Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance, 49165-49169 [2016-17786]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations schedule that governs the US40–322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2016 6th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position. DATES: The deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016. The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2016–0612] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757–398–6557, email Michael.R.Thorogood@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DelMoSports, LLC, on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns the US40–322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(f) to ensure the safety of the participants and spectators associated with the 2016 6th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closedto-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-tonavigation position of 10 feet above mean high water. The NJICW (Inside Thorofare) is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic in publishing this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open in case of an emergency. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. Dated: July 21, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2016–17847 Filed 7–26–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0735; FRL–9948–73] Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). DATES: This regulation is effective July 27, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 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). SUMMARY: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0735, 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: ADDRESSES: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 49165 I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: • Crop production (NAICS code 111). • Animal production (NAICS code 112). • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532). B. How can I get electronic access to other related information? You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA’s tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR site at 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–2015–0735 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 September 26, 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– 2015–0735, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 49166 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .’’ Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for etoxazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole follows. II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL–9944–86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F8398) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riveira Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, etoxazole, 2-(2,6difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA’s response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C. Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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. A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors (elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic. No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe (increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 mg/kg/day) in the rat reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic based on the lack of carcinogenicity effects in the database. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by etoxazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http:// www.regulations.gov on pages 20–23 of the document titled ‘‘Etoxazole: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Proposed Use and Tolerances for Residues of Etoxazole in/on Soybean Seed’’ in docket ID number EPA–HQ– OPP–2015–0735. B. Toxicological Points of Departure/ Levels of Concern Once a pesticide’s toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/ safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http:// www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75426) (FRL–9934–60). C. Exposure Assessment 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole 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 etoxazole; E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary. ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003–2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in the absence of empirical data, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver 7.81) default processing factors. iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that etoxazole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary. iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ transport characteristics of etoxazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/aboutwater-exposure-models-used-pesticide. Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.746 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 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). Etoxazole is not registered for any specific use VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 patterns that would result in residential exposure. 4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider ‘‘available information’’ concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not found etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA’s efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http:// www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides. 49167 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 etoxazole is complete. ii. There is no indication that etoxazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected for by the selected endpoints. iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are D. Safety Factor for Infants and safe by comparing aggregate exposure Children estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and 1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply risks, EPA calculates the lifetime an additional tenfold (10X) margin of probability of acquiring cancer given the safety for infants and children in the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, case of threshold effects to account for intermediate-, and chronic-term risks prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the are evaluated by comparing the completeness of the database on toxicity estimated aggregate food, water, and and exposure unless EPA determines residential exposure to the appropriate based on reliable data that a different PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE margin of safety will be safe for infants exists. and children. This additional margin of 1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk safety is commonly referred to as the assessment takes into account acute Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) exposure estimates from dietary Safety Factor (SF). In applying this consumption of food and drinking provision, EPA either retains the default water. No adverse effect resulting from value of 10X, or uses a different a single oral exposure was identified additional safety factor when reliable and no acute dietary endpoint was data available to EPA support the choice selected. Therefore, etoxazole is not of a different factor. expected to pose an acute risk. 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure No increased quantitative or qualitative assumptions described in this unit for susceptibilities were observed following chronic exposure, EPA has concluded in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the that chronic exposure to etoxazole from developmental studies. There is food and water will utilize 15% of the evidence of increased qualitative cPAD for children 1–2 years old, the offspring susceptibility in the rat population group receiving the greatest reproduction study, but the concern is exposure. There are no residential uses low since: (1) The effects in pups are for etoxazole. 3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. well-characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are protective Short- and intermediate-term aggregate of the doses where the offspring toxicity exposure takes into account short- and intermedieate-term residential exposure is observed; and (3) offspring effects plus chronic exposure to food and water occur in the presence of parental (considered to be a background toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity. exposure level). PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 49168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediateterm risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for etoxazole. 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, etoxazole 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 etoxazole residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogenphosphorus detector (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance expression. The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@ epa.gov. ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES B. International Residue Limits In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for etoxazole in or on soybean seed. C. Response to Comments A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about environmental risks, including impacts on pollinators and endangered species, and Agency’s assessment of the pesticide product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise any specific issues concerning the safety of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, this comment is not relevant to the Agency’s evaluation of safety of the etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment. D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm is below the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the analytical method and is therefore being raised to the LOQ level. V. Conclusion Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of etoxazole, 2-(2,6difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed at 0.02 ppm. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 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). E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation Dated: July 14, 2016. status of a community can be obtained Susan Lewis, from FEMA’s Community Status Book Director, Registration Division, Office of (CSB). The CSB is available at http:// Pesticide Programs. www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is DATES: The effective date of each amended as follows: community’s scheduled suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the PART 180—[AMENDED] third column of the following tables. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 you want to determine whether a continues to read as follows: particular community was suspended Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, ■ 2. In § 180.593, add alphabetically the commodity ‘‘Soybean, seed’’ to the table Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency in paragraph (a) to read as follows: Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., § 180.593 Etoxazole; tolerances for Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4149. residues. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP (a) * * * enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not Parts Commodity otherwise generally available from (per million) private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local * * * * * floodplain management measures aimed Soybean, seed ...................... 0.02 at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of * * * * * the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, * * * * * prohibits the sale of NFIP flood [FR Doc. 2016–17786 Filed 7–26–16; 8:45 am] insurance unless an appropriate public BILLING CODE 6560–50–P body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND communities listed in this document no SECURITY longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program Federal Emergency Management regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Agency Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the 44 CFR Part 64 third column. As of that date, flood [Docket ID FEMA–2016–0002; Internal insurance will no longer be available in Agency Docket No. FEMA–8439] the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and Suspension of Community Eligibility submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain AGENCY: Federal Emergency management measures after this rule is Management Agency, DHS. published but prior to the actual ACTION: Final rule. suspension date. These communities SUMMARY: This rule identifies will not be suspended and will continue communities where the sale of flood to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance has been authorized under insurance. A notice withdrawing the the National Flood Insurance Program suspension of such communities will be (NFIP) that are scheduled for published in the Federal Register. suspension on the effective dates listed In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood within this rule because of Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that noncompliance with the floodplain identifies the Special Flood Hazard management requirements of the Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. program. If the Federal Emergency The date of the FIRM, if one has been Management Agency (FEMA) receives published, is indicated in the fourth documentation that the community has column of the table. No direct Federal adopted the required floodplain financial assistance (except assistance ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 49169 pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA’s initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place. Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49165-49169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735; FRL-9948-73]


Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 
etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested 
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 27, 2016. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 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-2015-0735, 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).
     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-2015-0735 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 
September 26, 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-2015-0735, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online

[[Page 49166]]

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 April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
5F8398) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riveira Avenue, Suite 200, 
Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, 
etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean at 0.01 parts per 
million (ppm). A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's 
response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The 
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary 
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in 
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. 
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special 
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide 
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . 
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors 
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available 
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this 
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a 
determination on aggregate exposure for etoxazole including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children.
    The effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all 
species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and 
histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to 
increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors 
(elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower 
incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No 
toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study 
in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic.
    No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were 
observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the 
developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe 
(increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and 
adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 mg/kg/day) in the rat 
reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. 
Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic based on the lack of 
carcinogenicity effects in the database.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by etoxazole 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 on pages 20-23 of the document titled ``Etoxazole: 
Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Use and Tolerances 
for Residues of Etoxazole in/on Soybean Seed'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2015-0735.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the 
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to 
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) 
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified 
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with 
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a 
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe 
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes 
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the 
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of 
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the 
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for 
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75426) 
(FRL-9934-60).

 C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for 
tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole 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 
etoxazole;

[[Page 49167]]

therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is 
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National 
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America 
(NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 
tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to 
account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in 
the absence of empirical data, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 
(ver 7.81) default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that etoxazole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing 
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary 
assessment for etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were 
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of etoxazole. 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 FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and 
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated 
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic 
exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface 
water and 0.746 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 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). Etoxazole is not 
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in 
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative 
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances 
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity 
with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a 
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this 
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole does not 
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For 
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a 
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of 
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at 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 (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, 
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different 
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support 
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased quantitative or 
qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure 
to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies. There is evidence of 
increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat reproduction 
study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-
characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are 
protective of the doses where the offspring toxicity is observed; and 
(3) offspring effects occur in the presence of parental toxicity. There 
are no residual uncertainties for pre-/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 etoxazole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that etoxazole is a neurotoxic chemical 
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or 
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected 
for by the selected endpoints.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative 
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments 
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

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, 
etoxazole is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
etoxazole from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. 
There are no residential uses for etoxazole.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermedieate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level).

[[Page 49168]]

    A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; 
however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would 
result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. 
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or 
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. 
Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure 
and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the 
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the 
POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further 
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA 
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and 
intermediate-term risk for etoxazole.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity 
studies, etoxazole 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 etoxazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective 
detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD)) are 
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for etoxazole in or on soybean 
seed.

C. Response to Comments

    A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was 
primarily concerned about environmental risks, including impacts on 
pollinators and endangered species, and Agency's assessment of the 
pesticide product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise any specific issues 
concerning the safety of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, this 
comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the 
etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential 
harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on 
the environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm is below the validated limit of 
quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the analytical method and is 
therefore being raised to the LOQ level.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of etoxazole, 2-
(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-
dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in 
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any 
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any 
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 49169]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
 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.  180.593, add alphabetically the commodity ``Soybean, seed'' 
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  180.593  Etoxazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts  (per
                        Commodity                            million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Soybean, seed...........................................            0.02
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17786 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P