Halauxifen-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances, 53019-53025 [2016-19118]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Commodity
Parts per million
Goat, meat byproducts 1 ...
Horse, fat 1 ........................
Horse, meat 1 ....................
Horse, meat byproducts 1
Milk 1 .................................
Sheep, fat 1 .......................
Sheep, meat 1 ...................
Sheep, meat byproducts 1
0.30
0.05
0.01
0.30
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.30
1 There are no U.S. registrations as of August 11, 2016.
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2016–19117 Filed 8–10–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0919; FRL–9946–30]
Halauxifen-methyl; Pesticide
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of halauxifenmethyl and its metabolite, XDE–729
acid, in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later
in this document. Dow AgroSciences
LLC requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
August 11, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before October 11, 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–2012–0919, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
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–2012–0919 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before October 11, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53019
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–
2012–0919, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of February
15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL–9378–4),
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 2F8086) by Dow
AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide, halauxifenmethyl (methyl 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4chloro-2-fluoro-3methoxyphenyl)pyridine-2-carboxylate)
and its major metabolite, XDE–729 acid,
expressed as halauxifen-methyl (parent)
equivalents, in or on barley, grain at
0.01 parts per million (ppm); barley, hay
at 0.01 ppm; barley, straw at 0.01 ppm;
cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at
0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat,
meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts
at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm;
horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01
ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep,
meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; wheat, forage at
0.5 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.01 ppm;
wheat, hay at 0.04 ppm; and wheat,
straw at 0.015 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
53020
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that livestock commodity
tolerances are not required for the
proposed uses. In addition, the
proposed ‘‘wheat, hay’’ tolerance level
of 0.04 ppm will be set at a reduced
tolerance level of 0.03 ppm. The reason
for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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 halauxifenmethyl and its acid metabolite,
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with halauxifen-methyl and
its major metabolite, XDE–729 acid,
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
The toxicology database for
halauxifen-methyl is considered
adequate at this time. Following oral
exposure and absorption, the liver is
exposed pre-systemically to halauxifenmethyl, where it is hydrolyzed to its
major metabolite, XDE–729 acid, before
entering the systemic circulation.
Therefore, systemic exposure to organs
and tissues other than the liver is to
XDE–729 acid, whereas the liver is also
exposed to the parent prior to its
metabolism. The guideline studies were
conducted on XDE–729 acid and
identified the kidney as the main target
organ. Bridging studies on halauxifenmethyl identified the liver as the target
organ, but the data could not bridge to
the acid metabolite because liver
toxicity from exposure to halauxifenmethyl occurred at lower doses than the
kidney toxicity resulting from exposure
to XDE–729 acid. In lieu of conducting
long-term oral studies on halauxifenmethyl, mechanistic studies were
performed to characterize the mode of
action (MOA) for liver toxicity. These
studies identified activation of the liver
aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) as the
MOA, and the molecular initiating event
(MIE), for liver toxicity, for which
increased liver Cyp1a1 gene expression
serves as a biomarker. In the absence of
this MIE, liver toxicity from parent
halauxifen-methyl, including induction
of hepatocellular proliferation, will not
be observed. A point of departure (POD)
of 3 mg/kg/day for increased Cyp1a1
expression (observed at 10 mg/kg/day,
the study NOAEL) was identified in the
rat 90-day dietary study on halauxifenmethyl and was selected for chronic
dietary risk assessment, since it protects
for the initial step in liver toxicity,
regardless of exposure duration.
Therefore, the bridging and mechanistic
studies were considered along with the
guideline studies in selection of the
dose and endpoint for halauxifenmethyl. Based on the abundance of
guideline and mechanistic data
available, a MOA approach was used for
the identification and characterization
of hazard. Due to the distinct toxicities
of the two compounds and the unique
MOA for liver toxicity of halauxifenmethyl, risk from the two compounds
was assessed separately.
There is no evidence of neurotoxicity
or immunotoxicity for either compound.
Inhalation studies (including the acute
LD50 study) were waived because MOEs
for inhalation exposure, calculated
using a highly conservative endpoint
from oral data, were high (≥2,500), and
the available oral and dermal studies
did not indicate the potential for portal
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of entry effects. In addition, halauxifenmethyl has a low vapor pressure and
adequate particle sizes for test
atmospheres could not be generated.
Guideline rat or rabbit dermal toxicity,
rat two-generation reproductive toxicity,
dog chronic toxicity, rat chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity, mouse
carcinogenicity, rat acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies on
halauxifen-methyl were also waived.
The waivers were granted because
adequate data were available for XDE–
729 acid, to which systemic exposure
would occur. The available data, when
combined with the bridging and MOE
data on halauxifen-methyl, allowed
identification of a protective POD for
AhR-mediated liver toxicity. Therefore,
an additional database uncertainty
factor (UFDB) is not required for either
compound. Both are mild eye irritants
(Category III) but not dermal irritants or
sensitizers. XDE–729 acid is classified
as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.’’ Halauxifen-methyl is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans at doses that do
not induce Cyp1a1 expression,’’ based
on the premise that AhR activation and
subsequent promotion of hepatocellular
tumors (via a prolonged increase in
hepatocellular proliferation), a wellknown non-genotoxic mechanism of
liver carcinogenesis that has been
previously described for other
chemicals, depend upon this molecular
initiating event (MIE). Moreover, based
on its rapid metabolism to XDE–729
acid, halauxifen-methyl is not expected
to persist in the body; therefore,
progression of liver toxicity (including
carcinogenic potential) from sustained
AhR activation is not expected. Neither
compound showed evidence of
genotoxicity.
There is no evidence of increased
prenatal susceptibility to either
compound in developmental toxicity
studies in two species. No
developmental toxicity was observed in
the presence of maternal toxicity for rats
exposed to halauxifen-methyl or rabbits
exposed to XDE–729 acid. In rats
exposed to XDE–729 acid, mild fetal
effects (decreased body weight and
delayed ossification of the thoracic
centra) were observed in the presence of
more significant maternal toxicity
(moribund sacrifice due to excessively
decreased body weight and food
consumption, along with increased
relative kidney weight). In rabbits
exposed to halauxifen-methyl, the fetal
effects (decreased body weight,
increases in delayed ossification of the
pubis) were observed in the presence of
maternal liver histopathology and
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
increased liver weight, at a dose greater
than the maternal LOAEL, and were
therefore not considered indicative of
greater sensitivity. In a rat twogeneration reproductive toxicity study
on XDE–729 acid, there was no
evidence of increased postnatal
susceptibility. Parental toxicity in the
rat two-generation reproductive toxicity
study was observed at 443 mg/kg/day
(NOAEL 103 mg/kg/day), but no
offspring or reproductive toxicity was
reported. A reproductive toxicity study
was not conducted on halauxifenmethyl. Residual concerns for postnatal
susceptibility to halauxifen-methyl in
the absence of this study are low, due
to selection of a highly conservative
endpoint and assumptions for dietary
exposure, as well as the low level of
exposure expected from proposed use
patterns.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by halauxifen-methyl and
its metabolite, XDE–729 acid, as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
Halauxifen-methyl—New Active
Ingredient Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Cereal
Grains (Barley, Wheat, and Triticale) at
page 42 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2012–0919.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for halauxifen-methyl used in
the Agency’s human health risk
assessment is shown in Table 1(a) of
this unit. No hazard from a single
exposure was identified in the available
database; therefore, no risk is expected
from acute dietary exposure to
halauxifen-methyl. For chronic dietary
exposure, the rat 90-day oral study was
selected. Although long-term oral
toxicity studies are not available for
halauxifen-methyl, a dose and an
endpoint protective of long-term
toxicity could be identified using the
subchronic data together with the MOA
data. The rat 90-day study NOAEL of
10.3 mg/kg/day was based on increased
liver weight, hypertrophy and
vacuolization consistent with fatty
change at the LOAEL of 53.4 mg/kg/day.
Liver effects at the LOAEL were of low
severity but were considered treatmentrelated. A marked increase (1,500-fold
above controls) in Cyp1a1 expression
was also observed at the LOAEL. As
previously noted, mechanistic studies
on halauxifen-methyl identified
activation of liver AhR as the MOA for
liver toxicity, for which increased
expression of Cyp1a1 in the liver is a
biomarker for AhR activation, the MIE.
In the absence of AhR activation, liver
toxicity will not occur. Although there
were no liver effects observed at the
study NOAEL, a 52-fold increase in
Cyp1a1 expression was observed. This
increase is well below the increase that
was associated which mild liver
toxicity. Long-term effects on the liver
from this lower level increase are not
known in the absence of chronic data,
but the lowest dose in the study, 3 mg/
kg/day, showed essentially no Cyp1a1
activation. Cyp1a1 expression at 3 mg/
kg/day was comparable to controls in
both the 28- and 90-day studies (1.2and 3.6-fold higher than controls,
respectively), indicating that there is not
expected to be significant activation of
the AhR receptor at this dose level over
time. Therefore, in order to be protective
of potential adverse effects on the liver
following long-term exposure, the point
of departure (POD) of 3 mg/kg/day was
selected, based on increased expression
of liver Cyp1a1 (52-fold) at 10 mg/kg/
day. The selected dose and endpoint are
considered conservative, since the dose
is below the study NOAEL, but
protective of residual uncertainty due to
the lack of chronic data because liver
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53021
toxicity may not occur in the absence of
the MIE, regardless of exposure
duration. They are also protective of
chronic effects from XDE–729 acid,
which are observed at higher doses. A
UF of 100 is based on the combined
interspecies (10x) and intraspecies (10x)
UFs. An additional 10x UF for lack of
chronic data was not applied for the
following reasons: (1) Progression of
toxicity was not observed in the 28- and
90-day dietary studies in the rat: the
NOAELs and LOAELs for both studies
were the same, and the severity of the
findings was minimal at both exposure
durations; (2) evaluation of Cyp1a1
expression in the rat 28- and 90-day
studies indicated that at the selected
POD of 3 mg/kg/day, which is below the
NOAELs for these studies, there is no
expectation of significant AhR
activation that could lead to liver
toxicity. Observable liver toxicity in
these studies was only associated with
significantly greater levels of Cyp1a1;
(3) halauxifen-methyl is rapidly
metabolized to the acid, and neither
bioaccumulate; and (4) based on
comparative in vitro studies, humans
are not anticipated to be more sensitive
to liver effects of halauxifen-methyl
than rats.
Carcinogenicity studies on
halauxifen-methyl were not conducted.
Systemic exposure from halauxifenmethyl is primarily to XDE–729 acid,
which showed no evidence of
carcinogenicity. However, pre-systemic
exposure of the liver to halauxifenmethyl was shown to activate the AhR
receptor, an effect that induces an
increase in hepatocellular proliferation
and, subsequently, may promote an
increased incidence of liver tumors with
long-term exposure. The molecular
marker for AhR activation, the MIE for
liver toxicity, is increased expression of
hepatic Cyp1a1, which was observed at
a dose below the LOAEL for observable
adverse effects of any type. The chronic
dietary endpoint for halauxifen-methyl
is based on the point of departure (POD)
from the rat subchronic study for
Cyp1a1 induction, as described above.
The selected POD is considered very
conservative because it is below the
study NOAEL (the LOAEL was based on
mild liver effects). Since Cyp1a1
induction is one of the early key events
in the MOA leading to hepatotoxicity
and promotion of hepatocellular
proliferation, a dose that is protective of
this event will be protective of the
potential risk for liver cancer with
chronic exposure, based on the rapid
onset of AhR activation following
initiation of exposure, and the lack of
evidence of temporal progression of
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
53022
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
liver toxicity in the available studies
(28- and 90-day). The MOA is
considered relevant to human health
risk assessment, but in vitro data suggest
that humans are unlikely to be more
sensitive than the rat. Based on a
weight-of-the-evidence consideration,
halauxifen-methyl is classified as ‘‘not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’ at
doses that do not induce liver Cyp1a1
expression.
TABLE 1(a)—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR HALAUXIFEN-METHYL FOR USE IN HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Exposure/Scenario
Point of
departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children and females age 13–
49).
No hazard from a single exposure was identified in the available database; therefore, no risk is expected from
this exposure scenario.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
POD = 3.0 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at dose levels that do not induce Cyp1a1 expression.
The cRfD is considered protective of potential cancer effects because it protects for the MIE for hepatocellular
proliferation (AhR activation) that, over time, may result in promotion of liver tumors.
Chronic RfD = 0.03
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.03 mg/kg/
day
90-day oral toxicity in the rat (halauxifen-methyl).
NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day.
At the NOAEL, increased Cyp1a1 expression was observed
(endpoint selected for risk assessment). The lowest dose of
3.0 mg/kg/day was selected to be protective of potential
long-term effects from increased AhR expression in the
liver.1
LOAEL = 52 mg/kg/day based on mild liver enlargement and
pathology.
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect
level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH =
potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MIE = molecular initiating event.
1. The POD selected for risk assessment was based on a non-adverse finding, increased liver Cyp1a1 expression in a rat 90-day dietary
study, which was observed below the study NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day for liver toxicity. This effect is a biomarker for activation of AhR, which
causes liver toxicity and hepatocellular proliferation. The POD was selected to be protective of potential liver effects resulting from chronic dietary
exposure to halauxifen-methyl. Other tissues and organs will not be exposed to halauxifen-methyl due to rapid conversion to XDE–729 acid. The
POD is protective of effects from exposure to XDE–729 acid.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for XDE–729 acid used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1(b) of this unit. No hazard from
a single exposure was identified in the
available database; therefore, no risk is
expected from acute dietary exposure to
XDE–729 acid. The chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study using the rat was
chosen to assess chronic dietary risk to
XDE–729 acid. A NOAEL of 20.3 was
chosen based on hyperplasia of the
renal pelvic epithelium in females
observed at 101 mg/kg/day. This
NOAEL is protective of developmental
effects, observed in the rat at 526 mg/kg/
day (NOAEL = 140 mg/kg/day), and of
maternal toxicity in both the rat (LOAEL
= 526 mg/kg/day) and rabbit (LOAEL
1094 mg/kg/day).
There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in rat and mouse cancer
studies on XDE–729 acid, which is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.’’
TABLE 1(b)—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR XDE–729 ACID FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT
Exposure/Scenario
Point of
departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children and females age 13–
49).
No hazard from a single exposure was identified in the available database; therefore, no risk is expected from
this exposure scenario.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
NOAEL = 20.3 mg/
kg/day (females).
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Chronic RfD = 0.20
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.20 mg/kg/
day.
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Rat two-year dietary chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study
NOAEL = 101/20.3 mg/kg/day [M/F].
LOAEL = 404/101 mg/kg/day [M/F] based on increased mortality, altered urinalysis parameters, decreased body weight,
increased kidney weights, adrenal zone glomerulosa hypertrophy, increased degeneration and regeneration of renal tubules and kidney stones, and bladder pathology in males; in
females, hyperplasia of pelvic epithelium of the kidney.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
53023
TABLE 1(b)—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR XDE–729 ACID FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/Scenario
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Point of
departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect
level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH =
potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to halauxifen-methyl and the
XDE–729 acid metabolite, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed
dietary exposures to these compounds
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 halauxifen-methyl or XDE–729 acid;
therefore, quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessments were determined
unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
individual chronic dietary exposure
assessments for these two compounds,
EPA used the food consumption data
collected between 2003 and 2008 for
USDA’s National Health and Nutrition
Survey/What We Eat in America
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels
in food, EPA used tolerance-level
residues and assumed 100 percent of all
wheat, barley and triticale acres are
treated. No processing factors were used
due to the lack of residue concentration
in processed commodities. Residue
chemistry data indicate that halauxifenmethyl (parent compound) converts to
the XDE–729 acid metabolite so quickly
in the environment that dietary
exposure to halauxifen-methyl is
expected to be minimal.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that halauxifen-methyl does
not pose a cancer risk to humans at dose
levels that do not induce liver toxicity
or Cypla1 expression. EPA has also
concluded that its XDE–729 acid
metabolite does not pose a cancer risk
to humans. Therefore, separate dietary
exposure assessments for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk are determined to
be unnecessary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for halauxifen-methyl. Tolerance-level
residues and 100% CT were assumed
for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening-level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for halauxifen-methyl and its
metabolites (primarily XDE–729 acid) in
drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of halauxifen-methyl and
its metabolites. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of halauxifenmethyl were estimated for chronic
exposure in a non-cancer assessment.
Based on the Screening Concentration
in Groundwater (SCI–GROW) model,
the EDWCs of the XDE–729 acid
metabolite were estimated for chronic
exposure in a non-cancer assessment.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
chronic dietary risk assessment of
halauxifen-methyl only, the water
concentration value of 0.007 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment of XDE–729 acid, a drinking
water concentration value of 19.5 ppb
was used to assess the contribution to
drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
flea and tick control on pets).
Halauxifen-methyl is not used, nor is it
being proposed for use in 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 halauxifen-methyl or XDE–729
acid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, nor
do they appear to produce any toxic
metabolites produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that neither of these
compounds have a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA’s efforts to
determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
53024
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There was no evidence of increased
prenatal susceptibility to either
compound and no evidence of postnatal
susceptibility to XDE–729 acid.
Residual concerns for postnatal
susceptibility to halauxifen-methyl in
the absence of reproductive toxicity data
are low, due to selection of a
conservative endpoint and assumptions
for dietary exposure, as well as the low
level of exposure expected from
proposed use patterns.
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
halauxifen-methyl and XDE–729 acid
are complete.
ii. There is no indication that
halauxifen-methyl or XDE–729 acid are
neurotoxic chemicals and there is no
need for developmental neurotoxicity
studies or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence to suggest
that exposure to halauxifen-methyl or
XDE–729 acid results in increased in
utero susceptibility in rats or rabbits in
the prenatal developmental studies or in
young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The chronic dietary food exposure
assessment was based on 100 PCT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA also made
conservative assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to halauxifen-methyl
and XDE–729 acid in drinking water.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by these compounds.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, neither halauxifenmethyl, nor XDE–729 acid are 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 halauxifenmethyl from food and water will utilize
< 1% of the cPAD for all infants, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. In addition, EPA has
concluded that chronic exposure to
XDE–729 acid from drinking water will
also utilize < 1% of the cPAD for all
infants. XDE–729 is not a residue of
concern in food; therefore, the chronic
assessment was based on drinking water
only for this acid metabolite. There are
no residential uses for halauxifenmethyl being proposed at this time;
therefore chronic aggregate risk reflects
only dietary exposure to potential
residues in food and drinking water.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term risk is
assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short-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-term risk),
no further assessment of short-term risk
is necessary.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed
under the appropriately protective
cPAD, no further assessment of
intermediate-term risk is necessary.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Long-term dietary studies
conducted with XDE–729 acid in the rat
and the mouse showed no evidence of
carcinogenicity. Based on the MOA and
bridging data on halauxifen-methyl,
which allowed identification of a POD
for liver cancer, halauxifen-methyl is
not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans at dose levels below those that
induce liver Cyp1a1 expression.
Genotoxicity studies were negative for
both compounds.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to halauxifenmethyl and XDE–729 acid residues.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(LC–MS/MS) with a limit of
quantitation of 0.01 ppm is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The
multi-residue method, QuEChERS, is
adequate for the determination of both
residues of halauxifen-methyl and XDE–
729 acid in crop commodities. 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.
No MRLs have been established by
Codex for halauxifen-methyl on the
commodities affected by this action.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
As noted in Unit II, the petitioned-for
livestock commodity tolerances (milk;
fat, meat, meat byproducts of cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep) are not being
established due to the lack of
quantifiable residues in livestock
commodities associated with the
proposed uses in wheat, barley and
triticale. In addition, although the
petitioner proposed a tolerance of 0.04
ppm for wheat, hay, EPA has
determined that a tolerance of 0.03 ppm
is appropriate. When the petitioner
determined the proposed tolerances, the
metabolite XDE–729 acid was included
as a residue of concern. EPA has
subsequently determined that this
metabolite is not a residue of concern
for tolerance enforcement. Residues of
metabolite XDE–729 acid were not
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
quantifiable in any of the residue field
trials. Therefore, the values for
measuring compliance with these
tolerances only include residues of
halauxifen-methyl. With the exception
of wheat, hay, this revision to the
residues of concern for tolerance
enforcement had no impact on the plant
commodity tolerances.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of halauxifen-methyl,
(methyl 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl) pyridine-2carboxylate) and its major metabolite,
XDE–729 acid, expressed as halauxifenmethyl (parent) equivalents, in or on
barley, (grain, hay, straw) and wheat,
grain at 0.01 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.50
ppm; wheat, hay at 0.03 ppm; and
wheat, straw at 0.015 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Aug 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
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: July 28, 2016.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, 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. Add § 180.691 to subpart C to read
as follows:
■
§ 180.691 Halauxifen-methyl; tolerances
for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53025
halauxifen-methyl, 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 halauxifen-methyl
(methyl (4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)-2-pyridine
carboxylate).
Commodity
Parts per million
Barley, grain .....................
Barley, hay ........................
Barley, straw .....................
Wheat, forage ...................
Wheat, grain .....................
Wheat, hay .......................
Wheat, straw .....................
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.50
0.01
0.03
0.015
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2016–19118 Filed 8–10–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2016–0176; FRL–9950–
13–Region 6]
Arkansas: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The State of Arkansas has
applied to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of the changes to
its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that
these changes satisfy all requirements
needed to qualify for final authorization,
and is authorizing the State’s changes
through this direct final rule. In the
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this
Federal Register, EPA is also publishing
a separate document that serves as the
proposal to authorize these changes.
EPA believes this action is not
controversial and does not expect
comments that oppose it. Unless EPA
receives written comments which
oppose this authorization during the
comment period, the decision to
authorize Arkansas’ changes to its
hazardous waste program will take
effect. If EPA receives comments that
oppose this action, EPA will publish a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11AUR1.SGM
11AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53019-53025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19118]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0919; FRL-9946-30]
Halauxifen-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
halauxifen-methyl and its metabolite, XDE-729 acid, in or on multiple
commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document.
Dow AgroSciences LLC requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective August 11, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 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-2012-0919, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0919 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 11, 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-2012-0919, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11126) (FRL-
9378-4), 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
2F8086) by Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, halauxifen-
methyl (methyl 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-
methoxyphenyl)pyridine-2-carboxylate) and its major metabolite, XDE-729
acid, expressed as halauxifen-methyl (parent) equivalents, in or on
barley, grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); barley, hay at 0.01 ppm;
barley, straw at 0.01 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at
0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm;
goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat
at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.01
ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm;
sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.5 ppm; wheat,
grain at 0.01 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.04 ppm; and wheat, straw at 0.015
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
[[Page 53020]]
prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that livestock commodity tolerances are not required for the
proposed uses. In addition, the proposed ``wheat, hay'' tolerance level
of 0.04 ppm will be set at a reduced tolerance level of 0.03 ppm. The
reason 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 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 halauxifen-methyl and its acid
metabolite, including exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with halauxifen-methyl and its major metabolite, XDE-729
acid, 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 toxicology database for halauxifen-methyl is considered
adequate at this time. Following oral exposure and absorption, the
liver is exposed pre-systemically to halauxifen-methyl, where it is
hydrolyzed to its major metabolite, XDE-729 acid, before entering the
systemic circulation. Therefore, systemic exposure to organs and
tissues other than the liver is to XDE-729 acid, whereas the liver is
also exposed to the parent prior to its metabolism. The guideline
studies were conducted on XDE-729 acid and identified the kidney as the
main target organ. Bridging studies on halauxifen-methyl identified the
liver as the target organ, but the data could not bridge to the acid
metabolite because liver toxicity from exposure to halauxifen-methyl
occurred at lower doses than the kidney toxicity resulting from
exposure to XDE-729 acid. In lieu of conducting long-term oral studies
on halauxifen-methyl, mechanistic studies were performed to
characterize the mode of action (MOA) for liver toxicity. These studies
identified activation of the liver aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) as
the MOA, and the molecular initiating event (MIE), for liver toxicity,
for which increased liver Cyp1a1 gene expression serves as a biomarker.
In the absence of this MIE, liver toxicity from parent halauxifen-
methyl, including induction of hepatocellular proliferation, will not
be observed. A point of departure (POD) of 3 mg/kg/day for increased
Cyp1a1 expression (observed at 10 mg/kg/day, the study NOAEL) was
identified in the rat 90-day dietary study on halauxifen-methyl and was
selected for chronic dietary risk assessment, since it protects for the
initial step in liver toxicity, regardless of exposure duration.
Therefore, the bridging and mechanistic studies were considered along
with the guideline studies in selection of the dose and endpoint for
halauxifen-methyl. Based on the abundance of guideline and mechanistic
data available, a MOA approach was used for the identification and
characterization of hazard. Due to the distinct toxicities of the two
compounds and the unique MOA for liver toxicity of halauxifen-methyl,
risk from the two compounds was assessed separately.
There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity for either
compound. Inhalation studies (including the acute LD50
study) were waived because MOEs for inhalation exposure, calculated
using a highly conservative endpoint from oral data, were high
(>=2,500), and the available oral and dermal studies did not indicate
the potential for portal of entry effects. In addition, halauxifen-
methyl has a low vapor pressure and adequate particle sizes for test
atmospheres could not be generated. Guideline rat or rabbit dermal
toxicity, rat two-generation reproductive toxicity, dog chronic
toxicity, rat chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity, mouse carcinogenicity,
rat acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies on halauxifen-methyl
were also waived. The waivers were granted because adequate data were
available for XDE-729 acid, to which systemic exposure would occur. The
available data, when combined with the bridging and MOE data on
halauxifen-methyl, allowed identification of a protective POD for AhR-
mediated liver toxicity. Therefore, an additional database uncertainty
factor (UFDB) is not required for either compound. Both are
mild eye irritants (Category III) but not dermal irritants or
sensitizers. XDE-729 acid is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Halauxifen-methyl is classified as ``not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not induce Cyp1a1
expression,'' based on the premise that AhR activation and subsequent
promotion of hepatocellular tumors (via a prolonged increase in
hepatocellular proliferation), a well-known non-genotoxic mechanism of
liver carcinogenesis that has been previously described for other
chemicals, depend upon this molecular initiating event (MIE). Moreover,
based on its rapid metabolism to XDE-729 acid, halauxifen-methyl is not
expected to persist in the body; therefore, progression of liver
toxicity (including carcinogenic potential) from sustained AhR
activation is not expected. Neither compound showed evidence of
genotoxicity.
There is no evidence of increased prenatal susceptibility to either
compound in developmental toxicity studies in two species. No
developmental toxicity was observed in the presence of maternal
toxicity for rats exposed to halauxifen-methyl or rabbits exposed to
XDE-729 acid. In rats exposed to XDE-729 acid, mild fetal effects
(decreased body weight and delayed ossification of the thoracic centra)
were observed in the presence of more significant maternal toxicity
(moribund sacrifice due to excessively decreased body weight and food
consumption, along with increased relative kidney weight). In rabbits
exposed to halauxifen-methyl, the fetal effects (decreased body weight,
increases in delayed ossification of the pubis) were observed in the
presence of maternal liver histopathology and
[[Page 53021]]
increased liver weight, at a dose greater than the maternal LOAEL, and
were therefore not considered indicative of greater sensitivity. In a
rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study on XDE-729 acid, there
was no evidence of increased postnatal susceptibility. Parental
toxicity in the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study was
observed at 443 mg/kg/day (NOAEL 103 mg/kg/day), but no offspring or
reproductive toxicity was reported. A reproductive toxicity study was
not conducted on halauxifen-methyl. Residual concerns for postnatal
susceptibility to halauxifen-methyl in the absence of this study are
low, due to selection of a highly conservative endpoint and assumptions
for dietary exposure, as well as the low level of exposure expected
from proposed use patterns.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by halauxifen-methyl and its metabolite, XDE-729
acid, as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document Halauxifen-
methyl--New Active Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
Uses on Cereal Grains (Barley, Wheat, and Triticale) at page 42 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0919.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for halauxifen-methyl used
in the Agency's human health risk assessment is shown in Table 1(a) of
this unit. No hazard from a single exposure was identified in the
available database; therefore, no risk is expected from acute dietary
exposure to halauxifen-methyl. For chronic dietary exposure, the rat
90-day oral study was selected. Although long-term oral toxicity
studies are not available for halauxifen-methyl, a dose and an endpoint
protective of long-term toxicity could be identified using the
subchronic data together with the MOA data. The rat 90-day study NOAEL
of 10.3 mg/kg/day was based on increased liver weight, hypertrophy and
vacuolization consistent with fatty change at the LOAEL of 53.4 mg/kg/
day. Liver effects at the LOAEL were of low severity but were
considered treatment-related. A marked increase (1,500-fold above
controls) in Cyp1a1 expression was also observed at the LOAEL. As
previously noted, mechanistic studies on halauxifen-methyl identified
activation of liver AhR as the MOA for liver toxicity, for which
increased expression of Cyp1a1 in the liver is a biomarker for AhR
activation, the MIE. In the absence of AhR activation, liver toxicity
will not occur. Although there were no liver effects observed at the
study NOAEL, a 52-fold increase in Cyp1a1 expression was observed. This
increase is well below the increase that was associated which mild
liver toxicity. Long-term effects on the liver from this lower level
increase are not known in the absence of chronic data, but the lowest
dose in the study, 3 mg/kg/day, showed essentially no Cyp1a1
activation. Cyp1a1 expression at 3 mg/kg/day was comparable to controls
in both the 28- and 90-day studies (1.2- and 3.6-fold higher than
controls, respectively), indicating that there is not expected to be
significant activation of the AhR receptor at this dose level over
time. Therefore, in order to be protective of potential adverse effects
on the liver following long-term exposure, the point of departure (POD)
of 3 mg/kg/day was selected, based on increased expression of liver
Cyp1a1 (52-fold) at 10 mg/kg/day. The selected dose and endpoint are
considered conservative, since the dose is below the study NOAEL, but
protective of residual uncertainty due to the lack of chronic data
because liver toxicity may not occur in the absence of the MIE,
regardless of exposure duration. They are also protective of chronic
effects from XDE-729 acid, which are observed at higher doses. A UF of
100 is based on the combined interspecies (10x) and intraspecies (10x)
UFs. An additional 10x UF for lack of chronic data was not applied for
the following reasons: (1) Progression of toxicity was not observed in
the 28- and 90-day dietary studies in the rat: the NOAELs and LOAELs
for both studies were the same, and the severity of the findings was
minimal at both exposure durations; (2) evaluation of Cyp1a1 expression
in the rat 28- and 90-day studies indicated that at the selected POD of
3 mg/kg/day, which is below the NOAELs for these studies, there is no
expectation of significant AhR activation that could lead to liver
toxicity. Observable liver toxicity in these studies was only
associated with significantly greater levels of Cyp1a1; (3) halauxifen-
methyl is rapidly metabolized to the acid, and neither bioaccumulate;
and (4) based on comparative in vitro studies, humans are not
anticipated to be more sensitive to liver effects of halauxifen-methyl
than rats.
Carcinogenicity studies on halauxifen-methyl were not conducted.
Systemic exposure from halauxifen-methyl is primarily to XDE-729 acid,
which showed no evidence of carcinogenicity. However, pre-systemic
exposure of the liver to halauxifen-methyl was shown to activate the
AhR receptor, an effect that induces an increase in hepatocellular
proliferation and, subsequently, may promote an increased incidence of
liver tumors with long-term exposure. The molecular marker for AhR
activation, the MIE for liver toxicity, is increased expression of
hepatic Cyp1a1, which was observed at a dose below the LOAEL for
observable adverse effects of any type. The chronic dietary endpoint
for halauxifen-methyl is based on the point of departure (POD) from the
rat subchronic study for Cyp1a1 induction, as described above. The
selected POD is considered very conservative because it is below the
study NOAEL (the LOAEL was based on mild liver effects). Since Cyp1a1
induction is one of the early key events in the MOA leading to
hepatotoxicity and promotion of hepatocellular proliferation, a dose
that is protective of this event will be protective of the potential
risk for liver cancer with chronic exposure, based on the rapid onset
of AhR activation following initiation of exposure, and the lack of
evidence of temporal progression of
[[Page 53022]]
liver toxicity in the available studies (28- and 90-day). The MOA is
considered relevant to human health risk assessment, but in vitro data
suggest that humans are unlikely to be more sensitive than the rat.
Based on a weight-of-the-evidence consideration, halauxifen-methyl is
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' at doses that
do not induce liver Cyp1a1 expression.
Table 1(a)--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Halauxifen-methyl 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 (General population No hazard from a single exposure was identified in the available database;
including infants and children therefore, no risk is expected from this exposure scenario.
and females age 13-49).
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Chronic dietary (All populations) POD = 3.0 mg/kg/day. Chronic RfD = 0.03 90-day oral toxicity in the rat
UFA = 10x........... mg/kg/day. (halauxifen-methyl).
UFH = 10x........... cPAD = 0.03 mg/kg/ NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day.
FQPA SF = 1x........ day. At the NOAEL, increased Cyp1a1
expression was observed (endpoint
selected for risk assessment).
The lowest dose of 3.0 mg/kg/day
was selected to be protective of
potential long-term effects from
increased AhR expression in the
liver.\1\
LOAEL = 52 mg/kg/day based on mild
liver enlargement and pathology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at dose levels that
do not induce Cyp1a1 expression. The cRfD is considered protective of
potential cancer effects because it protects for the MIE for hepatocellular
proliferation (AhR activation) that, over time, may result in promotion of
liver tumors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.
PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MIE = molecular initiating
event.
1. The POD selected for risk assessment was based on a non-adverse finding, increased liver Cyp1a1 expression in
a rat 90-day dietary study, which was observed below the study NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day for liver toxicity. This
effect is a biomarker for activation of AhR, which causes liver toxicity and hepatocellular proliferation. The
POD was selected to be protective of potential liver effects resulting from chronic dietary exposure to
halauxifen-methyl. Other tissues and organs will not be exposed to halauxifen-methyl due to rapid conversion
to XDE-729 acid. The POD is protective of effects from exposure to XDE-729 acid.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for XDE-729 acid used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1(b) of this unit. No hazard
from a single exposure was identified in the available database;
therefore, no risk is expected from acute dietary exposure to XDE-729
acid. The chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study using the rat was
chosen to assess chronic dietary risk to XDE-729 acid. A NOAEL of 20.3
was chosen based on hyperplasia of the renal pelvic epithelium in
females observed at 101 mg/kg/day. This NOAEL is protective of
developmental effects, observed in the rat at 526 mg/kg/day (NOAEL =
140 mg/kg/day), and of maternal toxicity in both the rat (LOAEL = 526
mg/kg/day) and rabbit (LOAEL 1094 mg/kg/day).
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rat and mouse cancer
studies on XDE-729 acid, which is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.''
Table 1(b)--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for XDE-729 Acid 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 (General population No hazard from a single exposure was identified in the available database;
including infants and children therefore, no risk is expected from this exposure scenario.
and females age 13-49).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 20.3 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.20 Rat two-year dietary chronic
day (females). mg/kg/day. toxicity/carcinogenicity study
NOAEL = 101/20.3 mg/kg/day [M/F].
UFA = 10x........... cPAD = 0.20 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 404/101 mg/kg/day [M/F]
UFH = 10x........... day. based on increased mortality,
FQPA SF = 1x........ altered urinalysis parameters,
decreased body weight, increased
kidney weights, adrenal zone
glomerulosa hypertrophy,
increased degeneration and
regeneration of renal tubules and
kidney stones, and bladder
pathology in males; in females,
hyperplasia of pelvic epithelium
of the kidney.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53023]]
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.
PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to halauxifen-methyl and the XDE-729 acid metabolite, EPA
considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed
dietary exposures to these compounds 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 halauxifen-methyl or XDE-
729 acid; therefore, quantitative acute dietary exposure assessments
were determined unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting individual chronic dietary
exposure assessments for these two compounds, EPA used the food
consumption data collected between 2003 and 2008 for USDA's National
Health and Nutrition Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues and
assumed 100 percent of all wheat, barley and triticale acres are
treated. No processing factors were used due to the lack of residue
concentration in processed commodities. Residue chemistry data indicate
that halauxifen-methyl (parent compound) converts to the XDE-729 acid
metabolite so quickly in the environment that dietary exposure to
halauxifen-methyl is expected to be minimal.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that halauxifen-methyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans
at dose levels that do not induce liver toxicity or Cypla1 expression.
EPA has also concluded that its XDE-729 acid metabolite does not pose a
cancer risk to humans. Therefore, separate dietary exposure assessments
for the purpose of assessing cancer risk are determined to be
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for halauxifen-methyl. Tolerance-level residues and
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for halauxifen-methyl and its metabolites (primarily XDE-729
acid) in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data
on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
halauxifen-methyl and its metabolites. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of halauxifen-
methyl were estimated for chronic exposure in a non-cancer assessment.
Based on the Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) model,
the EDWCs of the XDE-729 acid metabolite were estimated for chronic
exposure in a non-cancer assessment. Modeled estimates of drinking
water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model. For chronic dietary risk assessment of halauxifen-methyl only,
the water concentration value of 0.007 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment of
XDE-729 acid, a drinking water concentration value of 19.5 ppb was used
to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Halauxifen-methyl is
not used, nor is it being proposed for use in 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
halauxifen-methyl or XDE-729 acid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, nor do they appear to produce any
toxic metabolites produced by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that neither of these
compounds have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals
have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative
effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
[[Page 53024]]
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased prenatal susceptibility to either compound and no evidence of
postnatal susceptibility to XDE-729 acid. Residual concerns for
postnatal susceptibility to halauxifen-methyl in the absence of
reproductive toxicity data are low, due to selection of a conservative
endpoint and assumptions for dietary exposure, as well as the low level
of exposure expected from proposed use patterns.
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 halauxifen-methyl and XDE-729 acid are
complete.
ii. There is no indication that halauxifen-methyl or XDE-729 acid
are neurotoxic chemicals and there is no need for developmental
neurotoxicity studies or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence to suggest that exposure to halauxifen-
methyl or XDE-729 acid results in increased in utero susceptibility in
rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats
in the 2-generation reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on
100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA also made conservative
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to halauxifen-methyl and XDE-729 acid in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
these compounds.
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,
neither halauxifen-methyl, nor XDE-729 acid are 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
halauxifen-methyl from food and water will utilize < 1% of the cPAD for
all infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. In
addition, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to XDE-729 acid from
drinking water will also utilize < 1% of the cPAD for all infants. XDE-
729 is not a residue of concern in food; therefore, the chronic
assessment was based on drinking water only for this acid metabolite.
There are no residential uses for halauxifen-methyl being proposed at
this time; therefore chronic aggregate risk reflects only dietary
exposure to potential residues in food and drinking water.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
short-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-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term risk is necessary.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based
on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary
exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD, no further assessment of intermediate-
term risk is necessary.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Long-term dietary
studies conducted with XDE-729 acid in the rat and the mouse showed no
evidence of carcinogenicity. Based on the MOA and bridging data on
halauxifen-methyl, which allowed identification of a POD for liver
cancer, halauxifen-methyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans at dose levels below those that induce liver Cyp1a1 expression.
Genotoxicity studies were negative for both compounds.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to halauxifen-methyl and XDE-729 acid residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (LC-MS/MS) with a limit of
quantitation of 0.01 ppm is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The multi-residue method, QuEChERS, is adequate for the
determination of both residues of halauxifen-methyl and XDE-729 acid in
crop commodities. 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.
No MRLs have been established by Codex for halauxifen-methyl on the
commodities affected by this action.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
As noted in Unit II, the petitioned-for livestock commodity
tolerances (milk; fat, meat, meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep) are not being established due to the lack of quantifiable
residues in livestock commodities associated with the proposed uses in
wheat, barley and triticale. In addition, although the petitioner
proposed a tolerance of 0.04 ppm for wheat, hay, EPA has determined
that a tolerance of 0.03 ppm is appropriate. When the petitioner
determined the proposed tolerances, the metabolite XDE-729 acid was
included as a residue of concern. EPA has subsequently determined that
this metabolite is not a residue of concern for tolerance enforcement.
Residues of metabolite XDE-729 acid were not
[[Page 53025]]
quantifiable in any of the residue field trials. Therefore, the values
for measuring compliance with these tolerances only include residues of
halauxifen-methyl. With the exception of wheat, hay, this revision to
the residues of concern for tolerance enforcement had no impact on the
plant commodity tolerances.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of halauxifen-
methyl, (methyl 4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-methoxyphenyl)
pyridine-2-carboxylate) and its major metabolite, XDE-729 acid,
expressed as halauxifen-methyl (parent) equivalents, in or on barley,
(grain, hay, straw) and wheat, grain at 0.01 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.50
ppm; wheat, hay at 0.03 ppm; and wheat, straw at 0.015 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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: July 28, 2016.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, 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. Add Sec. 180.691 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. [emsp14]180.691 Halauxifen-methyl; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide, halauxifen-methyl, 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
halauxifen-methyl (methyl (4-amino-3-chloro-6-(4-chloro-2-fluoro-3-
methoxyphenyl)-2-pyridine carboxylate).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain......................................... 0.01
Barley, hay........................................... 0.01
Barley, straw......................................... 0.01
Wheat, forage......................................... 0.50
Wheat, grain.......................................... 0.01
Wheat, hay............................................ 0.03
Wheat, straw.......................................... 0.015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2016-19118 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P