Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances, 69401-69407 [2016-24214]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will result from this
action.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Population
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
The EPA lacks the discretionary
authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, because the SIP is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 5,
2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
Dated: September 23, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9.
[FR Doc. 2016–24082 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0121; FRL–9951–90]
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that this
action is not subject to the requirements
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of dichlormid in
or on all commodities for which there
is a tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor. Drexel Chemical Company
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69401
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
This regulation is effective
October 6, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 5, 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–2016–0121, 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:
Michael Goodis, Acting Director,
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.
DATES:
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
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
69402
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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–2016–0121 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 December 5, 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–
2016–0121, 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 April 25,
2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL–9944–86),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
pesticide petition (PP IN–10858) by
Drexel Chemical Company, P.O. Box
13327, Memphis, TN 38113–03227.
Although the notice announced the
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.469
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the inert ingredient
(safener) dichlormid, in or on all
commodities for which there is a
tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm), the notice of filing submitted
simply listed numerous commodities
that were intended to correspond to the
commodities for which metolachlor and
s-metolachlor tolerances were
established. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
Drexel Chemical Company, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
To ensure consistency between the
notice of filing and the petition filed
and to avoid any confusion, EPA
requested that Drexel revise and
resubmit their notice of filing to clarify
that the request is to establish tolerances
for residues of the inert ingredient
(safener) dichlormid, in or on all
commodities for which there is a
tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor at 0.05 ppm. Upon
receiving that revised petition, EPA
issued a notice of filing of that petition
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3) in the Federal Register
of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL–
9948–45). The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.469 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the inert ingredient (safener)
dichlormid, in or on all commodities for
which there is a tolerance for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor at 0.05
ppm. That revised petition prepared by
Drexel Chemical Company, the
registrant, is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There was
one comment received in response to
this notice of filing; however, the
comment was not related to this
chemical or petition and is therefore,
not relevant to this action.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 dichlormid
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with dichlormid 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 database for
dichlormid has been previously
reviewed by the Agency, most recently
March 23, 2011 when the permanent
tolerance for dichlormid was issued (76
FR 16308) (FRL–8866–2). No new data
was reviewed as part of this petition for
tolerance.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by dichlormid as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
In acute toxicity studies, dichlormid
exhibits low to moderate toxicity,
depending on the route of exposure. The
oral lethal dose (LD)50 for dichlormid in
rats is 2,816 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg)
in males and 2,146 mg/kg for females
(Category III). The dermal LD50 of
dichlormid in rats is greater than 2,000
mg/kg (Category III). The acute
inhalation lethal concentration (LC)50 in
rats is greater than 5.5 mg/(L) (Category
IV). Dichlormid is mildly irritating to
the skin of rabbits (Category IV) and
severely irritating to the eyes of rabbits
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(Category II). Dichlormid is a mild
dermal sensitizer.
The liver is the target organ in
subchronic and chronic toxicity studies
in rats and dogs. There are two 90-day
rat toxicity studies are available. One
older study (1972), was determined to
be an unacceptable study. In the other
study, toxicity was manifested as minor
decreased in body weight gains and
food efficiency in females and on
increased liver weight and a slightly
increased (not statistically significant)
incidence of liver lipidosis in males.
Similarly two 90-day toxicity studies in
dogs are available. In the newer study,
via capsules, decreased body weight
gains, hematological and clinical
chemistry alternations, liver toxicity
and voluntary muscle pathological
changes were observed. In a 1-year
toxicity study in the dogs, voluntary
muscle fiber degeneration and slight to
moderate vacuolation of the adrenal
cortex was observed at 20 mg/kg/day.
There was also increased in alkaline
phosphatase activity in both sexes and
decreased in aspartate aminotransferase
activity in females. Liver weights
(absolute and relative to body) were
increased in both sexes.
In a developmental toxicity study in
rats, decreased mean absolute body
weights, body weight gains, and food
consumption was observed in maternal
animals. Developmental toxicity in rats
was manifested as marginal increased in
skeletal anomalies in the presence of
maternal toxicity. In the developmental
toxicity study in rabbits, increased
incidence of alopecia and decreased
mean maternal body weight gains and
food consumption was observed in
maternal animals. The fetal effects in
rabbits, exhibited in the presence of
maternal toxicity, were manifested as
increases in post-implantation loss
accompanied by an increase number of
resorptions/doe (both early and late
resorptions), decreased number of live/
fetuses/litter, and slightly decreased
mean fetal body weights. In a 2generation reproduction study in rats,
no treatment related effects on
reproductive parameters were observed.
Minimal increased liver weight,
minimal decreased weight gain and
minimal decreased in food consumption
was observed in parental animals.
Increased liver weights were observed
in the offspring.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
No increased incidences of treatment
related tumors were observed in mice
and rats. In the carcinogenicity study in
mice, kidney changes and changes in
reproductive organs were observed,
while rats exhibited decreased body
weights and liver toxicity. Mutagenic
potential for dichlormid was evaluated
in an adequate battery of in vivo and in
vitro assays. A negative response was
observed in these assays except in one
in vitro assay (mouse lymphoma assay).
However, the in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay was negative.
In an acute neurotoxicity study in
rats, decreased body weight gains with
lower food consumption was observed
in both sexes. Functional observational
battery (FOB) measurements at the time
of peak effect (4 hrs post dose) showed
decreased activity, hunching, increased
touch response, lachrimation,
piloerection, reduced splay reflex, and
signs of salivation. These effects were
deemed slight with a greater incidence
in females. No treatment-related
changes in bodyweight, food
consumption, FOB, motor activity, brain
weight, or neuropathology were
identified in the 90-day neurotoxicity
study in rats; however, the high dose of
750 ppm (equal to 55.4 mg/kg/day) was
not considered as adequate for testing.
No evidence of immunotoxicity was
observed in a dietary immunotoxicity
study in rats. There were no treatment
related effects on spleen and thymus
weights at any of the doses of
dichlormid tested.
Approximately 90% of the orally
administered dose was absorbed in rats.
Urinary excretion was the major route of
elimination of orally administered
dichlormid, consistently accounting for
60–78% of the administered dose over
48–168 hours following a single oral
dose. Fecal excretion accounted for
∼8–20% of a single oral dose.
Approximately 70–77% of urinary
excretion (representing 52–54% of the
administered dose) occurred within 24
hours. No gender-related difference in
rate or amount of urinary excretion was
observed. No significant accumulation
in the body was observed. Dichlormid
was metabolized via two pathways:
1. Initial dechlorination followed by
formation of various chlorinated, watersoluble metabolites, and;
2. Formation of various chlorinated
metabolites.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69403
In a subchronic inhalation toxicity
study in rats via whole body exposure
for 6 hours a day, 5 days/week for 14
weeks, decreased body weights and
increased liver weights were observed at
the highest dose tested. The increased
liver weights was considered as an
adaptive response. Chromorhinorrhea, a
respiratory system clinical observation
based on the discharge of colored
secretion from the nostrils, was
exhibited consistently in the two top
dose exposure groups. Microscopic
pathology identified in the two top dose
exposure groups, dose-dependent
respiratory tract tissue alterations
involving the olfactory epithelium for
both genders.
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 dichlormid used for
human health risk assessment are
shown in Table 1 of this unit.
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
69404
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR DICHLORMID USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT 1
Exposure scenario
Acute Dietary, all populations
including infants and children.
Chronic Dietary, all populations
Dermal Absorption ....................
Dose and factors
NOAEL = 10 mg/kg
UF = 100
Acute RfD = 0.10
mg/kg/day
NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/
day.
UF = 100
Chronic RfD = 0.05
mg/kg/day.
FQPA SF and
endpoint for
risk assessment
FQPA SF = 1 ...........
aPAD = acute RfD/
FQPA SF = 0.10
mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1 ...........
cPAD = chr RfD/
FQPA SF = 0.05
mg/kg/day.
Study and toxicological effects
Developmental Toxicity Study—Rat
Maternal LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight gain and food consumption (most significant on days
7–10 of dosing).
1-year Study—Dog
LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day (male, female), based on increased
liver weights, increased in alkaline phosphatase activity, minimal muscle fiber degeneration in, slight to moderate
vacuolation of the inner cortex of the adrenal gland, and increased kidney weights (females).
100% default; neither a dermal absorption study nor a dermal toxicity study (for extrapolation) is available in
the database.
Short-term Dermal ....................
Oral NOAEL = 10.0
mg/kg/day.
MOE = 100 ..............
Intermediate- and Long-Term
(Dermal).
Oral NOAEL = 5 mg/
kg/day.
MOE = 100 ..............
Inhalation (All Durations) ..........
2 μg/L ......................
MOE = 100 ..............
Cancer .......................................
..................................
..................................
Developmental toxicity Study—Rats
Maternal LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight gain and food consumption (most significant on days
7–10 of dosing). This dose/endpoint/study was used for deriving the aRfD. Dermal toxicity study is not available. 100%
dermal absorption factor should be used for this risk assessment.
1-year study—Dog
LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day (male, female), based on increased
liver weights, increased in alkaline phosphatase activity, minimal muscle fiber degeneration in, slight to moderate
vacuolation of the inner cortex of the adrenal gland, and increased kidney weights (females).
14-week inhalation study
LOAEL = 20 μg/L based on clinical signs, increased liver and
kidney weights, gross pathology and non-neoplastic
histopathology. The route of exposure in this study is appropriate for this risk assessment.
No evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
1 UF
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
= uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic); RfD = reference dose; LOC = level of concern; MOE = margin of exposure.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dichlormid, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
dichlormid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.469. The assessment was conducted
using the proposed tolerance of 0.05
ppm for those commodities for which
there is a current tolerance for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor as well
as for all commodities to account for the
potential dietary exposure that could
result from dichlormid should
additional tolerances be established for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from
dichlormid 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. Such effects were identified
for dichlormid. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) 2003–2008 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA used tolerance level
residues (i.e., 0.05 ppm) and 100% crop
treated.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 2003–2008 CSFII. As to
residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance level residues (i.e., 0.05 ppm)
and 100% crop treated.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dichlormid does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for dichlormid. Tolerance level residues
(i.e., 0.05 ppm) and 100% CT were
assumed for all food commodities.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. For the current screening level
dietary risk assessment, to support the
request for expanded tolerances for
dichlormid, a conservative drinking
water concentration value of 100 parts
per billions (ppb), based on screening
level modeling, was used to account for
the contribution of the additional
commodities to drinking water for the
chronic dietary risk assessments for the
parent compound. These values were
directly entered into the dietary
exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Dichlormid is not contained in any
pesticide formulation registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
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 dichlormid to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
dichlormid does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that dichlormid does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
Food Quality Protection Act Safety
Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence of increased
susceptibility of infants and children
from in utero exposure to dichlormid
based on developmental toxicity study
in rats. In this study the developmental
toxicity was manifested as marginal
increased in skeletal anomalies
(developmental toxicity NOAEL 40 mg/
kg/day) at a one dose higher than the
NOAEL for maternal toxicity (NOAEL
10 mg/kg/day). There is qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility
demonstrated following in utero
exposure in the prenatal developmental
toxicity study in rabbits, since fetal
effects observed (resorptions, decreased
live fetuses per litter, and decreased
fetal body weight) are considered to be
more severe than those observed in
maternal animals (increased alopecia,
decreased body weight gain and food
consumption). In this study the NOAEL
for maternal and developmental toxicity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
is 30 mg/kg/day. There is no evidence
increased susceptibility of infants and
children from pre-and post-natal
exposure to dichlormid in the two
generation reproduction study. In this
study, increased liver, weights,
decreased body weight gain and
decreased food consumption was
observed in parental animals and
increased liver weights in the offspring.
There is no/low concern for increased
qualitative susceptibility seen in the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits
because there is well characterized
NOAEL for the developmental toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for dichlormid
is complete. All part 158 data
requirements are fulfilled. The
dichlormid toxicity database included
subchronic studies in rats and dogs,
mutagenicity battery, carcinogenicity
studies in mice and rats, developmental
toxicity study in rats and rabbits, 2generation reproduction study, acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity study,
immunotoxicity study, metabolism and
repeat dose inhalation toxicity study.
ii. There is no indication that
dichlormid is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to
account for neurotoxicity based on acute
and subchronic neurotoxicity study.
iii. There is no evidence that
dichlormid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study. There was some
evidence of increased qualitative
susceptibility seen in the developmental
toxicity study in rabbits, however, there
is no residual uncertainty or concern
because there is well characterized
NOAEL for the developmental toxicity
and regulatory end points are below the
NOAEL for the developmental effects
thus providing additional margin of
safety.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% CT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to dichlromid in
drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by dichlromid.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69405
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. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
dichlormid will occupy 26.2% of the
aPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to dichlormid
from food and water will utilize 15.3%
of the cPAD for children 1–2 years old,
the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for dichlormid.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). A short-term adverse
effect was identified; however,
dichlormid is not contained in any
pesticide product registered for any use
patterns that would result in short-term
residential exposure. 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, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for
dichlormid.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level). An
intermediate-term adverse effect was
identified; however, dichlormid is not
contained in any pesticide product
registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
69406
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to
assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term
risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
dichlormid.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity, dichlormid
is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to dichlormid
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography with nitrogen
selective thermionic detection) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression. 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.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for dichlormid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of dichlormid, in or on all
commodities for which there is a
tolerance for metolachlor and Smetolachlor at 0.05 ppm as listed in 40
CFR 180.368.
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 tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes, nor does
this action alter the relationships or
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States
or tribal governments, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘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: September 27, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.469, redesignate the
existing paragraph (a) as (a)(1), and add
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.469 Dichlormid; Tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of dichlormid, including its
metabolites and degradates, at 0.05 parts
per million (ppm) when used as an inert
ingredient (herbicide safener) in
pesticide formulations containing
metolachlor or S-metolachlor in or on
raw agricultural commodities for which
tolerances have been established for
metolachlor or S-metolachlor.
Compliance with the tolerances is to be
determined by measuring only
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
depending on the total number of pages
copied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Wall, Land Division, Mail Code
LND 2–3 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901; telephone
number: (415) 972–3381; fax number:
(415) 947–3564; email address:
wall.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
dichlormid (2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2propenylacetamide).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–24214 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445; FRL–9953–
45–Region 9]
Final Determination To Approve SiteSpecific Flexibility for Closure and
Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, is making a final
determination to approve two SiteSpecific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs)
from Imperial County (County or
Imperial County) to close and monitor
the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill
(Picacho Landfill or Landfill). The
Picacho Landfill is a commercial
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
operated by Imperial County from 1977
to the present on the Quechan Indian
Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian
Reservation in California.
EPA is promulgating a site-specific
rule proposed on April 7, 2016, that
approves an alternative final cover and
a modification to the prescribed list of
groundwater detection-monitoring
parameters for ongoing monitoring for
the Picacho Landfill.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
October 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Library, located at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California. The EPA Library
is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday, excluding
legal holidays, and is located in a
secured building. To review docket
materials at the EPA Library, it is
recommended that the public make an
appointment by calling (415) 947–4406
during normal business hours. Copying
arrangements will be made through the
EPA Library and billed directly to the
recipient. Copying costs may be waived
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:57 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
I. What did EPA propose?
After completing a review of Imperial
County’s Picacho Landfill Final
Closure/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan
and the associated SSFRs, EPA
proposed this rulemaking in the Federal
Register. The proposed determination
was published at 81 FR 20274, April 7,
2016. EPA proposed to approve an
alternative final cover that varies from
the final closure requirements of 40 CFR
258.60(a) but meets the criteria at 40
CFR 258.60(b), and alternative
groundwater detection monitoring
parameters for post-closure monitoring
in accordance with 40 CFR 258.54(a).
II. Legal Authority for This Action
Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and
4010 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress required
EPA to establish revised minimum
federal criteria for MSWLFs, including
landfill location restrictions, operating
standards, design standards, and
requirements for ground water
monitoring, corrective action, closure
and post-closure care, and financial
assurance. Under RCRA section 4005,
states are to develop permit programs
for facilities that may receive household
hazardous waste or waste from
conditionally exempt small quantity
generators of hazardous waste, and EPA
is to determine whether the state’s
program is adequate to ensure that such
facilities will comply with the revised
federal criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are set forth in
the Code of Federal Regulations at 40
CFR part 258. These regulations are
prescriptive, self-implementing and
apply directly to owners and operators
of MSWLFs. Many of these criteria
include a flexible performance standard
as an alternative to the prescriptive, selfimplementing regulation. The flexible
standard is not self-implementing, and
requires approval by the Director of an
EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting
program. However, EPA’s approval of a
state program generally does not extend
to Indian Country because states
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69407
generally do not have authority over
Indian Country. For this reason, owners
and operators of MSWLF units located
in Indian Country cannot take advantage
of the flexibilities available to those
facilities that are within the jurisdiction
of an EPA-approved state program.
However, the EPA has the authority
under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of
RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules
to enable such owners and operators to
use the flexible standards. See Yankton
Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471
(D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against
Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir.
1996). EPA refers to such rules as ‘‘SiteSpecific Flexibility Determinations.’’
EPA has developed guidance for owners
and operators on preparing a request for
such a site-specific rule, entitled ‘‘SiteSpecific Flexibility Requests for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in
Indian Country, Draft Guidance,’’
EPA530–R–97–016 (August 1997) (Draft
Guidance).
III. Background
The Picacho Landfill is located on
Quechan tribal lands on the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation approximately four
miles north-northeast of the community
of Winterhaven, in Imperial County,
California. The Picacho Landfill is a
commercial MSWLF operated by
Imperial County from 1977 to the
present. The landfill site is
approximately 12.5 acres.
In January 2006, the Tribe requested
that EPA provide comments on the
County’s closure plan. Between 2006
and 2011, EPA worked with the Tribe,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
the County to develop the closure plan.
During this time, EPA also reviewed the
SSFRs to determine whether they met
technical and regulatory requirements.
On October 27, 2010, Imperial County
submitted its Picacho Final Closure/
Post-Closure Maintenance Plan. EPA
provided a final round of comments on
February 10, 2011, which Imperial
County incorporated as an addendum.
On April 30, 2012, the Tribe approved
the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/PostClosure Maintenance Plan as amended,
and, pursuant to EPA’s Draft Guidance,
the Tribe forwarded to EPA two SSFRs
that had been submitted by Imperial
County to close and monitor the Picacho
Landfill. The requests sought EPA
approval to use an alternative final
cover meeting the performance
requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and
to modify the prescribed list of
groundwater detection-monitoring
parameters provided in 40 CFR
258.54(a)(1) and (2) for ongoing
monitoring.
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69401-69407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0121; FRL-9951-90]
Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
dichlormid in or on all commodities for which there is a tolerance for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor. Drexel Chemical Company requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective October 6, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 5, 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-2016-0121, 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: Michael Goodis, Acting Director,
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
[[Page 69402]]
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-2016-0121 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
December 5, 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-2016-0121, 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 April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
IN-10858) by Drexel Chemical Company, P.O. Box 13327, Memphis, TN
38113-03227. Although the notice announced the petition requested that
40 CFR 180.469 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the inert ingredient (safener) dichlormid, in or on all commodities for
which there is a tolerance for metolachlor and S-metolachlor at 0.05
parts per million (ppm), the notice of filing submitted simply listed
numerous commodities that were intended to correspond to the
commodities for which metolachlor and s-metolachlor tolerances were
established. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Drexel Chemical Company, the registrant, which is available
in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
To ensure consistency between the notice of filing and the petition
filed and to avoid any confusion, EPA requested that Drexel revise and
resubmit their notice of filing to clarify that the request is to
establish tolerances for residues of the inert ingredient (safener)
dichlormid, in or on all commodities for which there is a tolerance for
metolachlor and S-metolachlor at 0.05 ppm. Upon receiving that revised
petition, EPA issued a notice of filing of that petition pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3) in the Federal Register
of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-45). The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.469 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the inert ingredient (safener) dichlormid, in or on all commodities
for which there is a tolerance for metolachlor and S-metolachlor at
0.05 ppm. That revised petition prepared by Drexel Chemical Company,
the registrant, is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There was one comment received in response to this notice of filing;
however, the comment was not related to this chemical or petition and
is therefore, not relevant to this action.
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 dichlormid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with dichlormid 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 database for dichlormid has been previously reviewed by
the Agency, most recently March 23, 2011 when the permanent tolerance
for dichlormid was issued (76 FR 16308) (FRL-8866-2). No new data was
reviewed as part of this petition for tolerance.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by dichlormid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
In acute toxicity studies, dichlormid exhibits low to moderate
toxicity, depending on the route of exposure. The oral lethal dose
(LD)50 for dichlormid in rats is 2,816 milligram/kilogram
(mg/kg) in males and 2,146 mg/kg for females (Category III). The dermal
LD50 of dichlormid in rats is greater than 2,000 mg/kg
(Category III). The acute inhalation lethal concentration
(LC)50 in rats is greater than 5.5 mg/(L) (Category IV).
Dichlormid is mildly irritating to the skin of rabbits (Category IV)
and severely irritating to the eyes of rabbits
[[Page 69403]]
(Category II). Dichlormid is a mild dermal sensitizer.
The liver is the target organ in subchronic and chronic toxicity
studies in rats and dogs. There are two 90-day rat toxicity studies are
available. One older study (1972), was determined to be an unacceptable
study. In the other study, toxicity was manifested as minor decreased
in body weight gains and food efficiency in females and on increased
liver weight and a slightly increased (not statistically significant)
incidence of liver lipidosis in males. Similarly two 90-day toxicity
studies in dogs are available. In the newer study, via capsules,
decreased body weight gains, hematological and clinical chemistry
alternations, liver toxicity and voluntary muscle pathological changes
were observed. In a 1-year toxicity study in the dogs, voluntary muscle
fiber degeneration and slight to moderate vacuolation of the adrenal
cortex was observed at 20 mg/kg/day. There was also increased in
alkaline phosphatase activity in both sexes and decreased in aspartate
aminotransferase activity in females. Liver weights (absolute and
relative to body) were increased in both sexes.
In a developmental toxicity study in rats, decreased mean absolute
body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption was observed in
maternal animals. Developmental toxicity in rats was manifested as
marginal increased in skeletal anomalies in the presence of maternal
toxicity. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, increased
incidence of alopecia and decreased mean maternal body weight gains and
food consumption was observed in maternal animals. The fetal effects in
rabbits, exhibited in the presence of maternal toxicity, were
manifested as increases in post-implantation loss accompanied by an
increase number of resorptions/doe (both early and late resorptions),
decreased number of live/fetuses/litter, and slightly decreased mean
fetal body weights. In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats, no
treatment related effects on reproductive parameters were observed.
Minimal increased liver weight, minimal decreased weight gain and
minimal decreased in food consumption was observed in parental animals.
Increased liver weights were observed in the offspring.
No increased incidences of treatment related tumors were observed
in mice and rats. In the carcinogenicity study in mice, kidney changes
and changes in reproductive organs were observed, while rats exhibited
decreased body weights and liver toxicity. Mutagenic potential for
dichlormid was evaluated in an adequate battery of in vivo and in vitro
assays. A negative response was observed in these assays except in one
in vitro assay (mouse lymphoma assay). However, the in vivo mouse
micronucleus assay was negative.
In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, decreased body weight
gains with lower food consumption was observed in both sexes.
Functional observational battery (FOB) measurements at the time of peak
effect (4 hrs post dose) showed decreased activity, hunching, increased
touch response, lachrimation, piloerection, reduced splay reflex, and
signs of salivation. These effects were deemed slight with a greater
incidence in females. No treatment-related changes in bodyweight, food
consumption, FOB, motor activity, brain weight, or neuropathology were
identified in the 90-day neurotoxicity study in rats; however, the high
dose of 750 ppm (equal to 55.4 mg/kg/day) was not considered as
adequate for testing. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in a
dietary immunotoxicity study in rats. There were no treatment related
effects on spleen and thymus weights at any of the doses of dichlormid
tested.
Approximately 90% of the orally administered dose was absorbed in
rats. Urinary excretion was the major route of elimination of orally
administered dichlormid, consistently accounting for 60-78% of the
administered dose over 48-168 hours following a single oral dose. Fecal
excretion accounted for ~8-20% of a single oral dose. Approximately 70-
77% of urinary excretion (representing 52-54% of the administered dose)
occurred within 24 hours. No gender-related difference in rate or
amount of urinary excretion was observed. No significant accumulation
in the body was observed. Dichlormid was metabolized via two pathways:
1. Initial dechlorination followed by formation of various
chlorinated, water-soluble metabolites, and;
2. Formation of various chlorinated metabolites.
In a subchronic inhalation toxicity study in rats via whole body
exposure for 6 hours a day, 5 days/week for 14 weeks, decreased body
weights and increased liver weights were observed at the highest dose
tested. The increased liver weights was considered as an adaptive
response. Chromorhinorrhea, a respiratory system clinical observation
based on the discharge of colored secretion from the nostrils, was
exhibited consistently in the two top dose exposure groups. Microscopic
pathology identified in the two top dose exposure groups, dose-
dependent respiratory tract tissue alterations involving the olfactory
epithelium for both genders.
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 dichlormid used for
human health risk assessment are shown in Table 1 of this unit.
[[Page 69404]]
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Dichlormid Use in Human Risk Assessment \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF and
Exposure scenario Dose and factors endpoint for risk Study and toxicological effects
assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary, all populations NOAEL = 10 mg/kg.... FQPA SF = 1........ Developmental Toxicity Study--Rat
including infants and children. UF = 100............ aPAD = acute RfD/ Maternal LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
Acute RfD = 0.10 mg/ FQPA SF = 0.10 mg/ based on decreased body weight
kg/day. kg/day. gain and food consumption (most
significant on days 7-10 of
dosing).
Chronic Dietary, all populations. NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day. FQPA SF = 1........ 1-year Study--Dog
UF = 100............ cPAD = chr RfD/FQPA LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day (male,
Chronic RfD = 0.05 SF = 0.05 mg/kg/ female), based on increased liver
mg/kg/day.. day.. weights, increased in alkaline
phosphatase activity, minimal
muscle fiber degeneration in,
slight to moderate vacuolation of
the inner cortex of the adrenal
gland, and increased kidney
weights (females).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Absorption................ 100% default; neither a dermal absorption study nor a dermal toxicity study
(for extrapolation) is available in the database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-term Dermal................ Oral NOAEL = 10.0 mg/ MOE = 100.......... Developmental toxicity Study--Rats
kg/day. Maternal LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
based on decreased body weight
gain and food consumption (most
significant on days 7-10 of
dosing). This dose/endpoint/study
was used for deriving the aRfD.
Dermal toxicity study is not
available. 100% dermal absorption
factor should be used for this
risk assessment.
Intermediate- and Long-Term Oral NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/ MOE = 100.......... 1-year study--Dog
(Dermal). day. LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day (male,
female), based on increased liver
weights, increased in alkaline
phosphatase activity, minimal
muscle fiber degeneration in,
slight to moderate vacuolation of
the inner cortex of the adrenal
gland, and increased kidney
weights (females).
Inhalation (All Durations)....... 2 [mu]g/L........... MOE = 100.......... 14-week inhalation study
LOAEL = 20 [mu]g/L based on
clinical signs, increased liver
and kidney weights, gross
pathology and non-neoplastic
histopathology. The route of
exposure in this study is
appropriate for this risk
assessment.
Cancer........................... .................... ................... No evidence of carcinogenicity in
rats and mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UF = uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL =
lowest observed adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic); RfD = reference
dose; LOC = level of concern; MOE = margin of exposure.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dichlormid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing dichlormid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.469. The assessment was conducted using the proposed tolerance of
0.05 ppm for those commodities for which there is a current tolerance
for metolachlor and S-metolachlor as well as for all commodities to
account for the potential dietary exposure that could result from
dichlormid should additional tolerances be established for metolachlor
and S-metolachlor. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dichlormid 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. Such effects were identified
for dichlormid. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance level residues (i.e., 0.05 ppm) and 100% crop treated.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues
(i.e., 0.05 ppm) and 100% crop treated.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dichlormid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for dichlormid. Tolerance level residues (i.e., 0.05
ppm) and 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the current screening
level dietary risk assessment, to support the request for expanded
tolerances for dichlormid, a conservative drinking water concentration
value of 100 parts per billions (ppb), based on screening level
modeling, was used to account for the contribution of the additional
commodities to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for the parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
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). Dichlormid is not
contained in any pesticide formulation registered for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether
[[Page 69405]]
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 dichlormid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and dichlormid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
dichlormid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of infants and children from in utero exposure
to dichlormid based on developmental toxicity study in rats. In this
study the developmental toxicity was manifested as marginal increased
in skeletal anomalies (developmental toxicity NOAEL 40 mg/kg/day) at a
one dose higher than the NOAEL for maternal toxicity (NOAEL 10 mg/kg/
day). There is qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility
demonstrated following in utero exposure in the prenatal developmental
toxicity study in rabbits, since fetal effects observed (resorptions,
decreased live fetuses per litter, and decreased fetal body weight) are
considered to be more severe than those observed in maternal animals
(increased alopecia, decreased body weight gain and food consumption).
In this study the NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity is 30
mg/kg/day. There is no evidence increased susceptibility of infants and
children from pre-and post-natal exposure to dichlormid in the two
generation reproduction study. In this study, increased liver, weights,
decreased body weight gain and decreased food consumption was observed
in parental animals and increased liver weights in the offspring.
There is no/low concern for increased qualitative susceptibility
seen in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits because there is
well characterized NOAEL for the developmental toxicity.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for dichlormid is complete. All part 158
data requirements are fulfilled. The dichlormid toxicity database
included subchronic studies in rats and dogs, mutagenicity battery,
carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats, developmental toxicity study
in rats and rabbits, 2-generation reproduction study, acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity study, immunotoxicity study, metabolism and
repeat dose inhalation toxicity study.
ii. There is no indication that dichlormid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity based on acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity study.
iii. There is no evidence that dichlormid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. There was some evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility
seen in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, however, there is
no residual uncertainty or concern because there is well characterized
NOAEL for the developmental toxicity and regulatory end points are
below the NOAEL for the developmental effects thus providing additional
margin of safety.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to dichlromid in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dichlromid.
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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to dichlormid will occupy 26.2% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year
old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dichlormid from food and water will utilize 15.3% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for dichlormid.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, dichlormid is not contained in
any pesticide product registered for any use patterns that would result
in short-term residential exposure. 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, and
EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-
term risk for dichlormid.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
dichlormid is not contained in any pesticide product registered for any
use patterns that would result in intermediate-term
[[Page 69406]]
residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic
dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately
protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to
assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-
term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk
assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for dichlormid.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity, dichlormid is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to dichlormid residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen
selective thermionic detection) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. 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. The Codex has not
established a MRL for dichlormid.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dichlormid,
in or on all commodities for which there is a tolerance for metolachlor
and S-metolachlor at 0.05 ppm as listed in 40 CFR 180.368.
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 tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 27, 2016.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.469, redesignate the existing paragraph (a) as (a)(1),
and add paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.469 Dichlormid; Tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of dichlormid,
including its metabolites and degradates, at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm) when used as an inert ingredient (herbicide safener) in pesticide
formulations containing metolachlor or S-metolachlor in or on raw
agricultural commodities for which tolerances have been established for
metolachlor or S-metolachlor. Compliance with the tolerances is to be
determined by measuring only
[[Page 69407]]
dichlormid (2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-24214 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P