Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances, 80275-80283 [2015-32329]

Download as PDF tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply. This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 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: December 16, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.434: a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1). ■ b. Add a new paragraph (a)(2). The amendments read as follows: ■ ■ § 180.434 Propiconazole; tolerances for residues. (a) General. (1) * * * (2) Tolerances are established for propiconazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only propiconazole, 1-[[2(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on the commodity. Commodity Parts per million Tea 1 ..................................... 4.0 1 There are no United States registrations for use of propiconazole on tea as of December 24, 2015. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–32328 Filed 12–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0730; FRL–9933–39] Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ACTION: 80275 Final rule. This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of spinetoram in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes a number of existing tolerances for residues of spinetoram that are superseded by this action. Interregional Research Project # 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective December 24, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0730, is available at http://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 http://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: SUMMARY: 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). E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 80276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES B. How can I get electronic access to other related information? You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA’s tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR site at http://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–2013–0730 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 February 22, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b). In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 2013–0730, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 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 http:// www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 available at http://www.epa.gov/ dockets. II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance In the Federal Register of Monday, December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79359) (FRL– 9903–69) and Wednesday, November 4, 2015 (80 FR 68289) (FRL–9936–13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing and subsequent filing of an amendment to pesticide petition (PP 3E8203) by IR–4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide spinetoram, expressed as a combination of XDE–175–J: 1-;H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-aLmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl2Hpyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5, 5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16bhexadecahydro 14-methyl-(2R,3aR,5aR, 5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE–175– L: 1H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl2Hpyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a, 5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16btetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-(2S, 3aR,5aS,-5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND–J: (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13[[(2S,5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino) tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12, 13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-asindaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl 6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-alphaL-manno pyranoside; and NF–J: (2R,3S, 6S)-6-([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S, 14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-Oethyl2,4-di-O-methyl-alpha-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14methyl-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16boctadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2-methyl tetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-yl(methyl) formamide in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G, except blueberry, lowbush, and cranberry at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); bushberry subgroup 13–07B, except lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.7 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.2 ppm; coffee, instant at 0.4 ppm; coffee, roasted bean at 0.4 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.3 ppm; fruit, pome group 11–10 at 0.2 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 subgroup 13–07F at 0.5 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 0.2 ppm; nuts, tree, group 14–12 at 0.1 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A at 0.1 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3–07B at 2.0 ppm; quinoa, grain at 0.04 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 0.4 ppm. In addition, the petitioner proposes based upon establishment of the new tolerances above, to remove the following established spinetoram tolerances that are superseded by this action: Bushberry subgroup 13B at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.04 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.50 ppm; juneberry at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except green onion at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 0.4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A single comment was received on the notice of filing, EPA’s response to the comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has made certain modifications to petitioned-for actions. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will 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 E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 spinetoram including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with spinetoram follows. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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. Spinetoram and spinosad are considered by EPA to be toxicologically identical for human health risk assessment based on their very similar chemical structures and similarity of the toxicological databases for currently available studies. The primary toxic effect observed from exposure to spinosad or spinetoram was histopathological changes in multiple organs (specific target organs were not identified). Vacuolization of cells and/or macrophages was the most common histopathological finding noted across both toxicological databases with the dog being the most sensitive species. In addition to the numerous organs observed with histopathological changes, anemia was noted in several studies. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility from spinosad or spinetoram exposure. In developmental studies, no maternal or developmental effects were seen in rats or rabbits. In the rat reproduction toxicity studies, offspring toxicity was seen in the presence of parental toxicity at approximately the same dose for both chemicals (75–100 milligram/kilogram/ day (mg/kg/day)). Parental toxicity was evidenced by increased organ weights, mortality, and histopathological findings in several organs. Offspring effects included decreased litter size, survival, and body weights with spinosad while an increased incidence of late resorptions and postimplantation loss was seen with spinetoram. Dystocia and/or other parturition abnormalities were observed with both chemicals. Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as having low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. Neither chemical is an eye or dermal irritant. Spinetoram was found to be a dermal sensitizer. No hazard was identified for dermal exposure; therefore a quantitative dermal assessment is not needed. In acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity from exposure to spinosad or spinetoram. In an immunotoxicity study with spinosad, systemic effects (decreased body weights, increased liver weights, and abnormal hematology results) were seen at the highest dose tested (141 mg/kg/day); however, there was no evidence of immunotoxicity. Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’ based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats and negative findings in mutagenicity assays. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spinetoram and spinosad as well as the no-observedadverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in documents including: 1) ‘‘Spinosad and Spinetoram—Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Section 3 Registration Request for Application to Coffee and for Updates to Several Crop Group/Subgroup Commodity Definitions,’’ dated March 10, 2015 at pp. 31, and 2) ‘‘Spinosad/Spinetoram. Addendum to Human Health aggregate Risk assessment D415812 (T. Bloem et al., 10–Mar–2015) to Support a New Use on Quinoa’’, dated November 2015 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013– 0730. 80277 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 the NOAEL and the LOEAL are identified. 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 http:// www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides. Spinosad and spinetoram should be considered toxicologically identical in the same manner that metabolites are generally considered toxicologically identical to the parent. Although, as stated above, the doses and endpoints for spinosad and spinetoram are similar, they are not identical due to variations in dosing levels used in the spinetoram and spinosad toxicological studies. EPA compared the spinosad and spinetoram doses and endpoints for each exposure scenario and selected the lower of the two doses for use in human risk assessment. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spinosad/spinetoram used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR SPINOSAD/SPINETORAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors Acute dietary (All Populations) VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects A dose and endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not observed. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 80278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR SPINOSAD/SPINETORAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued Exposure/scenario Chronic dietary (All populations) Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months). Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1–6 months). Point of departure and uncertainty/safety factors RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects NOAEL= 2.49 mg/ kg/day. UFA = 10x UFH = 10x FQPA SF = 1x NOAEL= 4.9 mg/kg/ day. UFA = 10x UFH = 10x FQPA SF = 1x Inhalation (or oral) study NOAEL= 4.9 mg/kg/day (inhalation assumed equivalent to oral). UFA = 10x UFH = 10x FQPA SF = 1x Chronic RfD = 0.0249 mg/kg/day. cPAD = 0.0249 mg/ kg/day Chronic Toxicity—Dog Study (with spinetoram) LOAEL = 5.36/ 5.83 mg/kg/day (males/females) based on arteritis and necrosis of the arterial walls of the epididymides in males and of the thymus, thyroid, larynx, and urinary bladder in females. Residential LOC for MOE <100. Subchronic Oral Toxicity—Dog Study (with spinosad) LOAEL = 9.73 mg/kg/day based on microscopic changes in multiple organs, clinical signs of toxicity, decreases in body weights and food consumption, and biochemical evidence of anemia and liver damage. Subchronic Oral Toxicity—Dog Study (with spinosad) LOAEL = 9.73 mg/kg/day based on microscopic changes in multiple organs, clinical signs of toxicity, decreases in body weights and food consumption, and biochemical evidence of anemia and liver damage. Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation). Residential LOC for MOE <100. Classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 spinetoram and spinosad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spinetoram tolerances in 40 CFR 180.635 as well as existing spinosad tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from spinetoram and spinosad 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 spinetoram or spinosad; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. Chronic exposure. Spinosad is registered for application to all of the same crops as spinetoram, with similar pre-harvest and retreatment intervals, and application rates greater than or equal to spinetoram. Further, both products control the same pest species. For this reason, EPA has concluded it would overstate exposure to assume that residues of both spinosad and spinetoram would appear on the same food. Rather, EPA aggregated exposure by assuming that all commodities contain spinosad residues (because side- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 by-side spinetoram and spinosad residue data indicated that spinetoram residues were less than or equal to spinosad residues). In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment for spinetoram, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model—Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEMFCID, ver. 3.16) which incorporates food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/ WWEIA; 2003–2008). The chronic analysis assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), average field-trial residues or tolerance-level residues for crop commodities, average residues from the livestock feeding studies, experimental processing factors when available, and modeled drinking water estimates. iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that spinetoram 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 100 percent crop treated (PCT) information were used. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spinetoram and spinosad in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of spinetoram and spinosad. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ about-water-exposure-models-usedpesticide. Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spinetoram for acute E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations exposures are estimated to be 8.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.072 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.9 ppb for surface water and 0.072 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of spinosad for acute exposures are estimated to be 25.0 ppb for surface water and 1.1 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for noncancer assessments are estimated to be 21.7 ppb for surface water and 1.1 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 21.7 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). Spinetoram and spinosad are currently registered for uses that could result in residential exposures including lawns, gardens, turfgrass, ornamentals, fire ant mounds, and spot-on pet applications. There is potential for residential handler and postapplication exposures to both spinosad and spinetoram. Since spinosad and spinetoram control the same pests, EPA concludes that these products will not be used for the same uses in combination with each other and thus combining spinosad and spinetoram residential exposures would overstate exposure. EPA assessed residential exposure for both spinosad and spinetoram using the most conservative residential exposure scenarios for either chemical. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler (short-term inhalation exposures) and postapplication (short-term incidental oral) exposures are expected as a result of the following registered uses: (1) Application of spinosad to gardens, turfgrass, ornamentals and fire ant mounds; (2) application of spinetoram to lawns, gardens, and ornamentals; and (3) spot-on application of spinetoram to cats and kittens. The Agency determined the ‘‘worst-case’’ scenarios for handler and post-application exposures as: (1) Adult residential handler inhalation exposure from mixing/loading/applying liquid formulations to turf via backpack sprayer, and (2) child (1–<2 years) residential post-application incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposure from VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 liquid formulation on turf/home gardens/ornamentals. These worst-case exposure estimates were used in the aggregate assessment of residential exposure to spinosad and spinetoram. Aggregating exposure resulting from the turf and pet uses was not conducted as the products control different pests and, therefore, application on the same day is unlikely. Use survey data indicate that concurrent use of separate pesticide products that contain the same active ingredient to treat the same or different pests does not typically occur. Furthermore, a number of issues are considered when combining residential exposure scenarios, including whether aggregating additional uses is appropriate in light of the already conservative assumptions inherent in the assessment. When assessing individual short-term residential postapplication exposure scenarios, EPA assumes exposure occurs to zeroday residues (i.e., day of application residues) day after day. EPA also assumes that an individual performs the same postapplication activities, intended to represent high end exposures as described in the Residential SOPS, day after day for the same amount of time every day (i.e., no day to day variation), although doing intense contact activities on the day of application subsequent to application for multiple chemicals would not be anticipated. Once calculated, these exposure estimates are then compared to points of departure that are typically based on weeks of dosing in test animals. For spinosad/spinetoram, the short-term risk assessment has the additional conservatism of basing the level of concern for short-term exposure (30-days) on a toxicity study involving continuous exposure over 90 days. Current EPA policy requires assessment for residential postapplication exposures of short- (1 to 30 days), intermediate- (1 to 6 months), and long-term (greater than 6 months) exposures from spot-on products due to the preventative nature of these products and the potential for extended usage in more temperate parts of the country. However, for spinetoram, there is no progression of toxicity with time; therefore, the short-term assessment is protective of intermediate- and longterm exposure. Available turf transferable residue (TTR) data on spinosad in support of turf uses and spinetoram data on dislodgeable residues from petting after topical administration to cats were incorporated into the exposure assessment. Spinosad and spinetoram dislodgeable-foliar residue (DFR) studies are unnecessary at this time as PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 80279 there is no hazard via the dermal route of exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/ standard-operating-proceduresresidential-pesticide. 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 spinosad or spinetoram to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and neither spinosad nor spinetoram appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that spinosad and spinetoram do 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 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/ cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides. 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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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 evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to in-utero exposure to spinetoram or spinosad. In developmental studies, no maternal or developmental effects were seen in rats or rabbits. In the rat reproduction E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 80280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES toxicity studies, offspring toxicity was seen in association with parental toxicity at approximately the same dose for both spinetoram and spinosad. Therefore, there is no evidence of increased susceptibility and there are no concerns or residual uncertainties for pre-natal and/or post-natal toxicity. 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 spinetoram and spinosad is complete. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, immunotoxicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity from spinetoram or spinosad exposure. Therefore, no additional database uncertainty factor (UF) is needed. ii. There is no indication of spinetoram or spinosad neurotoxicity from available acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study. iii. There is no evidence that spinetoram or spinosad results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2generation reproduction study. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the spinetoram and spinosad exposure databases. The dietary exposure assessment is conservative as it assumes 100 PCT and residue estimates are based on field trial data. Moreover, EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to spinetoram and spinosad 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 spinetoram and spinosad. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 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, spinetoram and spinosad are 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 spinetoram and spinosad from food and water will utilize 64% 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 spinetoram and spinosad 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). Spinetoram and spinosad 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 spinetoram and spinosad. 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 220 for children and 1,000 for adults. Because EPA’s level of concern for spinetoram and spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are not of concern. EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term and long-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs that will not fall below the short-term aggregate MOEs since there is no progression of spinetoram toxicity with time. Because EPA’s level of concern for spinetoram and spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are not of concern. 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies with spinosad, spinetoram is not expected to pose a cancer risk 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 spinetoram residues. PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Method GRM 05.04 is a highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS method which has been determined to be adequate for enforcement of existing spinetoram plant tolerances. The method has been validated on a widevariety of crops and EPA concluded that it is sufficient to enforce the tolerances established by this action. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@ epa.gov. B. International Residue Limits In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. Codex MRLs for spinetoram are currently established in or on several of the relevant crops or crop groups or subgroups affected by this action. EPA harmonizes with existing Codex MRLs whenever feasible. The recommended fruit, stone, group 12–12 tolerance and the Codex MRL are harmonized. But harmonization with the currently established Codex MRLs is inappropriate for the following crop groups and subgroups as harmonization may result in exceedances of the tolerances when the pesticide is applied using the labeled instructions: Bushberry, subgroup 13–07B; fruit, citrus, group 10–10; fruit, pome, group 11–10; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13– 07F; nut, tree, group 14–12; onion, green, subgroup 3–07B; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10. Also, EPA is not harmonizing the U.S. tolerance for onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A (0.10 ppm) E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations with the Codex MRL (0.01 ppm). The current U.S. spinetoram tolerance of 0.10 is based on components XDE–175– J, XDE–175–L, ND–J, and NF–J, with the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for each of 0.01 ppm. EPA concludes that a spinetoram tolerance <0.04 ppm is not appropriate and harmonization with a Codex MRL at 0.01 ppm is not practical. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES C. Response to Comments One comments was received from the Center for Biological Diversity and concerned endangered species; specifically stating that EPA cannot approve these new uses prior to completion of consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (‘‘the Services’’). This comment is not relevant to the Agency’s evaluation of safety of the spinetoram tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on the potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment. D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances EPA made corrections to several commodity definitions to conform to current Agency practices and revised certain proposed tolerance levels based on the available field trial data, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures and/or for purposes of harmonization, including the following: (1) Proposed tolerance of 0.2 ppm in/on coffee, green bean was established at 0.04 ppm; (2) proposed tolerance in/on fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 0.20 ppm, established at 0.30 ppm; (3) proposed tolerance in/on caneberry, subgroup 13–07A at 0.7 ppm, established at 0.80 ppm; (4) proposed tolerance in/on bushberry, subgroup 13– 07B at 0.25 ppm, established at 0.50 ppm; (5) proposed tolerance in/on berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G, except cranberry at 1.0 ppm, established at 0.90 ppm; and (6) a proposed tolerance of 0.04 ppm in/on both coffee, instant and coffee, roasted bean was determined to be unnecessary because the tolerance on the raw agricultural commodity covers residues on the processed commodities. In addition, the Agency is updating the tolerance expression for spinetoram as follows to reflect current EPA policies: ‘‘Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE–175–J: 1-H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6- VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:57 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-aLmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl2H-pyran2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5, 5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16bhexadecahydro-14methyl-,(2R,3aR,5aR, 5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE–175– L: 1H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5 S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6methyl-2H-pyran2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3, 3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16btetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl, (2S, 3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND–J: (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S, 13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl13-[[(2S,5S,6R)-6-methyl-5(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2yl]oxy]-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6, 7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16boctadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6-deoxy-3-Oethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranoside; and NF–J: (2R,3S, 6S)-6([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5, 5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16boctadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d] oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)2methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3yl(methyl)formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spinetoram. V. Conclusion Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities listed below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE–175–J: 1-H-asindaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15dione,2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-Omethyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13[[(2R,5S,6R)5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl2H-pyran-2yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5,5a, 5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16bhexadecahydro-14-methyl-,(2R,3aR,5aR, 5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR); XDE–175– L: 1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d] oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b, 6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16btetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-,(2S, 3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND–J: (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,R, 16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13[[(2S, 5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino) tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15dioxo2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 80281 14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-asindaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranoside; and NF–J: (2R,3S, 6S)-6-([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5, 5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16boctadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-yl(methyl) formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spinetoram in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G, except cranberry at 0.90 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13–07B at 0.50 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 0.80 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.04 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13–07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit at 0.50 ppm; fruit, stone 12–12 at 0.30 ppm; nut, tree, group 14–12 at 0.10 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A at 0.10 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3–07B at 2.0 ppm; quinoa, grain at 0.04 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 at 0.40 ppm. In addition, EPA is removing the following existing spinetoram tolerances that are superseded by this action including: Bushberry subgroup 13B at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.50 ppm; juneberry at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except green onion at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 0.4 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 E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1 80282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 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). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 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: December 15, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.635, in paragraph (a): a. Revise the introductory text. b. Remove from the table in paragraph (a) the entries for: Bushberry subgroup 13B at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.50 ppm; juneberry at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except green onion at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 0.4 ppm. ■ c. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a). The revision and additions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 180.635 Spinetoram; tolerance for residues. (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE–175–J: 1-H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin7,15-dione,2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-diO-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13[[(2R,5S,6R)-5(dimethylamino) tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl] oxy]-9-ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11, 12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro-14methyl-,(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR); XDE–175–L: 1H-asindaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15dione,2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-Omethyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13[[(2R,5S,6R)-5(dimethylamino) PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]9-ethyl-2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14, 16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-, (2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND–J: (2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13[[(2S, 5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino) tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15dioxo2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, 14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-asindaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranoside; and NF–J: (2R,3S, 6S)-6-([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5, 5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16boctadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-yl(methyl) formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of spinetoram. Parts per million Commodity * * * Berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G, except cranberry ......................... * * * * Bushberry subgroup 13– 07B .................................. Caneberry subgroup 13– 07A .................................. * * * * Coffee, green bean ............. * * 0.04 * * * Cottonseed subgroup 20C * * 0.04 * * * Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ... Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ... Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13–07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit ................... Fruit, stone 12–12 .............. * * 0.30 0.20 * * * Nut, tree, group 14–12 ....... * * 0.10 * * * Onion, bulb, subgroup 3– 07A .................................. Onion, green, subgroup 3– 07B .................................. * * * * * Quinoa, grain ...................... * * 0.04 * * * Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 ................................ * * * E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM * 24DER1 * * 0.90 * 0.50 0.80 0.50 0.30 0.10 2.0 0.40 * * Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 247 / Thursday, December 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations * * * * Internet if you send them to PRA@ fcc.gov. 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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). * [FR Doc. 2015–32329 Filed 12–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 Synopsis [WC Docket Nos. 13–184 and 10–90; FCC 14–189] Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date. AGENCY: In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection associated with the Commission’s Second E-rate Modernization Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Second Erate Modernization Order). This document is consistent with the (Second E-rate Modernization Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those rules. DATES: 47 CFR 54.504(a)(1)(iii), published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015, is effective December 24, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Bachtell, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418–7400 or TTY (202) 418–0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document announces that, on December 2, 2015, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission’s Second E-rate Modernization Order, FCC 14–189, published at 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0806. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of 47 CFR 54.504(a)(1)(iii). If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1–A620, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060–0806, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Dec 23, 2015 Jkt 238001 As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on December 2, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission’s rule at 47 CFR 54.504(a)(1)(iii). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0806. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows: OMB Control Number: 3060–0806. OMB Approval Date: December 2, 2015. OMB Expiration Date: December 31, 2018. Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program, FCC Forms 470 and 471. Form Numbers: FCC Forms 470 and 471. Respondents: State, local or tribal government public institutions, and other not-for-profit institutions. Number of Respondents and Responses: 52,700 respondents, 82,090 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 3.5 hours for FCC Form 470 (3 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping; 4.5 hours for FCC Form 471 (4 hours for response; 0.5 hours for recordkeeping). Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 201– 205, 218–220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 405. Total Annual Burden: 334,405 hours. Total Annual Cost: No cost. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 80283 Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s). Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents concerning this information collection. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Administrator be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. Needs and Uses: The Commission seeks to revise OMB 3060–0806 to conform this information collection to the program changes set forth in the Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Second E-Rate Modernization Order) (WC Docket No. 13–184, WC Docket No. 10–90, FCC 14– 189; 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015). Collection of the information on FCC Forms 470 and 471 is necessary so that the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) have sufficient information to determine if entities are eligible for funding pursuant to the schools and libraries support mechanism (the E-rate program), to determine if entities are complying with the Commission’s rules, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the information is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the extent to which the E-rate program is meeting the statutory objectives specified in section 254(h) of the 1996 Act, and the Commission’s own performance goals established in the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (E-rate Modernization Order), 79 FR 49160, August 19, 2014 and Second E-rate Modernization Order, 80 FR 5961, February 4, 2015. This information collection is being revised to modify FCC Form 471 pursuant to program and rule changes in the Second E-rate Modernization Order and to accommodate USAC’s new online portal as well as the requirement that all FCC Forms 471 be electronically filed. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015–32321 Filed 12–23–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P E:\FR\FM\24DER1.SGM 24DER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80275-80283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32329]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730; FRL-9933-39]


Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
spinetoram in or on multiple commodities that are identified and 
discussed later in this document. In addition, this regulation removes 
a number of existing tolerances for residues of spinetoram that are 
superseded by this action. Interregional Research Project # 4 (IR-4) 
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 24, 2015. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2016, 
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730, is available at http://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 http://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).

[[Page 80276]]

     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 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730 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 
February 22, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections 
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without 
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Monday, December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79359) 
(FRL-9903-69) and Wednesday, November 4, 2015 (80 FR 68289) (FRL-9936-
13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing and subsequent filing of an 
amendment to pesticide petition (PP 3E8203) by IR-4, 500 College Road 
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 
CFR 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for the combined residues 
of the insecticide spinetoram, expressed as a combination of XDE-175-J: 
1-;H-as-indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-
ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-
(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2Hpyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro 14-methyl-
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L: 1H-as-
indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-a-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-
(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2Hpyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-
(2S,3aR,5aS,-5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND-J: 
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13-
[[(2S,5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-
7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-
octadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl 6-deoxy-3-O-
ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-alpha-L-manno pyranoside; and NF-J: (2R,3S,6S)-6-
([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-Oethyl-2,4-di-O-
methyl-alpha-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-
yl(methyl)formamide in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities: Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except blueberry, 
lowbush, and cranberry at 1.0 parts per million (ppm); bushberry 
subgroup 13-07B, except lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-
07A at 0.7 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.2 ppm; coffee, instant at 0.4 
ppm; coffee, roasted bean at 0.4 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.3 ppm; fruit, pome group 11-10 at 
0.2 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 
13-07F at 0.5 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.2 ppm; nuts, tree, 
group 14-12 at 0.1 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.1 ppm; onion, 
green, subgroup 3-07B at 2.0 ppm; quinoa, grain at 0.04 ppm; and 
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.4 ppm. In addition, the petitioner 
proposes based upon establishment of the new tolerances above, to 
remove the following established spinetoram tolerances that are 
superseded by this action: Bushberry subgroup 13B at 0.25 ppm; 
caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.04 
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.50 ppm; juneberry 
at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; 
okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; salal 
at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3, except 
green onion at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 0.4 ppm. 
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow 
AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A single comment was received on the notice of 
filing, EPA's response to the comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has made 
certain modifications to petitioned-for actions. The reasons for these 
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will 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

[[Page 80277]]

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 
spinetoram including exposure resulting from the tolerances established 
by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 
spinetoram follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 
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.
    Spinetoram and spinosad are considered by EPA to be toxicologically 
identical for human health risk assessment based on their very similar 
chemical structures and similarity of the toxicological databases for 
currently available studies. The primary toxic effect observed from 
exposure to spinosad or spinetoram was histopathological changes in 
multiple organs (specific target organs were not identified). 
Vacuolization of cells and/or macrophages was the most common 
histopathological finding noted across both toxicological databases 
with the dog being the most sensitive species. In addition to the 
numerous organs observed with histopathological changes, anemia was 
noted in several studies.
    There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative 
susceptibility from spinosad or spinetoram exposure. In developmental 
studies, no maternal or developmental effects were seen in rats or 
rabbits. In the rat reproduction toxicity studies, offspring toxicity 
was seen in the presence of parental toxicity at approximately the same 
dose for both chemicals (75-100 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). 
Parental toxicity was evidenced by increased organ weights, mortality, 
and histopathological findings in several organs. Offspring effects 
included decreased litter size, survival, and body weights with 
spinosad while an increased incidence of late resorptions and post-
implantation loss was seen with spinetoram. Dystocia and/or other 
parturition abnormalities were observed with both chemicals.
    Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as having low acute toxicity 
via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. Neither 
chemical is an eye or dermal irritant. Spinetoram was found to be a 
dermal sensitizer. No hazard was identified for dermal exposure; 
therefore a quantitative dermal assessment is not needed. In acute and 
subchronic neurotoxicity studies, there was no evidence of 
neurotoxicity from exposure to spinosad or spinetoram. In an 
immunotoxicity study with spinosad, systemic effects (decreased body 
weights, increased liver weights, and abnormal hematology results) were 
seen at the highest dose tested (141 mg/kg/day); however, there was no 
evidence of immunotoxicity.
    Spinosad and spinetoram are classified as ``not likely to be 
carcinogenic to humans'' based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity 
in mice and rats and negative findings in mutagenicity assays.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by spinetoram and spinosad 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 http://www.regulations.gov in documents including: 1) ``Spinosad and 
Spinetoram--Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Section 3 
Registration Request for Application to Coffee and for Updates to 
Several Crop Group/Subgroup Commodity Definitions,'' dated March 10, 
2015 at pp. 31, and 2) ``Spinosad/Spinetoram. Addendum to Human Health 
aggregate Risk assessment D415812 (T. Bloem et al., 10-Mar-2015) to 
Support a New Use on Quinoa'', dated November 2015 in docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0730.

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 the NOAEL and the LOEAL are identified. 
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 http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    Spinosad and spinetoram should be considered toxicologically 
identical in the same manner that metabolites are generally considered 
toxicologically identical to the parent. Although, as stated above, the 
doses and endpoints for spinosad and spinetoram are similar, they are 
not identical due to variations in dosing levels used in the spinetoram 
and spinosad toxicological studies. EPA compared the spinosad and 
spinetoram doses and endpoints for each exposure scenario and selected 
the lower of the two doses for use in human risk assessment.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spinosad/spinetoram 
used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

   Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Spinosad/Spinetoram 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)..       A dose and endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not
                                                                      observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 80278]]

 
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 2.49 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD =        Chronic Toxicity--Dog Study (with
                                    day.                  0.0249 mg/kg/day.    spinetoram) LOAEL = 5.36/5.83 mg/
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.0249 mg/kg/  kg/day (males/females) based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 arteritis and necrosis of the
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        arterial walls of the
                                                                               epididymides in males and of the
                                                                               thymus, thyroid, larynx, and
                                                                               urinary bladder in females.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 4.9 mg/kg/day  Residential LOC for  Subchronic Oral Toxicity--Dog
 30 days) and intermediate-term    UFA = 10x...........   MOE <100.            Study (with spinosad) LOAEL =
 (1 to 6 months).                  UFH = 10x...........                        9.73 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        microscopic changes in multiple
                                                                               organs, clinical signs of
                                                                               toxicity, decreases in body
                                                                               weights and food consumption, and
                                                                               biochemical evidence of anemia
                                                                               and liver damage.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     Inhalation (or oral)  Residential LOC for  Subchronic Oral Toxicity--Dog
 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6   study NOAEL= 4.9 mg/  MOE <100.            Study (with spinosad) LOAEL =
 months).                           kg/day (inhalation                         9.73 mg/kg/day based on
                                    assumed equivalent                         microscopic changes in multiple
                                    to oral).                                  organs, clinical signs of
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        toxicity, decreases in body
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        weights and food consumption, and
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        biochemical evidence of anemia
                                                                               and liver damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)            Classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 spinetoram and spinosad, EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spinetoram tolerances 
in 40 CFR 180.635 as well as existing spinosad tolerances. EPA assessed 
dietary exposures from spinetoram and spinosad 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 
spinetoram or spinosad; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary 
exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. Spinosad is registered for application to all 
of the same crops as spinetoram, with similar pre-harvest and 
retreatment intervals, and application rates greater than or equal to 
spinetoram. Further, both products control the same pest species. For 
this reason, EPA has concluded it would overstate exposure to assume 
that residues of both spinosad and spinetoram would appear on the same 
food. Rather, EPA aggregated exposure by assuming that all commodities 
contain spinosad residues (because side- by-side spinetoram and 
spinosad residue data indicated that spinetoram residues were less than 
or equal to spinosad residues).
    In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment for 
spinetoram, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model--Food 
Consumption Intake Database (DEEMFCID, ver. 3.16) which incorporates 
food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in 
America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). The chronic analysis assumed 100 
percent crop treated (PCT), average field-trial residues or tolerance-
level residues for crop commodities, average residues from the 
livestock feeding studies, experimental processing factors when 
available, and modeled drinking water estimates.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that spinetoram 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 100 percent crop treated (PCT) 
information were used. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to 
use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of 
pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues 
that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA 
must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 
5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in 
effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels 
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for spinetoram and spinosad in drinking water. These 
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and 
fate/transport characteristics of spinetoram and spinosad. Further 
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide 
exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and 
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated 
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spinetoram for acute

[[Page 80279]]

exposures are estimated to be 8.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface 
water and 0.072 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.9 ppb for surface water and 
0.072 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of spinosad for acute exposures are 
estimated to be 25.0 ppb for surface water and 1.1 ppb for ground 
water. For chronic exposures for noncancer assessments are estimated to 
be 21.7 ppb for surface water and 1.1 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 21.7 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).
    Spinetoram and spinosad are currently registered for uses that 
could result in residential exposures including lawns, gardens, 
turfgrass, ornamentals, fire ant mounds, and spot-on pet applications. 
There is potential for residential handler and postapplication 
exposures to both spinosad and spinetoram. Since spinosad and 
spinetoram control the same pests, EPA concludes that these products 
will not be used for the same uses in combination with each other and 
thus combining spinosad and spinetoram residential exposures would 
overstate exposure. EPA assessed residential exposure for both spinosad 
and spinetoram using the most conservative residential exposure 
scenarios for either chemical.
    EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: 
Residential handler (short-term inhalation exposures) and post-
application (short-term incidental oral) exposures are expected as a 
result of the following registered uses: (1) Application of spinosad to 
gardens, turfgrass, ornamentals and fire ant mounds; (2) application of 
spinetoram to lawns, gardens, and ornamentals; and (3) spot-on 
application of spinetoram to cats and kittens. The Agency determined 
the ``worst-case'' scenarios for handler and post-application exposures 
as: (1) Adult residential handler inhalation exposure from mixing/
loading/applying liquid formulations to turf via backpack sprayer, and 
(2) child (1-<2 years) residential post-application incidental oral 
(hand-to-mouth) exposure from liquid formulation on turf/home gardens/
ornamentals. These worst-case exposure estimates were used in the 
aggregate assessment of residential exposure to spinosad and 
spinetoram.
    Aggregating exposure resulting from the turf and pet uses was not 
conducted as the products control different pests and, therefore, 
application on the same day is unlikely. Use survey data indicate that 
concurrent use of separate pesticide products that contain the same 
active ingredient to treat the same or different pests does not 
typically occur. Furthermore, a number of issues are considered when 
combining residential exposure scenarios, including whether aggregating 
additional uses is appropriate in light of the already conservative 
assumptions inherent in the assessment. When assessing individual 
short-term residential postapplication exposure scenarios, EPA assumes 
exposure occurs to zero-day residues (i.e., day of application 
residues) day after day. EPA also assumes that an individual performs 
the same postapplication activities, intended to represent high end 
exposures as described in the Residential SOPS, day after day for the 
same amount of time every day (i.e., no day to day variation), although 
doing intense contact activities on the day of application subsequent 
to application for multiple chemicals would not be anticipated. Once 
calculated, these exposure estimates are then compared to points of 
departure that are typically based on weeks of dosing in test animals. 
For spinosad/spinetoram, the short-term risk assessment has the 
additional conservatism of basing the level of concern for short-term 
exposure (30-days) on a toxicity study involving continuous exposure 
over 90 days.
    Current EPA policy requires assessment for residential post-
application exposures of short- (1 to 30 days), intermediate- (1 to 6 
months), and long-term (greater than 6 months) exposures from spot-on 
products due to the preventative nature of these products and the 
potential for extended usage in more temperate parts of the country. 
However, for spinetoram, there is no progression of toxicity with time; 
therefore, the short-term assessment is protective of intermediate- and 
long-term exposure.
    Available turf transferable residue (TTR) data on spinosad in 
support of turf uses and spinetoram data on dislodgeable residues from 
petting after topical administration to cats were incorporated into the 
exposure assessment. Spinosad and spinetoram dislodgeable-foliar 
residue (DFR) studies are unnecessary at this time as there is no 
hazard via the dermal route of exposure.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic 
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 spinosad or spinetoram to share a common 
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and neither spinosad 
nor spinetoram appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other 
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA 
has assumed that spinosad and spinetoram do 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  http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 Food Quality 
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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 evidence of 
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of rat and rabbit 
fetuses to in-utero exposure to spinetoram or spinosad. In 
developmental studies, no maternal or developmental effects were seen 
in rats or rabbits. In the rat reproduction

[[Page 80280]]

toxicity studies, offspring toxicity was seen in association with 
parental toxicity at approximately the same dose for both spinetoram 
and spinosad. Therefore, there is no evidence of increased 
susceptibility and there are no concerns or residual uncertainties for 
pre-natal and/or post-natal toxicity.
    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 spinetoram and spinosad is complete. 
There is no evidence of neurotoxicity, developmental/reproductive 
toxicity, immunotoxicity, mutagenicity, or carcinogenicity from 
spinetoram or spinosad exposure. Therefore, no additional database 
uncertainty factor (UF) is needed.
    ii. There is no indication of spinetoram or spinosad neurotoxicity 
from available acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats and 
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study.
    iii. There is no evidence that spinetoram or spinosad 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 
spinetoram and spinosad exposure databases. The dietary exposure 
assessment is conservative as it assumes 100 PCT and residue estimates 
are based on field trial data. Moreover, EPA made conservative 
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to spinetoram and spinosad 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 spinetoram and spinosad.

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, 
spinetoram and spinosad are 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 
spinetoram and spinosad from food and water will utilize 64% 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 
spinetoram and spinosad 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). Spinetoram 
and spinosad 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 spinetoram and spinosad.
    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 220 for children 
and 1,000 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for spinetoram and 
spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
    EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term and long-term 
food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs that 
will not fall below the short-term aggregate MOEs since there is no 
progression of spinetoram toxicity with time. Because EPA's level of 
concern for spinetoram and spinosad is a MOE of < 100, these MOEs are 
not of concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity 
studies with spinosad, spinetoram is not expected to pose a cancer risk 
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 spinetoram residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Method GRM 05.04 is a high-performance liquid chromatography 
(HPLC)/mass spectrometry (MS)/MS method which has been determined to be 
adequate for enforcement of existing spinetoram plant tolerances. The 
method has been validated on a wide-variety of crops and EPA concluded 
that it is sufficient to enforce the tolerances established by this 
action.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Codex MRLs for spinetoram are currently established in or on 
several of the relevant crops or crop groups or subgroups affected by 
this action. EPA harmonizes with existing Codex MRLs whenever feasible. 
The recommended fruit, stone, group 12-12 tolerance and the Codex MRL 
are harmonized. But harmonization with the currently established Codex 
MRLs is inappropriate for the following crop groups and subgroups as 
harmonization may result in exceedances of the tolerances when the 
pesticide is applied using the labeled instructions: Bushberry, 
subgroup 13-07B; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11-10; 
fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; 
nut, tree, group 14-12; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B; and vegetable, 
fruiting, group 8-10. Also, EPA is not harmonizing the U.S. tolerance 
for onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A (0.10 ppm)

[[Page 80281]]

with the Codex MRL (0.01 ppm). The current U.S. spinetoram tolerance of 
0.10 is based on components XDE-175-J, XDE-175-L, ND-J, and NF-J, with 
the limit of quantitation (LOQ) for each of 0.01 ppm. EPA concludes 
that a spinetoram tolerance <0.04 ppm is not appropriate and 
harmonization with a Codex MRL at 0.01 ppm is not practical.

C. Response to Comments

    One comments was received from the Center for Biological Diversity 
and concerned endangered species; specifically stating that EPA cannot 
approve these new uses prior to completion of consultations with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (``the Services''). This comment is not relevant to the 
Agency's evaluation of safety of the spinetoram tolerances; section 408 
of the FFDCA focuses on the potential harms to human health and does 
not permit consideration of effects on the environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA made corrections to several commodity definitions to conform to 
current Agency practices and revised certain proposed tolerance levels 
based on the available field trial data, the Organization for Economic 
Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures 
and/or for purposes of harmonization, including the following: (1) 
Proposed tolerance of 0.2 ppm in/on coffee, green bean was established 
at 0.04 ppm; (2) proposed tolerance in/on fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 
0.20 ppm, established at 0.30 ppm; (3) proposed tolerance in/on 
caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 0.7 ppm, established at 0.80 ppm; (4) 
proposed tolerance in/on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.25 ppm, 
established at 0.50 ppm; (5) proposed tolerance in/on berry, low 
growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 1.0 ppm, established at 
0.90 ppm; and (6) a proposed tolerance of 0.04 ppm in/on both coffee, 
instant and coffee, roasted bean was determined to be unnecessary 
because the tolerance on the raw agricultural commodity covers residues 
on the processed commodities.
    In addition, the Agency is updating the tolerance expression for 
spinetoram as follows to reflect current EPA policies: ``Tolerances are 
established for residues of the insecticide spinetoram, including its 
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table 
below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be 
determined by measuring only the sum of XDE-175-J: 1-H-as-
indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-[alpha]-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-
(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro-14methyl-
,(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L: 1H-as-
indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-[alpha]-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-S,6R)-5-
(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl, 
(2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND-J: 
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13-
[[(2S,5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-
7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-
octadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6-deoxy-3-O-
ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranoside; and NF-J: (2R,3S,6S)-
6([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-[alpha]-Lmannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-
yl(methyl)formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of 
spinetoram.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the 
insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or 
on the commodities listed below. Compliance with the tolerance levels 
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of XDE-
175-J: 1-H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione,2-[(6deoxy-3-O-
ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-
5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro-14-methyl-
,(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R, 16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L: 1H-as-indaceno[3,2-
d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-
[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-
5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-
,(2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS);ND-J: 
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-
13[[(2S,5S,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-
7,15-dioxo2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-
octadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6-deoxy-3-O-
ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranoside; and NF-J: (2R,3S,6S)-
6-([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2d] oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-
3-yl(methyl)formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of 
spinetoram in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except 
cranberry at 0.90 ppm; bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 0.50 ppm; 
caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.80 ppm; coffee, green bean at 0.04 ppm; 
cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.04 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.30 
ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, 
subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit at 0.50 ppm; fruit, stone 12-12 
at 0.30 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.10 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 
3-07A at 0.10 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 2.0 ppm; quinoa, 
grain at 0.04 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.40 ppm. In 
addition, EPA is removing the following existing spinetoram tolerances 
that are superseded by this action including: Bushberry subgroup 13B at 
0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed 
at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 
at 0.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; grape at 0.50 ppm; 
juneberry at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut tree, group 14 at 
0.10 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 
ppm; salal at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 
3, except green onion at 0.10 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 
0.4 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

[[Page 80282]]

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 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: December 15, 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.  180.635, in paragraph (a):
0
a. Revise the introductory text.
0
b. Remove from the table in paragraph (a) the entries for: Bushberry 
subgroup 13B at 0.25 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 0.70 ppm; cotton, 
undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.30 ppm; 
fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.20 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.20 ppm; 
grape at 0.50 ppm; juneberry at 0.25 ppm; lingonberry at 0.25 ppm; nut 
tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; 
pistachio at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.25 ppm; strawberry at 1.0 ppm; 
vegetable, bulb, group 3, except green onion at 0.10 ppm; and 
vegetable, fruiting group 8 at 0.4 ppm.
0
c. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in 
paragraph (a).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  180.635  Spinetoram; tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
insecticide spinetoram, including its metabolites and degradates, in or 
on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance 
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of 
XDE-175-J: 1-H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione,2-[(6deoxy-
3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-
[[(2R,5S,6R)-5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-
ethyl-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro-14-
methyl-,(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L: 1H-as-
indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione,2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-
O-methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-
5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-
,(2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND-J: 
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13[[(2S,5S,6R)-
6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15-
dioxo2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-
as-indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-
methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranoside; and NF-J: (2R,3S,6S)-6-
([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-
methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-
yl(methyl)formamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of 
spinetoram.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry...            0.90
 
                                * * * * *
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B...............................            0.50
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...............................            0.80
 
                                * * * * *
Coffee, green bean......................................            0.04
 
                                * * * * *
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.................................            0.04
 
                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..............................            0.30
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................            0.20
Fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except                0.50
 fuzzy kiwifruit........................................
Fruit, stone 12-12......................................            0.30
 
                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.10
 
                                * * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.............................            0.10
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B............................            2.0
 
                                * * * * *
Quinoa, grain...........................................            0.04
 
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.........................            0.40
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80283]]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-32329 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P