Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances, 48743-48749 [2015-20019]
Download as PDF
48743
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 3, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52— APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding entries in
alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS’’ and ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.770
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Title
Indiana date
*
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
*
EPA Approval
Explanation
1/15/2013
*
*
8/14/2015, [insert Federal
Register citation].
5/22/2013
8/14/2015, [insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
*
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) except visibility,
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and
(M).
This action addresses the following CAA elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M).
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.1891 is amended by
revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
40 CFR Part 180
DATES:
§ 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements.
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0496; FRL–9931–06]
*
Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
*
*
*
*
(h) Approval—In a June 7, 2013,
submittal, Ohio certified that the State
has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are not finalizing
action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—
Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 or
visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J).
[FR Doc. 2015–20020 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in
or on carrots, the stone fruit group 12–
12, and the rapeseed subgroup 20A,
except flax seed. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested the
tolerances for carrots and the stone fruit
group 12–12, and Syngenta Crop
Protection requested the tolerance for
the rapeseed subgroup 20A under the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This regulation is effective
August 14, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before October 13, 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–2014–0496, 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
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
48744
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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 Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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–2014–0496 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 October 13, 2015. Addresses for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
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–
2014–0496, 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 December
17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL–9918–90),
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 4E8272) 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 fludioxonil [4(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1Hpyrrole-3-carbonitrile] in or on the raw
agricultural commodity carrot at 7.0
ppm, and by changing the existing entry
for ‘‘fruit, stone, group 12 at 5.0 ppm’’
to ‘‘fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 5.0
ppm.’’ That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov.
In the Federal Register of October 24,
2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL–9916–03),
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 4F8277) by
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410
Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27419. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil
in or on the rapeseed subgroup 20A,
except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received on the
notice of filing. EPA’s response to these
comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
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 fludioxonil
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with fludioxonil 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.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
In all species tested, the effects in the
fludioxonil database are indicative of
toxicity to the liver and kidney. The
hematopoietic system was also a target
in dogs. There were also decreased body
weights and clinical signs throughout
the database. Fludioxonil was non-toxic
through the dermal route, and there was
no evidence of immunotoxicity when
tested up to and including the limit
dose. Fludioxonil was not mutagenic in
the tests for gene mutations.
In a rat developmental toxicity study,
fludioxonil caused an increase in fetal
incidence and litter incidence of dilated
renal pelvis at the limit dose (1,000 mg/
kg/day). These effects are known to
occur spontaneously in the rat, in
addition to being transient and
reversible which is consistent with the
fludioxonil hazard database (not seen in
offspring in the 2-generation
reproductive study). Under current
policy, the agency considers
classification of these effects as
treatment-related but conservative and
not indicative of increased fetal
susceptibility. Maternal toxicity
occurred at the same dose and
manifested as body weight decrements.
In the 2-generation reproduction study,
parental and offspring effects occurred
at the same dose and consisted of
decreased body weights in parental and
offspring animals, as well as increased
clinical signs in parental animals.
There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in male or female CD–1
mice and male Sprague-Dawley rats
following dietary administration at
doses that were adequate for assessing
the carcinogenic potential of
fludioxonil. In female Sprague-Dawley
rats, there was a statistically significant
increase in tumor incidence only when
hepatocellular adenomas and
carcinomas were combined (not for
individual tumor types). The pairwise
increase for combined tumors was
significant at p=0.03, which is not a
strong indication of a positive effect.
Further, statistical significance was only
found when liver adenomas were
combined with liver carcinomas.
Finally, the increase in these tumors
was within, but at the high-end, of the
historical controls. Based on these
findings and in accordance with the
Agency’s 1986 ‘‘Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment,’’
fludioxonil was classified as a Group D
carcinogen; therefore, there is no need
for a quantitative cancer risk
assessment.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by fludioxonil 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 the document
titled ‘‘Fludioxonil. Section 3
Registration for Use on Carrots, Stone
Fruit, Group 12–12, and Rapeseed,
Subgroup 20A. Human Health Risk
Assessment’’ at page 28 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0496.
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
48745
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 fludioxonil used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit. Since the last
assessment in 2012, (August 15, 2012)
(77 FR 48907) (FRL–9357–5), the
Agency has reevaluated the
toxicological endpoints. Based upon
current policy, it was determined that
an acute dietary assessment was no
longer necessary for fludioxonil. This
decision was based upon the following
weight of evidence: (1) After reevaluation of the hazard database, it was
determined that there were no effects
that could be attributed to single dose
and (2) the fetal effects in the
developmental rat study occurred only
at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day).
Additionally, though the same study is
being used to assess chronic dietary
risk, the NOAEL and LOAEL have been
reclassified. Further, the remaining
endpoints for short-term incidental oral
toxicity and short-term inhalation
toxicity have changed as well.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUDIOXONIL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) observed in available oral
toxicity studies, including maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies. Therefore, a dose and endpoint were not identified for this risk assessment.
Chronic dietary (All populations).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (General population including infants
and children).
NOAEL= 33.1 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x .........................
FQPA SF = 1x
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Chronic RfD = 0.33 mg/kg/
day.
cPAD = 0.33 mg/kg/day ....
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Chronic toxicity in dogs—
LOAEL = 297.8 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights, increased platelets and fibrin in
both sexes, cholesterol in males, and increased alkaline phosphatase release in both sexes. Enlarged
livers in two females were observed along with biliary epithelial cell proliferation in one female.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
48746
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUDIOXONIL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Subchronic toxicity in dogs—
LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights in both sexes, diarrhea,
hematological alterations (increased platelets and
fibrin, decreased red cells, hemoglobin, and packed
cell volume), clinical chemistry alterations (increased
alpha-1 and alpha-2 globulin in females), increased
liver weights in both sexes, increased testes and
ovary weights, and an increased severity (but not incidence) of bile duct proliferation.
Subchronic toxicity in dogs—
LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights in both sexes, diarrhea,
hematological alterations (increased platelets and
fibrin, decreased red cells, hemoglobin, and packed
cell volume), clinical chemistry alterations (increased
alpha-1 and alpha-2 globulin in females), increased
liver weights in both sexes, increased testes and
ovary weights, and an increased severity (but not incidence) of bile duct proliferation.
Incidental oral short-term (1
to 30 days).
NOAEL= 50 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100 ..........
Inhalation short-term (1 to
30 days).
Oral study NOAEL= 50
mg/kg/day (inhalation
absorption rate = 100%).
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100 ..........
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classified as a Group D carcinogen; no cancer assessment is necessary.
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).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fludioxonil, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
fludioxonil tolerances in 40 CFR
180.516. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil;
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 U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
an unrefined chronic dietary exposure
and risk assessment was performed
assuming tolerance-level residues, 100
percent crop treated (PCT) estimates,
and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing
factors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
classified fludioxonil as a group D
carcinogen. Therefore, a dietary
exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for
fludioxonil. Tolerance-level residues
and 100 PCT 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 fludioxonil in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of fludioxonil.
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 Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–
GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fludioxonil for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 38.5 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.2 ppb for
ground water.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For the
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration of value 38.5 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).
Fludioxonil is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: parks, golf
courses, athletic fields, residential
lawns, ornamentals, and greenhouses.
To assess residential handler exposure,
the Agency used the short-term
inhalation exposure to adults from
mixing/loading/applying a wettable
powder in water-soluble packaging with
hose end sprayer (both for turf and
gardens). To assess post-application
exposure, the Agency used short-term
incidental oral exposures (hand-tomouth) to children 1<2 years old from
exposure to outdoor 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.
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found fludioxonil to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
fludioxonil does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that fludioxonil does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There was no quantitative or qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility
following in utero exposure to rats and
rabbits or following pre-/postnatal
exposure. In a rat developmental
toxicity study, fludioxonil caused an
increase in fetal incidence and litter
incidence of dilated renal pelvis at the
limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Maternal
toxicity occurred at the same dose and
manifested as body weight decrements.
Fludioxonil was not developmentally
toxic in rabbits. In the 2-generation
reproduction study, parental and
offspring effects occurred at the same
dose and consisted of decreased body
weights in parental and offspring
animals, as well as increased clinical
signs in parental animals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 fludioxonil
is complete.
ii. The only potential indicator of
neurotoxicity for fludioxonil was
convulsions in mice following handling
in the mouse carcinogenicity study at
the mid- and high-doses. The concern is
low however since there was no
supportive neuropathology, the effect
was not seen at similar doses in a
second mouse carcinogenicity study,
there were no other signs of potential
neurotoxicity observed in the database,
and selected endpoints are protective of
the effect seen in mice. Therefore, there
is no residual uncertainty concerning
neurotoxicity and no need to retain the
FQPA 10X safety factor.
iii. There is no evidence that
fludioxonil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100 PCT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to fludioxonil in
drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well
as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by fludioxonil.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48747
selected. Therefore, fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil
from food and water will utilize 71% 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 fludioxonil 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).
Fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil.
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 81,000 for adults and 4,800 for
children 1–2 years old. Because EPA’s
level of concern for fludioxonil 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).
An intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified; however, fludioxonil is
not registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term
residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to
assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term
risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fludioxonil.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the discussion
contained in Unit III.A., fludioxonil 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
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
48748
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to fludioxonil
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate high-performance liquid
chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV)
methods (Methods AG–597 and AG–
597B) are available for enforcing
tolerances for fludioxonil on plant
commodities. An adequate liquid
chromatography, tandem mass
spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) method
(Analytical Method GRM025.03A) is
available for enforcing tolerances for
residues of fludioxonil in or on
livestock commodities.
The methods may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905;
email address: residuemethods@
epa.gov.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD 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 has established MRLs for
fludioxonil in or on multiple stone fruit
commodities (peaches, apricots, etc.) at
5.0 ppm. These MRLs are the same as
the tolerances established for
fludioxonil in the United States.
The Codex has established an MRL for
fludioxonil in or on carrot roots at 0.7
ppm. This MRL is different than the
tolerance established for fludioxonil in
the United States because it is based on
a foliar use, whereas the U.S. use is
based on a post-harvest use.
Harmonization with the Codex MRL is
likely to result in tolerance exceedances
when fludioxonil is applied to carrots in
accordance with the label.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
The Codex has established an MRL for
fludioxonil in or on rape seed at 0.02
ppm. This MRL is different than the
0.01 ppm tolerance established for
fludioxonil on the rapeseed subgroup
20A in the U.S., which is aligned with
the existing Canadian MRL on rapeseed.
In their petition, Syngenta requested to
remain aligned with Canada at 0.01 ppm
for rapeseed in order to prevent NAFTA
trade barriers.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received in
response to the Notice of Filing
regarding adverse impacts to bees but
did not reference any specific active
ingredient. The commenters by and
large stated this action should be denied
due to toxicity to bees and that all use
of chemicals should be stopped. The
comments primarily appear directed to
the registration of the pesticide under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One comment
referenced the establishment of a
tolerance for an unnamed Syngenta
pesticide, so to the extent that comment
is directed at the present tolerance
action, the Agency understands the
commenters’ concerns and recognizes
that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned on
agricultural crops. However, the existing
legal framework provided by section
408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that
tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions
have demonstrated that the pesticide
meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute. The comment appears to be
directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA’s implementation of it; no
contentions have been made that EPA
has acted in violation of the statutory
framework. As to bees the EPA
considers impacts to the environment
and non-target species under the
authority of the (FIFRA).
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of fludioxonil, (4-(2,2difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1 Hpyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on carrots
at 7.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12–12 at
5.0 ppm; and the rapeseed subgroup
20A, except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. In
addition, upon establishment of these
tolerances, the existing tolerance for
rapeseed, seed is removed as
unnecessary since it is part of the
rapeseed subgroup 20A.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 tolerances in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This 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
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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).
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
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
Acetic Acid; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:18 Aug 13, 2015
Jkt 235001
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0793; FRL–9930–20]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
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?
40 CFR Part 180
This regulation amends the
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of acetic acid
(CAS Reg. No. 64–19–7) when used as
an inert ingredient in antimicrobial
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
pesticide formulations used on dairy
amended as follows:
and food-processing equipment and
utensils, to allow for a limitation of
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1200 ppm. Technology Sciences Group,
Inc. on behalf of West Agro, Inc.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
submitted a petition to EPA under the
continues to read as follows:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(FFDCA), requesting an amendment to
■ 2. In § 180.516:
the existing exemption from the
■ a. Remove the entry in the table in
requirement of a tolerance. This
paragraph (a) for ‘‘Rapeseed, seed’’.
regulation eliminates the need to
■ b. Add alphabetically the entries for
establish a maximum permissible level
‘‘Carrots’’ and ‘‘Rapeseed subgroup 20A,
for residues of acetic acid.
except flax seed’’ to the table in
DATES: This regulation is effective
paragraph (a).
August 14, 2015. Objections and
■ c. Revise the entry for ‘‘Fruit, stone,
requests for hearings must be received
group 12’’ to read ‘‘Fruit, stone, group
on or before October 13, 2015, and must
12–12’’ in the table in paragraph (a).
be filed in accordance with the
The additions and revisions read as
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
follows:
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
§ 180.516 Fludioxonil; tolerances for
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
residues.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
(a) * * *
identified by docket identification (ID)
(1) * * *
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0793, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
Parts per
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Commodity
million
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
*
*
*
*
*
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Carrots ..................................
7.0 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
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .....
5.0
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
Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed ....................
0.01 the visitor instructions and additional
Dated: August 6, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
[FR Doc. 2015–20019 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am]
48749
Sfmt 4700
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 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2014–0793 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 October 13, 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
E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM
14AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 157 (Friday, August 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48743-48749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20019]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496; FRL-9931-06]
Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fludioxonil in or on carrots, the stone fruit group 12-12, and the
rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerances for carrots and the stone
fruit group 12-12, and Syngenta Crop Protection requested the tolerance
for the rapeseed subgroup 20A under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective August 14, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 13, 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-2014-0496, 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
[[Page 48744]]
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
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496 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
October 13, 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-2014-0496, 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 December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), 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
4E8272) 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 fludioxonil [4-
(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile] in or on
the raw agricultural commodity carrot at 7.0 ppm, and by changing the
existing entry for ``fruit, stone, group 12 at 5.0 ppm'' to ``fruit,
stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm.'' That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-
9916-03), 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
4F8277) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC
27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil in or
on the rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to
these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
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 fludioxonil including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fludioxonil 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.
[[Page 48745]]
In all species tested, the effects in the fludioxonil database are
indicative of toxicity to the liver and kidney. The hematopoietic
system was also a target in dogs. There were also decreased body
weights and clinical signs throughout the database. Fludioxonil was
non-toxic through the dermal route, and there was no evidence of
immunotoxicity when tested up to and including the limit dose.
Fludioxonil was not mutagenic in the tests for gene mutations.
In a rat developmental toxicity study, fludioxonil caused an
increase in fetal incidence and litter incidence of dilated renal
pelvis at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). These effects are known to
occur spontaneously in the rat, in addition to being transient and
reversible which is consistent with the fludioxonil hazard database
(not seen in offspring in the 2-generation reproductive study). Under
current policy, the agency considers classification of these effects as
treatment-related but conservative and not indicative of increased
fetal susceptibility. Maternal toxicity occurred at the same dose and
manifested as body weight decrements. In the 2-generation reproduction
study, parental and offspring effects occurred at the same dose and
consisted of decreased body weights in parental and offspring animals,
as well as increased clinical signs in parental animals.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male or female CD-1
mice and male Sprague-Dawley rats following dietary administration at
doses that were adequate for assessing the carcinogenic potential of
fludioxonil. In female Sprague-Dawley rats, there was a statistically
significant increase in tumor incidence only when hepatocellular
adenomas and carcinomas were combined (not for individual tumor types).
The pairwise increase for combined tumors was significant at p=0.03,
which is not a strong indication of a positive effect. Further,
statistical significance was only found when liver adenomas were
combined with liver carcinomas. Finally, the increase in these tumors
was within, but at the high-end, of the historical controls. Based on
these findings and in accordance with the Agency's 1986 ``Guidelines
for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,'' fludioxonil was classified as a Group
D carcinogen; therefore, there is no need for a quantitative cancer
risk assessment.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fludioxonil 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 the document titled ``Fludioxonil. Section 3
Registration for Use on Carrots, Stone Fruit, Group 12-12, and
Rapeseed, Subgroup 20A. Human Health Risk Assessment'' at page 28 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496.
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 fludioxonil used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. Since the last
assessment in 2012, (August 15, 2012) (77 FR 48907) (FRL-9357-5), the
Agency has reevaluated the toxicological endpoints. Based upon current
policy, it was determined that an acute dietary assessment was no
longer necessary for fludioxonil. This decision was based upon the
following weight of evidence: (1) After re-evaluation of the hazard
database, it was determined that there were no effects that could be
attributed to single dose and (2) the fetal effects in the
developmental rat study occurred only at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/
day). Additionally, though the same study is being used to assess
chronic dietary risk, the NOAEL and LOAEL have been reclassified.
Further, the remaining endpoints for short-term incidental oral
toxicity and short-term inhalation toxicity have changed as well.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fludioxonil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single
including infants and children). exposure (dose) observed in available oral toxicity studies, including
maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies. Therefore, a dose
and endpoint were not identified for this risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations).. NOAEL= 33.1 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.33 mg/ Chronic toxicity in dogs--
UFA = 10x. kg/day. LOAEL = 297.8 mg/kg/day
UFH = 10x............. cPAD = 0.33 mg/kg/day. based upon decreased
FQPA SF = 1x.......... absolute body weights,
increased platelets and
fibrin in both sexes,
cholesterol in males, and
increased alkaline
phosphatase release in
both sexes. Enlarged
livers in two females were
observed along with
biliary epithelial cell
proliferation in one
female.
[[Page 48746]]
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL= 50 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100..... Subchronic toxicity in
days). UFA = 10x. dogs--
UFH = 10x............. LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based
FQPA SF = 1x.......... upon decreased absolute
body weights in both
sexes, diarrhea,
hematological alterations
(increased platelets and
fibrin, decreased red
cells, hemoglobin, and
packed cell volume),
clinical chemistry
alterations (increased
alpha-1 and alpha-2
globulin in females),
increased liver weights in
both sexes, increased
testes and ovary weights,
and an increased severity
(but not incidence) of
bile duct proliferation.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 Oral study NOAEL= 50 LOC for MOE = 100..... Subchronic toxicity in
days). mg/kg/day (inhalation dogs--
absorption rate = LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based
100%). upon decreased absolute
UFA = 10x............. body weights in both
UFH = 10x............. sexes, diarrhea,
FQPA SF = 1x.......... hematological alterations
(increased platelets and
fibrin, decreased red
cells, hemoglobin, and
packed cell volume),
clinical chemistry
alterations (increased
alpha-1 and alpha-2
globulin in females),
increased liver weights in
both sexes, increased
testes and ovary weights,
and an increased severity
(but not incidence) of
bile duct proliferation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).. Classified as a Group D carcinogen; no cancer assessment is necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fludioxonil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fludioxonil tolerances in 40 CFR
180.516. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fludioxonil 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
fludioxonil; 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 U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, an unrefined chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment was
performed assuming tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated
(PCT) estimates, and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
classified fludioxonil as a group D carcinogen. Therefore, a dietary
exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
fludioxonil. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT 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 fludioxonil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fludioxonil. 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 Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fludioxonil for chronic exposures are estimated to be 38.5 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.2 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 38.5 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).
Fludioxonil is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: parks, golf courses, athletic
fields, residential lawns, ornamentals, and greenhouses. To assess
residential handler exposure, the Agency used the short-term inhalation
exposure to adults from mixing/loading/applying a wettable powder in
water-soluble packaging with hose end sprayer (both for turf and
gardens). To assess post-application exposure, the Agency used short-
term incidental oral exposures (hand-to-mouth) to children 1<2 years
old from exposure to outdoor 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.
[[Page 48747]]
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found fludioxonil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fludioxonil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fludioxonil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero
exposure to rats and rabbits or following pre-/postnatal exposure. In a
rat developmental toxicity study, fludioxonil caused an increase in
fetal incidence and litter incidence of dilated renal pelvis at the
limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Maternal toxicity occurred at the same
dose and manifested as body weight decrements. Fludioxonil was not
developmentally toxic in rabbits. In the 2-generation reproduction
study, parental and offspring effects occurred at the same dose and
consisted of decreased body weights in parental and offspring animals,
as well as increased clinical signs in parental animals.
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 fludioxonil is complete.
ii. The only potential indicator of neurotoxicity for fludioxonil
was convulsions in mice following handling in the mouse carcinogenicity
study at the mid- and high-doses. The concern is low however since
there was no supportive neuropathology, the effect was not seen at
similar doses in a second mouse carcinogenicity study, there were no
other signs of potential neurotoxicity observed in the database, and
selected endpoints are protective of the effect seen in mice.
Therefore, there is no residual uncertainty concerning neurotoxicity
and no need to retain the FQPA 10X safety factor.
iii. There is no evidence that fludioxonil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to fludioxonil 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
fludioxonil.
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,
fludioxonil 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
fludioxonil from food and water will utilize 71% 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
fludioxonil 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).
Fludioxonil 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 fludioxonil.
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 81,000 for adults
and 4,800 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for fludioxonil 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).
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fludioxonil is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fludioxonil.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion contained in Unit III.A., fludioxonil 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
[[Page 48748]]
no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to fludioxonil residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/
UV) methods (Methods AG-597 and AG-597B) are available for enforcing
tolerances for fludioxonil on plant commodities. An adequate liquid
chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method (Analytical
Method GRM025.03A) is available for enforcing tolerances for residues
of fludioxonil in or on livestock commodities.
The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has established MRLs for fludioxonil in or on multiple
stone fruit commodities (peaches, apricots, etc.) at 5.0 ppm. These
MRLs are the same as the tolerances established for fludioxonil in the
United States.
The Codex has established an MRL for fludioxonil in or on carrot
roots at 0.7 ppm. This MRL is different than the tolerance established
for fludioxonil in the United States because it is based on a foliar
use, whereas the U.S. use is based on a post-harvest use. Harmonization
with the Codex MRL is likely to result in tolerance exceedances when
fludioxonil is applied to carrots in accordance with the label.
The Codex has established an MRL for fludioxonil in or on rape seed
at 0.02 ppm. This MRL is different than the 0.01 ppm tolerance
established for fludioxonil on the rapeseed subgroup 20A in the U.S.,
which is aligned with the existing Canadian MRL on rapeseed. In their
petition, Syngenta requested to remain aligned with Canada at 0.01 ppm
for rapeseed in order to prevent NAFTA trade barriers.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing
regarding adverse impacts to bees but did not reference any specific
active ingredient. The commenters by and large stated this action
should be denied due to toxicity to bees and that all use of chemicals
should be stopped. The comments primarily appear directed to the
registration of the pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One comment referenced the establishment
of a tolerance for an unnamed Syngenta pesticide, so to the extent that
comment is directed at the present tolerance action, the Agency
understands the commenters' concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural
crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances
may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute. The comment appears to be directed at the underlying
statute and not EPA's implementation of it; no contentions have been
made that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework. As to
bees the EPA considers impacts to the environment and non-target
species under the authority of the (FIFRA).
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fludioxonil,
(4-(2,2- difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1 H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in
or on carrots at 7.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm; and the
rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. In addition, upon
establishment of these tolerances, the existing tolerance for rapeseed,
seed is removed as unnecessary since it is part of the rapeseed
subgroup 20A.
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 tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This 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
[[Page 48749]]
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: August 6, 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 Sec. 180.516:
0
a. Remove the entry in the table in paragraph (a) for ``Rapeseed,
seed''.
0
b. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Carrots'' and ``Rapeseed
subgroup 20A, except flax seed'' to the table in paragraph (a).
0
c. Revise the entry for ``Fruit, stone, group 12'' to read ``Fruit,
stone, group 12-12'' in the table in paragraph (a).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 180.516 Fludioxonil; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Carrots................................................. 7.0
* * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12-12............................... 5.0
* * * * *
Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed................. 0.01
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-20019 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P