Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerance, 10712-10718 [2017-03075]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
10712
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
federal implementation plans (FIPs).
EPA has completed final calculations
for the second round of NUSA
allowance allocations for the 2016
compliance year of the CSAPR NOX
Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2
Trading Programs. EPA has posted
spreadsheets showing the second-round
2016 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX
Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2
allowances to new units as well as the
allocations to existing units of the
remaining CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2
Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances
not allocated to new units in either
round of the 2016 NUSA allocation
process. EPA will record the allocated
CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and
SO2 Group 2 allowances in sources’
Allowance Management System (AMS)
accounts by February 15, 2017.
DATES: February 15, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions concerning this action should
be addressed to Robert Miller at (202)
343–9077 or miller.robertl@epa.gov or to
Kenon Smith at (202) 343–9164 or
smith.kenon@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state
budget for each of the CSAPR trading
programs is reserved as a NUSA from
which allowances are allocated to
eligible units through an annual one- or
two-round process. EPA has described
the CSAPR NUSA allocation process in
five NODAs previously published in the
Federal Register: 81 FR 33636 (May 27,
2016); 81 FR 50630 (August 2, 2016); 81
FR 63156 (September 14, 2016); 81 FR
80593 (November 16, 2016) and 81 FR
89035 (December 9, 2016). In the most
recent of these previous NODAs, EPA
provided notice of preliminary lists of
new units eligible for second-round
2016 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX
Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2
allowances and provided an
opportunity for the public to submit
objections.
EPA received no objections to the
preliminary lists of new units eligible
for second-round 2016 NUSA
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2
Group 1, or SO2 Group 2 allowances
whose availability was announced in
the December 9 NODA. EPA is therefore
making second-round 2016 NUSA
allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2
Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances
to the new units identified on these lists
in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR 97.412(a)(9) and (12),
97.612(a)(9) and (12), and 97.712(a)(9)
and (12).
As described in the December 9
NODA, any allowances remaining in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and
SO2 Group 2 NUSAs for a given state
and control period after the second
round of NUSA allocations to new units
is completed are to be allocated to the
existing units in the state according to
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
97.412(a)(10) and (12), 97.612(a)(10) and
(12), and 97.712(a)(10) and (12). EPA
has determined that CSAPR NOX
Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2
allowances do remain in the NUSAs for
a number of states following completion
of second-round 2016 NUSA
allocations; accordingly, EPA is
allocating these allowances to existing
units. The NUSA allowances are
generally allocated to the existing units
in proportion to the allocations
previously made to the existing units
under 40 CFR 97.411(a)(1), 97.611(a)(1),
and 97.711(a)(1), adjusted for rounding.
Under 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10),
97.612(b)(10), and 97.712(b)(10), any
allowances remaining in the CSAPR
NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2
Group 2 Indian country NUSAs for a
given state and control period after the
second round of Indian country NUSA
allocations to new units are added to the
NUSA for that state or are made
available for allocation by the state
pursuant to an approved SIP revision.
No new units eligible for allocations of
CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and
SO2 Group 2 allowances from any 2016
Indian country NUSA have been
identified, and no state has an approved
SIP revision governing allocation of
2016 CSAPR NUSA allowances. The
Indian country NUSA allowances are
therefore being added to the NUSAs for
the respective states and are included in
the pools of allowances that are being
allocated to existing units under 40 CFR
97.412(b)(10) and (12), 97.612(b)(10)
and (12), and 97.712(b)(10) and (12).
The final unit-by-unit data and
allowance allocation calculations are set
forth in Excel spreadsheets titled
‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2016_NOx_Annual_
2nd_Round_Final_Data_New_Units’’,
‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2016_SO2_2nd_
Round_Final_Data_New_Units’’,
‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2016_NOx_Annual_
2nd_Round_Final_Data_Existing_
Units’’, and ‘‘CSAPR_NUSA_2016_SO2_
2nd_Round_Final_Data_Existing_
Units’’, available on EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csaprcompliance-year-2016-nusa-nodas.
Pursuant to CSAPR’s allowance
recordation timing requirements, the
allocated NUSA allowances will be
recorded in sources’ AMS accounts by
February 15, 2017. EPA notes that an
allocation or lack of allocation of
allowances to a given unit does not
constitute a determination that CSAPR
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
does or does not apply to the unit. EPA
also notes that NUSA allocations of
CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and
SO2 Group 2 allowances are subject to
potential correction if a unit to which
NUSA allowances have been allocated
for a given compliance year is not
actually an affected unit as of January 1
of the compliance year.1
Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.611(b),
and 97.711(b).
January 27, 2017.
Richard Haeuber,
Acting Director, Clean Air Markets Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017–03069 Filed 2–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0705; FRL–9957–00]
Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes a
tolerance for residues of thiamethoxam
in or on bananas. Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC requested this tolerance
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
February 15, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before April 17, 2017, 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–2015–0705, 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.
SUMMARY:
1 See
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.611(c), and 97.711(c).
15FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
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–2015–0705 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 April 17, 2017. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
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–
2015–0705, 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 November
23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL–9936–73),
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 5E8401) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O.
Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27409–
8300. The petition requested that 40
CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide, thiamethoxam, in or on
banana at 0.04 parts per million (ppm).
That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Syngenta, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received on the notice
of filing. EPA’s response to these
comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the level at which the
tolerance is being established. The
reason for this change is explained in
Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10713
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. . . .’’
Tolerances for residues of
thiamethoxam are listed in 40 CFR
180.565 and are expressed in terms of
the combined residues of the insecticide
thiamethoxam and its metabolite CGA–
322704. Metabolite CGA–322704 is also
the registered active ingredient
clothianidin (tolerance listings in 40
CFR 180.586). Clothianidin (hereinafter
referred to as CGA–322704) has a
complete toxicological database and
appears to have effects in mammals that
are different from those of
thiamethoxam. A separate risk
assessment that addresses risks from
CGA–322704 residues resulting from the
direct application of CGA–322704
(clothianidin), as well as risks from
residues of CGA–322704 coming from
thiamethoxam uses has been conducted,
and there are no risk estimates of
concern as a result of the proposed
tolerance for thiamethoxam residues in
imported bananas. This risk assessment
can be found at
http:www.regulations.gov in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0705.
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 thiamethoxam
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with thiamethoxam 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.
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
10714
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
In mammals, toxicological effects are
seen primarily in the liver, kidney,
testes, and blood cellular system. In
addition, developmental neurological
effects were observed in rats. These
developmental effects are being used to
assess risks associated with acute
exposures to thiamethoxam, and the
liver and testicular effects are the basis
for assessing longer-term exposures.
There is no indication of quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility in the
developmental toxicity studies. There is
evidence of quantitative susceptibility
in the developmental neurotoxicity
study and both two-generation
reproductive studies. However, clear no
observed adverse effects levels
(NOAELs) were identified for the
susceptibility in the 2-generation
reproduction and developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) studies and the
endpoints and doses chosen for risk
assessment are protective of the
susceptibility observed in these studies.
Thiamethoxam is classified as ‘‘not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’ at
levels below which certain amounts of
metabolites are produced. The liver
tumors that were observed in the mouse
have been demonstrated to be a result of
a non-genotoxic mode of action
dependent on sufficient amounts of a
hepatotoxic metabolite being produced.
Although humans are qualitatively
capable of producing the active
metabolite, thiamethoxam is unlikely to
pose a cancer risk to humans unless
sufficient amounts of metabolites are
persistently formed to drive a
carcinogenic response. The chronic
endpoint selected for regulating
exposure to thiamethoxam is
sufficiently protective of the key events
(perturbation of liver metabolism,
hepatotoxicity/regenerative
proliferation) in the animal mode of
action. At those levels, the Agency does
not expect sufficient generation of the
necessary metabolites to elicit a
carcinogenic response; therefore,
separate quantification of carcinogenic
potential is not required.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by thiamethoxam as well
as the NOAEL and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at
http:www.regulations.gov in the
document titled ‘‘Thiamethoxam.
Human Health Risk Assessment for
Tolerances on Imported Bananas’’ on
page 33 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2015–0705.
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://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for thiamethoxam used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR THIAMETHOXAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (All populations
NOAEL = 34.5 mg/kg/
including infants and children).
day UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 1.2 mg/kg/
day UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.35
mg/kg/day.
aPAD = 0.35 mg/kg/
day.
Chronic RfD = 0.012
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.012 mg/
kg/day.
Rat Developmental Neurotoxicity study.
LOAEL = 298.7 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight
and reduced brain morphometric measurements.
Incidental oral short-term infants/children <6 years old (1
to 30 days).
LOC for MOE = 100
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Exposure/scenario
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
NOAEL= 31.6 mg/kg/
day UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2-Generation reproduction study.
LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and
severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation
males.
2-Generation reproduction study,
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males), not determined (females)
based on sperm abnormalities and germ cell loss in F1
males.
28-day Dog study.
LOAEL = 47.7/43.0 (M/F) mg/kg/day based on body weight
loss; leukopenia and increased hematocrit, hemoglobin
and erythrocyte count; increased plasma urea and creatinine; reduced thymus weight in males and females, increased thyroid weight in males and reduced brain weight
in females; and, histopathological changes in liver, thymus
and spleen.
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
10715
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR THIAMETHOXAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
2-Generation reproduction study; 1998.
LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and
severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation
males.
2-Generation reproduction study; 2004.
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males), not determined (females)
based on sperm abnormalities and germ cell loss in F1
males.
Rat 28-Day Dermal Toxicity Study.
LOAEL = 250 (females) mg/kg/day based on increased plasma glucose, triglyceride levels, and alkaline phosphatase
activity and inflammatory cell infiltration in the liver and necrosis of single hepatocytes in females.
2-Generation reproduction study.
LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and
severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation
males.
2-Generation reproduction study.
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males), not determined (females)
based on sperm abnormalities and germ cell loss in F1
males.
28-day Dog study.
LOAEL = 47.7/43.0 (M/F) mg/kg/day based on body weight
loss; leukopenia and increased hematocrit, hemoglobin
and erythrocyte count; increased plasma urea and creatinine; reduced thymus weight in males and females, increased thyroid weight in males and reduced brain weight
in females; and, histopathological changes in liver, thymus
and spleen.
Dermal short-term adults (1 to
30 days).
Oral study NOAEL =
1.2 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate
= 5%.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100
Dermal short-term infants/children <6 years old (1 to 30
days).
Dermal study NOAEL=
60 mg/kg/day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Oral study NOAEL=
1.2 mg/kg/day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100
Inhalation short-term infants/
children <6 years old (1 to 30
days).
Inhalation (or oral
study NOAEL = 31.6
mg/kg/day (inhalation toxicity = oral
toxicity).
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
‘‘Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ based on convincing evidence that a non-genotoxic mode of action
for liver tumors was established in the mouse. Quantification of cancer risk is not required.
Inhalation short-term adults (1
to 30 days).
LOC for MOE = 100
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c =
chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in
sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to thiamethoxam, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing thiamethoxam tolerances in 40
CFR 180.565. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from thiamethoxam 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
thiamethoxam. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
EPA assumed tolerance level residues
and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from USDA’s NHANES/WWEIA. As to
residue levels in food, the chronic
analysis is based on tolerance levels and
anticipated residues calculated from
field trial data for selected commodities
and 100 PCT.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that thiamethoxam 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 PCT
information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available
data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in
food. If EPA relies on such information,
EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5
years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating
that the levels in food are not above the
levels anticipated. For the present
action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of
these tolerances.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for thiamethoxam in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
thiamethoxam. 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.
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
10716
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and
Screening Concentration in Ground
Water (SCI–GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of thiamethoxam for acute
exposures are estimated to be 131.77
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 4.66 ppb for ground water and for
chronic exposures are estimated to be
11.31 ppb for surface water and 4.66
ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For the
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 131.77 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For the chronic dietary
risk assessment, the water concentration
of value 11.31 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Thiamethoxam is currently registered
for the following uses that could result
in residential exposures: Turf and
indoor environments (crack-and-crevice
uses). EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions: For
residential handlers, short-term dermal
and inhalation exposure is anticipated
from both the lawn/turf and indoor
crack-and-crevice uses. In terms of post
application exposure, short-term dermal
and incidental oral exposures are
anticipated from both the lawn/turf and
the crack-and-crevice uses. These
exposures are expected from activities
on turf such as playing, mowing,
golfing, hand-to-mouth, object-tomouth, incidental soil ingestion, and
from contacting treated carpets. Post
application inhalation exposure is also
anticipated from indoor crack-andcrevice applications. The Agency
selected only the most conservative, or
worst case, residential adult and child
scenarios to be included in the aggregate
estimates, based on the lowest overall
MOE (i.e., highest risk estimates). The
worst case residential exposures for
adults and children 1 to 2 years old
were associated with post-application
exposure to treated turf. Further
information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at
https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/standardoperating-procedures-residentialpesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.’’
Thiamethoxam is a member of the
neonicotinoid class of pesticides and
produces, as a metabolite, another
neonicotinoid, CGA–322704. Structural
similarities or common effects do not
constitute a common mechanism of
toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish
that the chemicals operate by the same,
or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events (EPA, 2002).
Although CGA–322704 and
thiamethoxam bind selectively to insect
nicotinic acetylcholine receptors
(nAChR), the specific binding site(s)/
receptor(s) for CGA–322704,
thiamethoxam and the other
neonicotinoids are unknown at this
time. Additionally, the commonality of
the binding activity itself is uncertain,
as preliminary evidence suggests that
CGA–322704 operates by direct
competitive inhibition, while
thiamethoxam is a non-competitive
inhibitor. Furthermore, even if future
research shows that neonicotinoids
share a common binding activity to a
specific site on insect nAChRs, there is
not necessarily a relationship between
this pesticidal action and a mechanism
of toxicity in mammals. Structural
variations between the insect and
mammalian nAChRs produce
quantitative differences in the binding
affinity of the neonicotinoids towards
these receptors which, in turn, confers
the notably greater selective toxicity of
this class towards insects, including
aphids and leafhoppers, compared to
mammals. While the insecticidal action
of the neonicotinoids is neurotoxic, the
most sensitive regulatory endpoint for
CGA–322704 is based on unrelated
effects in mammals, including changes
in body and thymus weights, delays in
sexual maturation, and still births.
Additionally, the most sensitive
toxicological effect in mammals differs
across the neonicotinoids (such as
testicular tubular atrophy with
thiamethoxam, and mineralized
particles in thyroid colloid with
imidacloprid). Therefore, unlike other
pesticides for which EPA has followed
a cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity, EPA
has not made a common mechanism of
toxicity finding as to thiamethoxam and
any other substances and thiamethoxam
does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not
assumed that thiamethoxam has 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 the policy statements
concerning common mechanism
determinations, and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances
found to have a common mechanism,
released by OPP on EPA’s Web site at
https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/
cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
Food Quality Protection Act (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.
In the developmental studies, there was
no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility of rat or rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure to
thiamethoxam. Effects in the young
were seen in the presence of maternal
toxicity. There was evidence of
quantitative susceptibility in the
developmental neurotoxicity study and
both two-generation reproductive
studies. Although there was evidence of
increased quantitative susceptibility,
there are no residual uncertainties with
regard to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity
following in utero exposure to rats or
rabbits and pre and/or post-natal
exposures to rats. Considering the
overall toxicity profile and the doses
and endpoints selected for risk
assessment, the degree of concern for
the effects observed in the studies is low
because the developmental/offspring
effects observed in the studies are well
characterized and clear NOAELs/
LOAELs have been identified in the
studies for the effects of concern.
Additionally, the Agency is confident
that the endpoints and PODs selected
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
for risk assessment are protective of
potential developmental/reproductive
effects.
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
thiamethoxam is complete.
ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was seen
in the acute and developmental
neurotoxicity studies. However, there is
a low degree of concern for the potential
neurotoxic effects of thiamethoxam
since clear NOAELs were identified for
the neurotoxic effects, the neurotoxic
effects were not the most sensitive
endpoint in the toxicity database and
the endpoints chosen for risk
assessment are protective of any
potential neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
thiamethoxam results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies.
There was evidence of quantitative
susceptibility in the developmental
neurotoxicity study and both twogeneration reproductive studies,
however, for the reasons cited above in
section III.D.2., the Agency is confident
that the endpoints and PODs selected
for risk assessment are protective of
potential developmental/reproductive
effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary exposure assessments are
based on high-end residue levels and
processing factors, both of which
account for parent and metabolites of
concern, and the assumption of 100 PCT
for all registered crops. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to
thiamethoxam in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by thiamethoxam.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
thiamethoxam will occupy 9.5% of the
aPAD for children 1–2 years 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 thiamethoxam
from food and water will utilize 45% of
the cPAD for children 1–2 years old the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in
Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of thiamethoxam 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).
Thiamethoxam 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 thiamethoxam.
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 500 for adults and 580 for
children 1<2 years old. Because EPA’s
level of concern for thiamethoxam is a
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).
An intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified; however, thiamethoxam
is not registered for any use patterns
that would result in intermediate-term
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10717
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
thiamethoxam.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. As discussed in Unit III.A.
and based on the lack of chronic risk
discussed in Unit III.E.2., thiamethoxam
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
thiamethoxam residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)) 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.
Codex has established an MRL for
thiamethoxam in bananas at 0.02 mg/kg
which is different than the U.S.
tolerance of 0.3 ppm. At this time, the
Codex and EPA residue definitions are
different (Codex’s MRL is for the parent
compound, thiamethoxam only, while
EPA’s is thiamethoxam plus metabolite
CGA–322704); therefore, it is not
possible to harmonize with the Codex
MRL.
C. Response to Comments
Three comments were received in
response to the Notice of Filing. One
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
10718
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 15, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
simply said ‘‘Good.’’ The other two
comments noted general concerns about
approving ‘‘more herbicides and
pesticides from Dow, Bayer, and
Monsanto’’ and the toxicity of this
chemical, stating, in part, that ‘‘food
should not be contaminated with these
chemicals.’’ The Agency recognizes that
some individuals believe that pesticides
should be banned on agricultural crops;
however, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
states that tolerances may be set when
persons seeking such tolerances or
exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard
imposed by that statute. EPA has
assessed the effects of this chemical on
human health and determined that
aggregate exposure to it will be safe.
These comments provide no
information to support a different
conclusion.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The submitted banana field trial data
support a tolerance of 0.03 ppm, instead
of the petitioned-for tolerance of 0.04
ppm, in whole bananas. The petitioner
used a combined limit of quantitation
(LOQ) different from that used by the
Agency for the input dataset of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculation procedure. The combined
LOQ used by EPA resulted in a
recommended tolerance of 0.03 ppm.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, a tolerance is established
for residues of thiamethoxam, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on
banana at 0.03 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:57 Feb 14, 2017
Jkt 241001
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 13, 2017.
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 § 180.565, add alphabetically the
commodity ‘‘Banana’’ to the table in
paragraph (a) and revise footnote 1 to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.565 Thiamethoxam; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
Banana 1 ...............................
*
*
*
0.03
*
*
*
*
1 There
are no U.S. registrations for these
commodities as of February 15, 2017.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–03075 Filed 2–14–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. CDC–2016–0068]
42 CFR Parts 70 and 71
RIN 0920–AA63
Control of Communicable Diseases;
Delay of Effective Date
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date.
AGENCY:
The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) in the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) announces a change in
the effective date of the final rule titled
‘‘Control of Communicable Diseases’’
that was published on January 19, 2017.
This action is undertaken in accordance
with the memorandum of January 20,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10712-10718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03075]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0705; FRL-9957-00]
Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
thiamethoxam in or on bananas. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective February 15, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 17, 2017, 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-2015-0705, 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.
[[Page 10713]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0705 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
April 17, 2017. 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-2015-0705, 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 November 23, 2015 (80 FR 72941) (FRL-
9936-73), 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
5E8401) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27409-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended
by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide,
thiamethoxam, in or on banana at 0.04 parts per million (ppm). That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Tolerances for residues of thiamethoxam are listed in 40 CFR
180.565 and are expressed in terms of the combined residues of the
insecticide thiamethoxam and its metabolite CGA-322704. Metabolite CGA-
322704 is also the registered active ingredient clothianidin (tolerance
listings in 40 CFR 180.586). Clothianidin (hereinafter referred to as
CGA-322704) has a complete toxicological database and appears to have
effects in mammals that are different from those of thiamethoxam. A
separate risk assessment that addresses risks from CGA-322704 residues
resulting from the direct application of CGA-322704 (clothianidin), as
well as risks from residues of CGA-322704 coming from thiamethoxam uses
has been conducted, and there are no risk estimates of concern as a
result of the proposed tolerance for thiamethoxam residues in imported
bananas. This risk assessment can be found at http:www.regulations.gov
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0705.
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 thiamethoxam including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with thiamethoxam 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.
[[Page 10714]]
In mammals, toxicological effects are seen primarily in the liver,
kidney, testes, and blood cellular system. In addition, developmental
neurological effects were observed in rats. These developmental effects
are being used to assess risks associated with acute exposures to
thiamethoxam, and the liver and testicular effects are the basis for
assessing longer-term exposures.
There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies. There is evidence
of quantitative susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity study
and both two-generation reproductive studies. However, clear no
observed adverse effects levels (NOAELs) were identified for the
susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction and developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) studies and the endpoints and doses chosen for risk
assessment are protective of the susceptibility observed in these
studies.
Thiamethoxam is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' at levels below which certain amounts of metabolites are
produced. The liver tumors that were observed in the mouse have been
demonstrated to be a result of a non-genotoxic mode of action dependent
on sufficient amounts of a hepatotoxic metabolite being produced.
Although humans are qualitatively capable of producing the active
metabolite, thiamethoxam is unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans
unless sufficient amounts of metabolites are persistently formed to
drive a carcinogenic response. The chronic endpoint selected for
regulating exposure to thiamethoxam is sufficiently protective of the
key events (perturbation of liver metabolism, hepatotoxicity/
regenerative proliferation) in the animal mode of action. At those
levels, the Agency does not expect sufficient generation of the
necessary metabolites to elicit a carcinogenic response; therefore,
separate quantification of carcinogenic potential is not required.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by thiamethoxam as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http:www.regulations.gov in the document titled
``Thiamethoxam. Human Health Risk Assessment for Tolerances on Imported
Bananas'' on page 33 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0705.
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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiamethoxam used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Thiamethoxam for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations NOAEL = 34.5 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 0.35 mg/ Rat Developmental Neurotoxicity
including infants and children). day UFA = 10x. kg/day. study.
UFH = 10x........... aPAD = 0.35 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 298.7 mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x........ day. decreased body weight and
reduced brain morphometric
measurements.
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 1.2 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.012 2-Generation reproduction study.
UFA = 10x. mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x........... cPAD = 0.012 mg/kg/ increased incidence and severity
FQPA SF = 1x........ day. of tubular atrophy in testes of
F1 generation males.
2-Generation reproduction study,
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males),
not determined (females) based
on sperm abnormalities and germ
cell loss in F1 males.
Incidental oral short-term NOAEL= 31.6 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = 100... 28-day Dog study.
infants/children <6 years old (1 day UFA = 10x. LOAEL = 47.7/43.0 (M/F) mg/kg/day
to 30 days). UFH = 10x........... based on body weight loss;
FQPA SF = 1x........ leukopenia and increased
hematocrit, hemoglobin and
erythrocyte count; increased
plasma urea and creatinine;
reduced thymus weight in males
and females, increased thyroid
weight in males and reduced
brain weight in females; and,
histopathological changes in
liver, thymus and spleen.
[[Page 10715]]
Dermal short-term adults (1 to 30 Oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = 100... 2-Generation reproduction study;
days). 1.2 mg/kg/day 1998.
(dermal absorption LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on
rate = 5%. increased incidence and severity
UFA = 10x........... of tubular atrophy in testes of
UFH = 10x........... F1 generation males.
FQPA SF = 1x........ 2-Generation reproduction study;
2004.
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males),
not determined (females) based
on sperm abnormalities and germ
cell loss in F1 males.
Dermal short-term infants/ Dermal study NOAEL= LOC for MOE = 100... Rat 28-Day Dermal Toxicity Study.
children <6 years old (1 to 30 60 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 250 (females) mg/kg/day
days). UFA = 10x........... based on increased plasma
UFH = 10x........... glucose, triglyceride levels,
FQPA SF = 1x........ and alkaline phosphatase
activity and inflammatory cell
infiltration in the liver and
necrosis of single hepatocytes
in females.
Inhalation short-term adults (1 Oral study NOAEL= LOC for MOE = 100... 2-Generation reproduction study.
to 30 days). 1.2 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/day based on
UFA = 10x........... increased incidence and severity
UFH = 10x........... of tubular atrophy in testes of
FQPA SF = 1x........ F1 generation males.
2-Generation reproduction study.
LOAEL = 156 mg/kg/day (males),
not determined (females) based
on sperm abnormalities and germ
cell loss in F1 males.
Inhalation short-term infants/ Inhalation (or oral LOC for MOE = 100... 28-day Dog study.
children <6 years old (1 to 30 study NOAEL = 31.6 LOAEL = 47.7/43.0 (M/F) mg/kg/day
days). mg/kg/day based on body weight loss;
(inhalation leukopenia and increased
toxicity = oral hematocrit, hemoglobin and
toxicity). erythrocyte count; increased
UFA = 10x........... plasma urea and creatinine;
UFH = 10x........... reduced thymus weight in males
FQPA SF = 1x........ and females, increased thyroid
weight in males and reduced
brain weight in females; and,
histopathological changes in
liver, thymus and spleen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on convincing evidence that
a non-genotoxic mode of action for liver tumors was established in the
mouse. Quantification of cancer risk is not required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
members of the human population (intraspecies).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to thiamethoxam, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing thiamethoxam tolerances in 40
CFR 180.565. EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiamethoxam 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 thiamethoxam. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA.
As to residue levels in food, the chronic analysis is based on
tolerance levels and anticipated residues calculated from field trial
data for selected commodities and 100 PCT.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that thiamethoxam 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 PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for thiamethoxam in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of thiamethoxam. 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.
[[Page 10716]]
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of thiamethoxam for acute exposures are
estimated to be 131.77 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
4.66 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be
11.31 ppb for surface water and 4.66 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 131.77 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 11.31 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Thiamethoxam is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf and indoor environments
(crack-and-crevice uses). EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions: For residential handlers, short-term dermal and
inhalation exposure is anticipated from both the lawn/turf and indoor
crack-and-crevice uses. In terms of post application exposure, short-
term dermal and incidental oral exposures are anticipated from both the
lawn/turf and the crack-and-crevice uses. These exposures are expected
from activities on turf such as playing, mowing, golfing, hand-to-
mouth, object-to-mouth, incidental soil ingestion, and from contacting
treated carpets. Post application inhalation exposure is also
anticipated from indoor crack-and-crevice applications. The Agency
selected only the most conservative, or worst case, residential adult
and child scenarios to be included in the aggregate estimates, based on
the lowest overall MOE (i.e., highest risk estimates). The worst case
residential exposures for adults and children 1 to 2 years old were
associated with post-application exposure to treated turf. 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.''
Thiamethoxam is a member of the neonicotinoid class of pesticides
and produces, as a metabolite, another neonicotinoid, CGA-322704.
Structural similarities or common effects do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events (EPA, 2002). Although CGA-322704 and
thiamethoxam bind selectively to insect nicotinic acetylcholine
receptors (nAChR), the specific binding site(s)/receptor(s) for CGA-
322704, thiamethoxam and the other neonicotinoids are unknown at this
time. Additionally, the commonality of the binding activity itself is
uncertain, as preliminary evidence suggests that CGA-322704 operates by
direct competitive inhibition, while thiamethoxam is a non-competitive
inhibitor. Furthermore, even if future research shows that
neonicotinoids share a common binding activity to a specific site on
insect nAChRs, there is not necessarily a relationship between this
pesticidal action and a mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural
variations between the insect and mammalian nAChRs produce quantitative
differences in the binding affinity of the neonicotinoids towards these
receptors which, in turn, confers the notably greater selective
toxicity of this class towards insects, including aphids and
leafhoppers, compared to mammals. While the insecticidal action of the
neonicotinoids is neurotoxic, the most sensitive regulatory endpoint
for CGA-322704 is based on unrelated effects in mammals, including
changes in body and thymus weights, delays in sexual maturation, and
still births. Additionally, the most sensitive toxicological effect in
mammals differs across the neonicotinoids (such as testicular tubular
atrophy with thiamethoxam, and mineralized particles in thyroid colloid
with imidacloprid). Therefore, unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
thiamethoxam and any other substances and thiamethoxam does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
thiamethoxam has 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 the policy statements concerning common
mechanism determinations, and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism, released by OPP on 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 Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the developmental
studies, there was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure to
thiamethoxam. Effects in the young were seen in the presence of
maternal toxicity. There was evidence of quantitative susceptibility in
the developmental neurotoxicity study and both two-generation
reproductive studies. Although there was evidence of increased
quantitative susceptibility, there are no residual uncertainties with
regard to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity following in utero exposure to
rats or rabbits and pre and/or post-natal exposures to rats.
Considering the overall toxicity profile and the doses and endpoints
selected for risk assessment, the degree of concern for the effects
observed in the studies is low because the developmental/offspring
effects observed in the studies are well characterized and clear
NOAELs/LOAELs have been identified in the studies for the effects of
concern. Additionally, the Agency is confident that the endpoints and
PODs selected
[[Page 10717]]
for risk assessment are protective of potential developmental/
reproductive effects.
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 thiamethoxam is complete.
ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was seen in the acute and
developmental neurotoxicity studies. However, there is a low degree of
concern for the potential neurotoxic effects of thiamethoxam since
clear NOAELs were identified for the neurotoxic effects, the neurotoxic
effects were not the most sensitive endpoint in the toxicity database
and the endpoints chosen for risk assessment are protective of any
potential neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that thiamethoxam results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies. There was evidence of quantitative
susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity study and both two-
generation reproductive studies, however, for the reasons cited above
in section III.D.2., the Agency is confident that the endpoints and
PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of potential
developmental/reproductive effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary exposure assessments are based on high-end
residue levels and processing factors, both of which account for parent
and metabolites of concern, and the assumption of 100 PCT for all
registered crops. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the
ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
thiamethoxam in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiamethoxam.
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 thiamethoxam will occupy 9.5% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
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
thiamethoxam from food and water will utilize 45% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
thiamethoxam 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).
Thiamethoxam 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 thiamethoxam.
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 500 for adults
and 580 for children 1<2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for
thiamethoxam is a 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).
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
thiamethoxam is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term 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
thiamethoxam.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A. and based on the lack of chronic risk discussed in Unit
III.E.2., thiamethoxam 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 thiamethoxam residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)) 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.
Codex has established an MRL for thiamethoxam in bananas at 0.02
mg/kg which is different than the U.S. tolerance of 0.3 ppm. At this
time, the Codex and EPA residue definitions are different (Codex's MRL
is for the parent compound, thiamethoxam only, while EPA's is
thiamethoxam plus metabolite CGA-322704); therefore, it is not possible
to harmonize with the Codex MRL.
C. Response to Comments
Three comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing.
One
[[Page 10718]]
simply said ``Good.'' The other two comments noted general concerns
about approving ``more herbicides and pesticides from Dow, Bayer, and
Monsanto'' and the toxicity of this chemical, stating, in part, that
``food should not be contaminated with these chemicals.'' The Agency
recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned on agricultural crops; however, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects
of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure
to it will be safe. These comments provide no information to support a
different conclusion.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The submitted banana field trial data support a tolerance of 0.03
ppm, instead of the petitioned-for tolerance of 0.04 ppm, in whole
bananas. The petitioner used a combined limit of quantitation (LOQ)
different from that used by the Agency for the input dataset of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculation procedure. The combined LOQ used by EPA resulted in a
recommended tolerance of 0.03 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of thiamethoxam,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on banana at 0.03 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 13, 2017.
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. 180.565, add alphabetically the commodity ``Banana'' to the
table in paragraph (a) and revise footnote 1 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.565 Thiamethoxam; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Banana \1\.............................................. 0.03
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities as of February
15, 2017.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-03075 Filed 2-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P