Metaldehyde; Pesticide Tolerances, 71633-71638 [2016-25166]
Download as PDF
71633
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
circuit by December 19, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: October 5, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
2. In § 52.1870 the table in paragraph
(c) is amended under ‘‘Chapter 3745–21
Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Hydrocarbon
Air Quality Standards, and Related
Emission Requirements’’ by revising the
entry for 3745–21–09 ‘‘Control of
Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Stationary Sources
and Perchloroethylene from Dry
Cleaning Facilities’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1870
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
EPA-APPROVED OHIO REGULATIONS
Ohio citation
*
*
Chapter 3745–21
*
3745–21–09 ...
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Notes
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0558; FRL–9951–78]
Metaldehyde; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances with regional registration for
residues of metaldehyde in or on
multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
October 18, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 19, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
16:02 Oct 17, 2016
*
*
*
10/18/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0558, 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.
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2016–24912 Filed 10–17–16; 8:45 am]
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
EPA approval date
*
Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission Requirements
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
*
*
Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds
1/17/2014
from Stationary Sources and Perchloroethylene
from Dry Cleaning Facilities.
*
*
Ohio effective
date
Title/subject
Jkt 241001
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
except (U)(1)(h).
*
*
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.
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
71634
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2015–0558 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 19, 2016. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2015–0558, 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.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of Wednesday,
September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54257) (FRL–
9933–26), 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 5E8377) by
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR–4), IR–4 Headquarters, 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:31 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
08540. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.523 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the molluscicide metaldehyde, 2,4,6,8tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane, in or on
beet, garden, roots at 0.05 parts per
million (ppm); beet, garden, tops at 0.08
ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.05 ppm;
rutabaga, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip,
greens (tops) at 0.08 ppm; turnip, roots
at 0.05 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.05 ppm;
wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, hay at
0.05 ppm and wheat, straw at 0.05 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Lonza, Inc., 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 made
certain modifications to the petitionedfor crop tolerances. 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 metaldehyde
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with metaldehyde follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity database and considered its
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 toxicity profile of metaldehyde
shows that the principal toxic effects are
clinical signs of neurotoxicity. The dog
is the most sensitive species for the
neurotoxic effects. The nervous system
effects observed in subchronic and
chronic oral toxicity studies include: (1)
Neurotoxic signs, i.e., ataxia; tremor;
twitching; salivation; emesis; and rapid
respiration in dogs and maternal rats;
and (2) neuropathology, i.e., limb
paralysis, spinal cord necrosis, and
hemorrhage in maternal rats.
The liver is a target organ following
subchronic and chronic oral exposure to
metaldehyde as evidenced by increased
liver weight, increased incidence of
liver lesions, i.e., hepatocellular
necrosis, hepatocellular hypertrophy,
inflammation, and an increased
incidence of hepatocellular adenomas/
carcinomas in female rats and
hepatocellular adenomas in both sexes
of mice. The testes and prostate are also
target organs following subchronic and
chronic exposure as evidenced by
atrophy of both organs in dogs.
Developmental toxicity was not
observed in the rat or rabbit
developmental toxicity studies.
Maternal toxicity was not observed in
the rabbit, although maternal toxicity
was observed in the rat, as evidenced by
clinical signs including ataxia, tremors,
and twitching at the highest dose tested
(HDT). In the rat reproductive toxicity
study, mortality and clinical signs, i.e.,
limb paralysis, spinal cord necrosis and
hemorrhage were observed in the
maternal animals, and the effects on the
offspring consisted of decreased pup
body weight and body weight gains.
Reproductive toxicity was not observed.
In chronic feeding studies in mice and
rats, benign liver tumors were seen in
both sexes of mice and in female rats.
The Agency has determined that
quantification of risk using a non-linear
Reference Dose (RfD) approach for
metaldehyde will adequately account
for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to metaldehyde. That
conclusion is based on the following
considerations: (1) The tumors found
are commonly seen in the mouse; (2) the
liver tumors (adenomas) in both species
were benign; (3) metaldehyde is not
mutagenic; (4) no carcinogenic response
was seen in the male rat; (5) incidence
of adenomas at the high-dose in the
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
female rat was within the historical
control range of the testing lab; and (6)
both the no-observed-adverse-effectlevel (NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
chronic rat study on which the chronic
RfD/population-adjusted dose (PAD)
was based are well below the dose at
which adenomas were seen.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by metaldehyde as well
as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Metaldehyde; Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Uses on
Garden Beets, Hops, Rutabaga, Turnips
and Wheat with Regional Registration in
the Pacific Northwest,’’ in docket ID
number EPA– HQ–OPP–2015–0558.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which the NOAEL and the
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 PAD or a 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://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for metaldehyde used for
human risk assessment is discussed in
Unit III.B. of the final rule published in
the Federal Register of November 27,
2013 (78 FR 70864) (FRL–9388–8).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to metaldehyde, EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:31 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing metaldehyde tolerances in 40
CFR 180.523. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from metaldehyde 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
metaldehyde. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software
with the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM–FCID), Version 3.16,
which incorporates 2003–2008 food
consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and 100 percent crop
treated (PCT). In addition, the Agency
assumed processing factors to be 1.0 for
all commodities except for tomato,
dried; tomato, juice; cranberry, juice;
and high fructose corn syrup; for these
commodities, DEEM default processing
factors were used.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the DEEM–FCID, Version
3.16, which incorporates 2003–2008
food consumption data from the
USDA’s, NHANES/WWEIA. As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and 100 PCT. Processing
factors were assumed to be 1.0 for all
commodities except for tomato, dried;
tomato, juice; cranberry, juice; and high
fructose corn syrup; for these
commodities, DEEM default processing
factors were used.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA
concluded that quantification of risk
using a non-linear RfD approach will
adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity.
Therefore, a dietary exposure
assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for
metaldehyde. Tolerance-level residues
and 100 PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71635
The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for metaldehyde in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
metaldehyde. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/
pesticide-science-and-assessingpesticide-risks/about-water-exposuremodels-used-pesticide.
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 metaldehyde
for acute exposures are estimated to be
205 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 1880 ppb for ground water.
Chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 136 ppb
for surface water and 915 ppb for
ground water.
For acute dietary risk assessment, the
full distribution of ground water
concentrations from the PRZM–GW
model was used to assess the
contribution from drinking water.
For chronic dietary risk assessment,
the water concentration of value 915
ppb was used to assess the contribution
from drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Metaldehyde is currently registered
for the following uses that could result
in residential exposures: Residential
ornamentals and lawn/turf applications.
EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions and exposure
factors: For adult residential handlers,
EPA conducted a short-term exposure
assessment of metaldehyde for adults
based on the inhalation route,
incorporating the maximum labeled
application rate, and unit exposure
values and estimates for area treated/
amount handled taken from the 2012
Residential Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs). The scenario
resulting in the highest adult exposure
in a residential setting was hand
dispersal of granules, which was used in
the short-term aggregate assessment.
Additional scenarios assessed included;
loading and applying distinct
metaldehyde product types, i.e., liquid
ready-to-use products applied manually
via pressurized hand wands, hose-end
sprayers, and sprinkler cans, as well as
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
71636
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
applying granular products via pushtype rotary spreaders, belly grinders,
spoons, cups, hands, and shaker cans.
For children, the highest estimated
metaldehyde exposure resulted from
post-application incidental oral
exposures of short-term duration from
hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth
contact with treated turf, and short- and
intermediate-term exposures from
treated soil. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions
and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at https://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/standardoperating-procedures-residentialpesticide.
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 metaldehyde to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
metaldehyde does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that metaldehyde 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://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:31 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
Developmental toxicity was not
observed in the rat or rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and no
maternal toxicity observed in the rabbit.
Maternal toxicity was observed in the
rat, as evidenced by clinical signs, i.e.,
ataxia, tremors, and twitching, however
these effects were observed only at the
highest dose tested. In the rat
reproductive toxicity study, mortality
and clinical signs, i.e., limb paralysis,
spinal cord necrosis and hemorrhage
were observed in the maternal animals,
and the effects on the offspring
consisted of decreased pup body weight
and body weight gains. Reproductive
toxicity was not observed.
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
metaldehyde is complete;
ii. Although there are indications of
neurotoxicity from exposure to
metaldehyde, there are clear NOAELs/
LOAELS for these effects, and Points of
Departure selected for risk assessment
are protective for these effects. EPA has
determined that the acute and
developmental neurotoxicity studies are
not needed, nor are additional
uncertainty factors (UFs) necessary to
account for neurotoxicity. There were
no indications of neurotoxic effects in
developing rats or rabbits in either the
developmental or reproductive studies.
Although there were some effects in
adult rats, those effects occurred at
doses much higher than in the dog
study. The dog is the more sensitive
species for neurotoxic effects and points
of departure (30 mg/kg/day and 10 mg/
kg/day) are based on the chronic dog
oral toxicity study, which EPA
considers to be protective of any
neurotoxicity at higher dose levels.
iii. There is no evidence that
metaldehyde results in increased
susceptibility following in utero
exposure to metaldehyde in either the
rat or rabbit developmental toxicity
study, and there is no evidence of
increased susceptibility following in
utero and/or pre-/post-natal exposure in
the 2-generation reproduction study in
rats.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on established
and proposed tolerance-level residues,
100 PCT, default processing factors, and
EDWCs from chronic ground water
(worst case) models to assess exposure
to metaldehyde in drinking water. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess exposure to adult handlers,
and post application exposure of
children (including incidental oral
exposure of toddlers). These
assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by
metaldehyde based on the current and
proposed use patterns.
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
metaldehyde will occupy 18% of the
aPAD for the general population, and
55% of the aPAD for all infants less than
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 metaldehyde
from food and water will utilize 22% of
the cPAD for the general population,
and 52% of the cPAD for all infants less
than 1 year old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure. Based
on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues
of metaldehyde is not expected.
3. Short-term risk: Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Metaldehyde is currently registered
for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short-term residential
exposures to metaldehyde. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this
unit for short-term exposures, EPA has
concluded the combined short-term
food, water, and residential exposures
result in aggregate MOEs of 1400 for
adults and 580 for children. Because
EPA’s level of concern for metaldehyde
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Metaldehyde is currently registered for
uses that could result in intermediateterm residential exposure, and the
Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposures
to metaldehyde. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has
concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 270 (for children
only). Because EPA’s level of concern
for metaldehyde is a MOE of 100 or
below, this MOE is not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III, EPA believes
that quantification of metaldehyde risk
using a non-linear RfD approach will
adequately account for all related
chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity. Based on the chronic
risk assessment, EPA concludes that
aggregate exposure to metaldehyde will
not pose a cancer risk.
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 metaldehyde
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography with mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) method (EN–
CASTM Method No. ENC–3/99, Revision
1) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The limit of quantitation
(LOQ) for this method is 0.05 ppm for
all plant commodities except hops, for
which it is 0.10 ppm.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:31 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 metaldehyde.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
For hop, dried cones, the analytical
method was not successfully validated
at the proposed tolerance level of 0.05
ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing the
tolerance level for this commodity at the
lowest validated LOQ for hops of 0.10
ppm. In addition, the commodity
definition proposed as ‘‘beet, garden,
tops’’ is corrected to read: ‘‘beet, garden,
leaves’’.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of metaldehyde, 2,4,6,8tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane, in or on
beet, garden, leaves at 0.08 ppm; beet,
garden, roots at 0.05 ppm; hop, dried
cones at 0.10 ppm; rutabaga, roots at
0.05 ppm; turnip, greens at 0.08 ppm;
turnip, roots at 0.05 ppm; wheat, forage
at 0.05 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm;
wheat, hay at 0.05 ppm and wheat,
straw at 0.05 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71637
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).
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
71638
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 30, 2016.
Michael L. Goodis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I. Background
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 § 180.523, add alphabetically the
commodities ‘‘beet, garden, leaves’’;
‘‘beet, garden, roots’’; ‘‘hop, dried
cones’’; ‘‘rutabaga, roots’’; ‘‘turnip
greens’’; ‘‘turnip, roots’’; ‘‘wheat,
forage’’; ‘‘wheat, grain’’; ‘‘wheat, hay’’;
and ‘‘wheat, straw’’ to the table in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.523 Metaldehyde; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Parts
per
million
Commodity
Supplement (NFS) to provide needed
editorial changes.
DATES: Effective: October 18, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of
Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy
Division, via email at
manuel.quinones@nasa.gov, or
telephone (202) 358–2143.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Beet, garden, leaves ................
Beet, garden, roots ...................
0.08
0.05
*
*
*
*
Hop, dried cones ......................
Rutabaga, roots ........................
*
0.10
0.05
*
*
*
*
Turnip greens ...........................
Turnip, roots .............................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
*
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
As part of NASA’s retrospective
review of existing regulations NASA is
conducting periodic reviews of the
NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to ensure
the accuracy of information
disseminated to the acquisition
community. This rule makes
administrative changes to the NFS to
correct typographical errors as well as
inadvertent omissions from prior
rulemaking actions. A summary of
changes follows:
• Section 1816.406–70(c) is revised to
correct a typographical error.
• Section 1823.7001(c) is revised by
replacing the word ‘‘clause’’ with the
word ‘‘provision.’’
• Section 1832.908 is revised to add
a clause prescription inadvertently
omitted.
• Section 1845.107–70(e) is revised to
replace the word ‘‘property’’ with
‘‘equipment’’ and paragraph (m) is
revised to replace the term ‘‘NASA
owned property’’ with ‘‘NASA real
property.’’
• Section 1852.217–72 is revised to
correct the clause date.
• Section 1852.223–73 is revised to
replace the word ‘‘clause’’ with the
word ‘‘provision.’’
• Section 1852.231–71 is revised to
correct the clause date.
List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1816,
1823, 1832, 1845, and 1852
Government procurement.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Technical amendments.
NASA is making technical
amendments to the NASA FAR
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:31 Oct 17, 2016
Jkt 241001
3. Amend section 1823.7001(c) by
removing the word ‘‘clause’’ and adding
word ‘‘provision’’ wherever it occurs.
■
PART 1832—CONTRACT FINANCING
4. Amend section 1832.908 by adding
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
■
1832.908
Contract clauses.
(c)(2) When the clause at FAR 52.232–
25, Prompt Payment, is used in such
contracts with the Canadian
Commercial Corporation (CCC), insert
‘‘17th’’ in lieu of ‘‘30th’’ in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i)(A) and (B) and (a)(1)(ii).
PART 1845—GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY
5. The authority citation for part 1845
is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
1845.107–70
[Amended]
6. Amend section 1845.107–70—
a. In paragraph (e) introductory text,
by removing ‘‘Government Property’’
and adding ‘‘Government Equipment’’
in its place; and
■ b. In paragraph (m), by removing
‘‘NASA owned property’’ and adding
‘‘NASA real property’’ in its place.
■
■
PART 1852—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
[Amended]
7. Amend section 1852.217–72 by
removing ‘‘MAY 2000’’ and adding
‘‘NOV 2011’’ in its place.
1852.223–73
[Amended]
Authority: 51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
8. Amend section 1852.223–73 by
removing the word ‘‘clause’’ and adding
in its place the word ‘‘provision’’
wherever it occurs.
PART 1816—TYPES OF CONTRACTS
1852.231–71
1816.406–70
48 CFR Parts 1816, 1823, 1832, 1845,
and 1852
AGENCY:
[Amended]
■
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1816, 1823,
1832, 1845, and 1852 are amended as
follows:
■ 1. The authority citation for parts
1816, 1823, 1832, and 1852 continues to
read as follows:
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
1823.7001
1852.217–72
Manuel Quinones,
NASA FAR Supplement Manager.
[FR Doc. 2016–25166 Filed 10–17–16; 8:45 am]
PART 1823—ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY
AND WATER EFFICIENCY,
RENEWABLE ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE
WORKPLACE
■
[Amended]
2. Amend section 1816.406–70(e) by
removing the words ‘‘in cost an award
fee’’ and adding ‘‘in award fee’’ in its
place.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
■
[Amended]
9. Amend section 1852.231–71 by
removing ‘‘MAR 1994’’ and adding
‘‘APR 2015’’ in its place.
[FR Doc. 2016–25014 Filed 10–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71633-71638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25166]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558; FRL-9951-78]
Metaldehyde; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances with regional
registration for residues of metaldehyde in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later in this document.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective October 18, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 19, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558, 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 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.
[[Page 71634]]
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558 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 19, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0558, 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 Wednesday, September 9, 2015 (80 FR
54257) (FRL-9933-26), 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 5E8377) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4),
IR-4 Headquarters, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.523 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the molluscicide metaldehyde,
2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane, in or on beet, garden, roots
at 0.05 parts per million (ppm); beet, garden, tops at 0.08 ppm; hop,
dried cones at 0.05 ppm; rutabaga, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip, greens
(tops) at 0.08 ppm; turnip, roots at 0.05 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.05
ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.05 ppm and wheat, straw
at 0.05 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Lonza, Inc., 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 made
certain modifications to the petitioned-for crop tolerances. 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 metaldehyde including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with metaldehyde follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity database 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 toxicity profile of metaldehyde shows that the principal toxic
effects are clinical signs of neurotoxicity. The dog is the most
sensitive species for the neurotoxic effects. The nervous system
effects observed in subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies
include: (1) Neurotoxic signs, i.e., ataxia; tremor; twitching;
salivation; emesis; and rapid respiration in dogs and maternal rats;
and (2) neuropathology, i.e., limb paralysis, spinal cord necrosis, and
hemorrhage in maternal rats.
The liver is a target organ following subchronic and chronic oral
exposure to metaldehyde as evidenced by increased liver weight,
increased incidence of liver lesions, i.e., hepatocellular necrosis,
hepatocellular hypertrophy, inflammation, and an increased incidence of
hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in female rats and hepatocellular
adenomas in both sexes of mice. The testes and prostate are also target
organs following subchronic and chronic exposure as evidenced by
atrophy of both organs in dogs.
Developmental toxicity was not observed in the rat or rabbit
developmental toxicity studies. Maternal toxicity was not observed in
the rabbit, although maternal toxicity was observed in the rat, as
evidenced by clinical signs including ataxia, tremors, and twitching at
the highest dose tested (HDT). In the rat reproductive toxicity study,
mortality and clinical signs, i.e., limb paralysis, spinal cord
necrosis and hemorrhage were observed in the maternal animals, and the
effects on the offspring consisted of decreased pup body weight and
body weight gains. Reproductive toxicity was not observed.
In chronic feeding studies in mice and rats, benign liver tumors
were seen in both sexes of mice and in female rats. The Agency has
determined that quantification of risk using a non-linear Reference
Dose (RfD) approach for metaldehyde will adequately account for all
chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to metaldehyde. That conclusion is based on the following
considerations: (1) The tumors found are commonly seen in the mouse;
(2) the liver tumors (adenomas) in both species were benign; (3)
metaldehyde is not mutagenic; (4) no carcinogenic response was seen in
the male rat; (5) incidence of adenomas at the high-dose in the
[[Page 71635]]
female rat was within the historical control range of the testing lab;
and (6) both the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the chronic rat study
on which the chronic RfD/population-adjusted dose (PAD) was based are
well below the dose at which adenomas were seen.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by metaldehyde as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document ``Metaldehyde; Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Garden Beets, Hops, Rutabaga,
Turnips and Wheat with Regional Registration in the Pacific
Northwest,'' in docket ID number EPA- HQ-OPP-2015-0558.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the 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 PAD or a 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for metaldehyde used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 27, 2013 (78 FR 70864)
(FRL-9388-8).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to metaldehyde, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing metaldehyde tolerances in 40 CFR
180.523. EPA assessed dietary exposures from metaldehyde 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 metaldehyde. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version
3.16, which incorporates 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and 100 percent crop treated (PCT). In addition, the Agency
assumed processing factors to be 1.0 for all commodities except for
tomato, dried; tomato, juice; cranberry, juice; and high fructose corn
syrup; for these commodities, DEEM default processing factors were
used.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16, which incorporates
2003-2008 food consumption data from the USDA's, NHANES/WWEIA. As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and 100 PCT. Processing factors were assumed to be 1.0 for
all commodities except for tomato, dried; tomato, juice; cranberry,
juice; and high fructose corn syrup; for these commodities, DEEM
default processing factors were used.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA
concluded that quantification of risk using a non-linear RfD approach
will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
metaldehyde. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water.
The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the
dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for metaldehyde in
drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of metaldehyde.
Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in
pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
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 metaldehyde
for acute exposures are estimated to be 205 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 1880 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 136 ppb for surface water and
915 ppb for ground water.
For acute dietary risk assessment, the full distribution of ground
water concentrations from the PRZM-GW model was used to assess the
contribution from drinking water.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 915 ppb was used to assess the contribution from 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).
Metaldehyde is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Residential ornamentals and
lawn/turf applications. EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions and exposure factors: For adult residential
handlers, EPA conducted a short-term exposure assessment of metaldehyde
for adults based on the inhalation route, incorporating the maximum
labeled application rate, and unit exposure values and estimates for
area treated/amount handled taken from the 2012 Residential Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs). The scenario resulting in the highest
adult exposure in a residential setting was hand dispersal of granules,
which was used in the short-term aggregate assessment. Additional
scenarios assessed included; loading and applying distinct metaldehyde
product types, i.e., liquid ready-to-use products applied manually via
pressurized hand wands, hose-end sprayers, and sprinkler cans, as well
as
[[Page 71636]]
applying granular products via push-type rotary spreaders, belly
grinders, spoons, cups, hands, and shaker cans.
For children, the highest estimated metaldehyde exposure resulted
from post-application incidental oral exposures of short-term duration
from hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth contact with treated turf, and
short- and intermediate-term exposures from treated soil. Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found metaldehyde to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and metaldehyde does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
metaldehyde 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Developmental toxicity was
not observed in the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies and no
maternal toxicity observed in the rabbit. Maternal toxicity was
observed in the rat, as evidenced by clinical signs, i.e., ataxia,
tremors, and twitching, however these effects were observed only at the
highest dose tested. In the rat reproductive toxicity study, mortality
and clinical signs, i.e., limb paralysis, spinal cord necrosis and
hemorrhage were observed in the maternal animals, and the effects on
the offspring consisted of decreased pup body weight and body weight
gains. Reproductive toxicity was not observed.
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 metaldehyde is complete;
ii. Although there are indications of neurotoxicity from exposure
to metaldehyde, there are clear NOAELs/LOAELS for these effects, and
Points of Departure selected for risk assessment are protective for
these effects. EPA has determined that the acute and developmental
neurotoxicity studies are not needed, nor are additional uncertainty
factors (UFs) necessary to account for neurotoxicity. There were no
indications of neurotoxic effects in developing rats or rabbits in
either the developmental or reproductive studies. Although there were
some effects in adult rats, those effects occurred at doses much higher
than in the dog study. The dog is the more sensitive species for
neurotoxic effects and points of departure (30 mg/kg/day and 10 mg/kg/
day) are based on the chronic dog oral toxicity study, which EPA
considers to be protective of any neurotoxicity at higher dose levels.
iii. There is no evidence that metaldehyde results in increased
susceptibility following in utero exposure to metaldehyde in either the
rat or rabbit developmental toxicity study, and there is no evidence of
increased susceptibility following in utero and/or pre-/post-natal
exposure in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on established and proposed tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT, default
processing factors, and EDWCs from chronic ground water (worst case)
models to assess exposure to metaldehyde in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess exposure to adult
handlers, and post application exposure of children (including
incidental oral exposure of toddlers). These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by metaldehyde based on the
current and proposed use patterns.
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 metaldehyde will occupy 18% of the aPAD for the general population,
and 55% of the aPAD for all infants less than 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
metaldehyde from food and water will utilize 22% of the cPAD for the
general population, and 52% of the cPAD for all infants less than 1
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based
on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of metaldehyde is
not expected.
3. Short-term risk: Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Metaldehyde is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to metaldehyde. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures,
EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1400 for adults and 580 for
children. Because EPA's level of concern for metaldehyde
[[Page 71637]]
is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Metaldehyde is currently registered for uses that could result
in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to
metaldehyde. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 270 (for children only). Because EPA's level of
concern for metaldehyde is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of
concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III, EPA believes that quantification of metaldehyde
risk using a non-linear RfD approach will adequately account for all
related chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity. Based on the
chronic risk assessment, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to
metaldehyde will not pose a cancer risk.
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 metaldehyde residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) method (EN-CAS\TM\ Method No. ENC-3/99, Revision
1) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The limit of
quantitation (LOQ) for this method is 0.05 ppm for all plant
commodities except hops, for which it is 0.10 ppm.
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 metaldehyde.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
For hop, dried cones, the analytical method was not successfully
validated at the proposed tolerance level of 0.05 ppm. Therefore, EPA
is establishing the tolerance level for this commodity at the lowest
validated LOQ for hops of 0.10 ppm. In addition, the commodity
definition proposed as ``beet, garden, tops'' is corrected to read:
``beet, garden, leaves''.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of metaldehyde,
2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetroxocane, in or on beet, garden, leaves
at 0.08 ppm; beet, garden, roots at 0.05 ppm; hop, dried cones at 0.10
ppm; rutabaga, roots at 0.05 ppm; turnip, greens at 0.08 ppm; turnip,
roots at 0.05 ppm; wheat, forage at 0.05 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.05 ppm;
wheat, hay at 0.05 ppm and wheat, straw at 0.05 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 tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
[[Page 71638]]
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 30, 2016.
Michael L. 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. 180.523, add alphabetically the commodities ``beet, garden,
leaves''; ``beet, garden, roots''; ``hop, dried cones''; ``rutabaga,
roots''; ``turnip greens''; ``turnip, roots''; ``wheat, forage'';
``wheat, grain''; ``wheat, hay''; and ``wheat, straw'' to the table in
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.523 Metaldehyde; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beet, garden, leaves....................................... 0.08
Beet, garden, roots........................................ 0.05
* * * * *
Hop, dried cones........................................... 0.10
Rutabaga, roots............................................ 0.05
* * * * *
Turnip greens.............................................. 0.08
Turnip, roots.............................................. 0.05
Wheat, forage.............................................. 0.05
Wheat, grain............................................... 0.05
Wheat, hay................................................. 0.05
Wheat, straw............................................... 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-25166 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P