. Chronic
residential exposure is not expected
based on the residential use pattern of
mesotrione.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.
The short- and intermediate-term
toxicological PODs for mesotrione are
the same for each route of exposure.
Therefore, for residential exposure
scenarios, only short-term exposures
were assessed, and are considered to be
protective of intermediate-term
exposure and risk.
Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate risk is made up of dietary and
non-dietary sources of exposure. Since
mesotrione has residential uses on turf,
including golf courses, commercial, and
residential sites, handler and postapplication residential exposure is
expected. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate risk is made up of average
dietary exposures from food and
drinking water sources, dermal,
inhalation and oral (children only)
residential exposures.
Dietary (food + drinking water)
exposure estimates are based on a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:17 May 28, 2015
Jkt 235001
conservative, unrefined chronic dietary
exposure assessment. Residential
exposure estimates are conservative
estimates due to the standard
assumptions that were built into the
calculations. For adults, dermal plus
inhalation exposures from handler
activities were factored into the
aggregate risk calculations. For children
(6 to <11 years old) and children (11 to
<16 years old, post-application dermal
exposure from activities on treated turf
were factored into the aggregate risk
calculations. For children (1 to <2 years
old), both dermal and incidental oral
exposures were factored into the shortand intermediate-term aggregate risk
calculations as incidental oral exposure
is possible for this population. All shortand intermediate-term aggregate MOEs
are not of concern (children 1 to <2
years, MOE = 1,400; children 6 to <11
years, MOE = 4,500; children 11 to <16
years, MOE = 5,800; and adults, MOE =
3,200).
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. An aggregate cancer risk
was not calculated because mesotrione
was classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans’’.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to mesotrione
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(high-performance liquid
chromatography method with
fluorescence detection) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
30629
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL
for mesotrione.
C. Response to Comments
On September 2, 2014, EPA published
a notice of filing in the Federal Register
and two comments were received. The
commenters noted that pesticides and
mesotrione pose a risk to pollinators
and human health. The Agency has
determined that mesotrione poses no
acute contact risk to adult honey bees
and there are no risk estimates of
concern for human health.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The petitioned-for tolerance
commodity definition for citrus, pome
fruit, stone fruit, and tree nuts are being
revised to conform with EPA preferred
terms. In addition, based on the method
LOQ of 0.01 ppm, EPA is revising the
petitioned-for tolerance in/on almond
hull of 0.02 ppm rather than 0.015 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues mesotrione in or on
almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus,
group 10–10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11–10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12–12 at 0.01 ppm; and nut, tree,
group 14–12 at 0.01 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
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
30630
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Lhorne on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14:17 May 28, 2015
Jkt 235001
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
[MB Docket No. 15–98; RM–11748; DA 15–
621]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.571, add in alphabetical
order entries for ‘‘Almond, hulls’’,
‘‘Fruit, citrus, group 10–10’’, ‘‘Fruit,
pome, group 11–10’’, ‘‘Fruit, stone,
group 12–12’’, and ‘‘Nut, tree, group
14–12’’ to the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.571 Mesotrione; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
Almond, hulls ............................
0.02
*
*
*
*
Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 .........
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 .........
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .........
*
0.01
0.01
0.01
*
*
*
*
Nut, tree, group 14–12 .............
*
0.01
*
*
*
47 CFR Part 73
Television Broadcasting Services;
Providence, Rhode Island
PART 180—[AMENDED]
*
*
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Commission has before it
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued
in response to a petition for rulemaking
filed by WJAR Licensee, LLC (the
Licensee), the licensee of WJAR(TV),
channel 51, Providence, Rhode Island,
requesting the substitution of channel
50 for channel 51 at Providence. The
licensee filed comments reaffirming its
interest in the proposed channel
substitution and stated that if the
proposal is granted, it will promptly file
an application for the facilities specified
in its rulemaking petition and construct
the station. The licensee asserts that
adopting the proposed channel
substitution would serve the public
interest because it would remove any
potential interference with a wireless
licensee in the Lower 700 MHz A Block
located adjacent to channel 51 in
Providence, Rhode Island-New Bedford,
Massachusetts and Boston,
Massachusetts television markets.
DATES: This rule is effective May 29,
2015.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–12938 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Dated: May 18, 2015.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
46 CFR Part 56
Piping Systems and Appurtenances
CFR Correction
In Title 46 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 41 to 69, revised as of
October 1, 2014, on page 229, in
§ 56.70–15, the heading for paragraph
(b) is reinstated before paragraph (1) to
read: ‘‘(b) Girth butt welds.’’
■
[FR Doc. 2015–13052 Filed 5–28–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Jeremy Miller, Jeremy.Miller@fcc.gov,
Media Bureau, (202) 418–1507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 15–98,
adopted May 22, 2015, and released
May 22, 2015. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS (https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
This document does not contain
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30625-30630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303; FRL-9927-75]
Mesotrione; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
mesotrione in or on almond, hulls, fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit,
pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; and nut, tree, group 14-
12. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May 29, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 28, 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-2014-0303, 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:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
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-2014-0303 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
July 28, 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-2014-0303, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online
[[Page 30626]]
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 September 2, 2014 (79 FR 44729) (FRL-
9911-67), 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
4F8240) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.571 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, mesotrione, in
or on citrus fruit, crop group 10-10 at 0.01 parts per million (ppm);
pome fruit, crop group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; stone fruit, crop group 12-12
at 0.01 ppm; tree nuts, crop group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; and almond hulls
at 0.015 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received in response to the notice of filing. EPA's response to these
comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerance for residues of mesotrione in or on fruit,
citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm;
fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01
ppm; and almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm. The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for mesotrione including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with mesotrione 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.
In subchronic and chronic oral studies in the rat, mouse, and dog,
mesotrione produced ocular (ocular discharge and corneal abnormalities
and lesions), kidney (increased organ weights), and liver effects
(increased organ weights and hepatocyte fat vacuolation), which are
consistent with the mammalian toxicity profile for
hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitors caused by high
tyrosine levels in the blood. Body-weight decrements and decreased food
consumption were also noted in mice and rats in multiple studies. Even
though the rat was found to be the most sensitive species for these
effects, the mouse was identified as a more appropriate model for
assessing human risk due to similar activity in mice and humans of an
enzyme involved in tyrosine catabolism. There was evidence of increased
quantitative susceptibility of rats and mice in the developmental and
reproduction toxicity studies. Offspring effects in the developmental
toxicity studies were evidenced by delayed ossification and ancillary
ribs and vertebrae at doses below or in the absence of maternal
toxicity in both species. In the reproduction toxicity studies,
tyrosinemia and ocular discharge were observed in offspring at doses
below those for parental toxicity, which was evidenced by increased
organ weights (liver in the rat and kidney in the mouse) and
tyrosinemia.
Mesotrione was classified as having low acute toxicity via the
oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (Toxicity Categories III or IV). It
is classified as a mild eye irritant, but it is not a dermal sensitizer
or dermal irritant.
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenic
potential, or immunotoxicity in relevant studies. Specific information
on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
mesotrione 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 titled,
``Mesotrione. Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of the Section 3
Request for Use of Mesotrione on Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, Citrus, and
Tree Nuts'', on page 26-29 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303.
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
[[Page 30627]]
complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mesotrione used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Mesotrione 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 (all populations).. Not applicable...... Not applicable..... No adverse effects attributable to
a single dose were observed. As a
result, no hazard was identified
and an endpoint was not selected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations) LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.007 Reproduction study (mouse)
day. mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F)
UFA = 10x........... cPAD = 0.007 mg/kg/ based on tyrosinemia and ocular
UFH = 10x........... day.. discharge. NOAEL not established.
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 300.. Reproduction study (mouse)
30 days) and intermediate-term day. LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F)
(1 to 6 months). UFA = 10x........... based on tyrosinemia and ocular
UFH = 10x........... discharge. NOAEL not established.
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days), LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 300.. Reproduction study (mouse)
intermediate-term (1 to six day. LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F)
months), and long-term (>6 UFA = 10x........... based on tyrosinemia and ocular
months). UFH = 10x........... discharge. NOAEL not established.
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 LOAEL = 2.1 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 300.. Reproduction study (mouse)
days), intermediate-term (1 to 6 day. LOAEL = 2.1/2.4 mg/kg/day (M/F)
months), and long-term (>6 UFA = 10x........... based on tyrosinemia and ocular
months). UFH = 10x........... discharge. NOAEL not established.
FQPA SF/UFL = 3x....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' based upon lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
(interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to mesotrione, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing mesotrione tolerances in 40 CFR
180.571. EPA assessed dietary exposures from mesotrione in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
mesotrione; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America 2003-
2008. The chronic analysis assumed 100% crop treated (CT), Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM 7.81) default processing factors, and
tolerance-level residues for all foods. Drinking water was incorporated
directly into the dietary assessment using the groundwater
concentration and the PRZM-GW model. The chronic dietary risk
assessment shows that the chronic dietary risk estimates are not of
concern (i.e., <100% chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD)). The
chronic dietary risk estimate for the highest exposed population
subgroup, all infants (<1 year old), is 17% of the cPAD.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that mesotrione 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 percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for mesotrione. Tolerance level residues and/or 100%
CT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for mesotrione in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of mesotrione. 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) for surface
[[Page 30628]]
water and with Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) for ground water, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mesiotrione for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.1
ppb (1--10 year average) and 2.2 (30-year average) for surface water
and 18.4 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 18.4 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).
Mesotrione is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Golf course turf, home lawns,
and recreational turf. Both liquid and granular formulations are
registered, resulting in potential residential handler (dermal and
inhalation) and post-application (dermal and incidental oral)
exposures. Residential handler (dermal plus inhalation) exposures were
assessed for adults using various handheld equipment. Post-application
dermal exposure was assessed for adults, as well as children 11 to <16
years old, children 6 to <11 years old, and children 1 to <2 years old
performing various activities on turf. For children 1 to <2 years old,
incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) post-application exposure was also
assessed. These uses were assessed using the revised 2012 Residential
Standard Operating Procedures. Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may
be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
There are marked differences among species in the ocular toxicity
associated with inhibition of HPPD. Ocular effects following treatment
with HPPD inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat but not in the
mouse. Monkeys also seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular toxicity
induced by HPPD inhibition. One explanation for this species-specific
response in ocular opacity may be related to species differences in the
clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic pathway exists to remove tyrosine
from the blood that involves the liver enzyme TAT. In contrast to rats
where ocular toxicity is observed following exposure to HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides, mice and humans are unlikely to achieve the levels of
plasma tyrosine necessary to produce ocular opacities because the
activity of TAT in these species is much greater compared to rats.
HPPD inhibitors (e.g., nitisinone) are used as an effective
therapeutic agent to treat patients suffering from rare genetic
diseases of tyrosine catabolism. Treatment starts in childhood but is
often sustained throughout patient's lifetime. The human experience
indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/kg/day dose) of nitisinone has
an excellent safety record in infants, children, and adults and that
serious adverse health outcomes have not been observed in a population
followed for approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular effects are seen in
patients with high plasma tyrosine levels; however, these effects are
transient and can be readily reversed upon adherence to a restricted
protein diet. This observation indicates that an HPPD inhibitor in it
and of itself cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosine-clearance mechanism
in humans.
Therefore, exposures to environmental residues of HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides are unlikely to result in the high blood levels of tyrosine
and ocular toxicity in humans due to an efficient metabolic process to
handle excess tyrosine. The Agency continues to study the complex
relationships between elevated tyrosine levels and biological effects
in various species. In the future, assessments of HPPD-inhibiting
herbicides may consider more appropriate models and cross species
extrapolation methods. Therefore, EPA has not conducted cumulative risk
assessment with other HPPD inhibitors.
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 was evidence of
increased quantitative susceptibility of rats and mice in the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies. Offspring effects in
the developmental toxicity studies were evidenced by delayed
ossification and ancillary ribs and vertebrae at doses below or in the
absence of maternal toxicity in both species. In the reproduction
toxicity studies, tyrosinemia and ocular discharge were observed in
offspring at doses below those for parental toxicity, which was
evidenced by increased organ weights (liver in the rat and kidney in
the mouse) and tyrosinemia.
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 3x for use of a LOAEL from the reproduction
toxicity study. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for mesotrione is adequate for FQPA
assessment.
ii. There is no indication that mesotrione is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. The ocular discharge seen in the reproduction toxicity study
in mice provided a highly conservative endpoint. The LOAEL for this
study is currently the lowest dose tested. The incidence of ocular
discharge lacked a clear dose response, but an effect was evident at
the highest dose tested indicating that the choice of LOAEL in this
study may also be conservative.
iv. There is low concern for susceptibility seen in the
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies because the doses and
endpoints selected are protective of effects seen in these studies. The
doses and endpoints are also protective of developmental effects
observed in the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies.
v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to mesotrione in drinking water. The residential
exposure assessments are based upon
[[Page 30629]]
the Residential SOPs, which are based upon reasonable worst-case
assumptions. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by mesotrione.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
mesotrione is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
mesotrione from food and water will utilize 17% of the cPAD for infants
(<1 year old) the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Chronic aggregate risk consists only of food and water and does not
include residential post-application exposure. Chronic residential
exposure is not expected based on the residential use pattern of
mesotrione.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. The short- and intermediate-
term toxicological PODs for mesotrione are the same for each route of
exposure. Therefore, for residential exposure scenarios, only short-
term exposures were assessed, and are considered to be protective of
intermediate-term exposure and risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is made up of dietary
and non-dietary sources of exposure. Since mesotrione has residential
uses on turf, including golf courses, commercial, and residential
sites, handler and post-application residential exposure is expected.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk is made up of average
dietary exposures from food and drinking water sources, dermal,
inhalation and oral (children only) residential exposures.
Dietary (food + drinking water) exposure estimates are based on a
conservative, unrefined chronic dietary exposure assessment.
Residential exposure estimates are conservative estimates due to the
standard assumptions that were built into the calculations. For adults,
dermal plus inhalation exposures from handler activities were factored
into the aggregate risk calculations. For children (6 to <11 years old)
and children (11 to <16 years old, post-application dermal exposure
from activities on treated turf were factored into the aggregate risk
calculations. For children (1 to <2 years old), both dermal and
incidental oral exposures were factored into the short-and
intermediate-term aggregate risk calculations as incidental oral
exposure is possible for this population. All short-and intermediate-
term aggregate MOEs are not of concern (children 1 to <2 years, MOE =
1,400; children 6 to <11 years, MOE = 4,500; children 11 to <16 years,
MOE = 5,800; and adults, MOE = 3,200).
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. An aggregate cancer
risk was not calculated because mesotrione was classified as ``not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans''.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to mesotrione residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography method with fluorescence detection) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for mesotrione.
C. Response to Comments
On September 2, 2014, EPA published a notice of filing in the
Federal Register and two comments were received. The commenters noted
that pesticides and mesotrione pose a risk to pollinators and human
health. The Agency has determined that mesotrione poses no acute
contact risk to adult honey bees and there are no risk estimates of
concern for human health.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The petitioned-for tolerance commodity definition for citrus, pome
fruit, stone fruit, and tree nuts are being revised to conform with EPA
preferred terms. In addition, based on the method LOQ of 0.01 ppm, EPA
is revising the petitioned-for tolerance in/on almond hull of 0.02 ppm
rather than 0.015 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues mesotrione in or
on almond, hulls at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm;
fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01
ppm; and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 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
[[Page 30630]]
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).
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: May 18, 2015.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.571, add in alphabetical order entries for ``Almond,
hulls'', ``Fruit, citrus, group 10-10'', ``Fruit, pome, group 11-10'',
``Fruit, stone, group 12-12'', and ``Nut, tree, group 14-12'' to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.571 Mesotrione; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls.............................................. 0.02
* * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10................................. 0.01
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................... 0.01
Fruit, stone, group 12-12.................................. 0.01
* * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................... 0.01
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-12938 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P