Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances, 18235-18240 [2017-07818]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
and forage because they will be covered
by the tolerance being established on
‘‘vegetable, foliage of legume, except
soybean, subgroup 7A.’’
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of pyroxasulfone, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on:
Flax, seed at 0.07 ppm; pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C at 0.15 ppm; peanut at 0.30 ppm;
peanut, hay at 4.0 ppm; peanut, meal at
0.40 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at
0.30 ppm; and vegetable, foliage of
legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at
3.0 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:31 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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: February 24, 2017,
Meredith F. Laws,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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 § 180.659, add paragraph (a)(5) to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.659 Pyroxasulfone; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
(5) Tolerances are established for
residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18235
tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum
of pyroxasulfone (3-[(5difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), and its
metabolites, M-1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4yl) methanesulfonic acid), M-3 (5difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
acid), M-25 (5-difluoromethoxy-3trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4yl)methanesulfonic acid) and M-28 (3[1-carboxy-2-(5,5-dimethyl-4,5dihydroisoxazol-3-ylthio)ethylamino]-3oxopropanoic acid) calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of
pyroxasulfone, in or on the following
commodities:
Parts per
million
Commodity
Flax, seed .................................
Pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup
6C ..........................................
Peanut ......................................
Peanut, hay ..............................
Peanut, meal ............................
Sunflower subgroup 20B ..........
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
except soybean, subgroup
7A ..........................................
*
*
*
*
0.07
0.15
0.30
4.0
0.40
0.30
3.0
*
[FR Doc. 2017–07819 Filed 4–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0153; FRL–9953–96]
Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of pyriofenone in
or on the caneberry subgroup (crop
subgroup 13–07A), the bushberry
subgroup (crop subgroup 13–07B), the
small fruit vine climbing subgroup (crop
subgroup 13–07D), the low growing
berry subgroup except cranberry (crop
subgroup 13–07G) and cucurbit
vegetables (crop group 9). ISK
Biosciences Corporation requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April
18, 2017. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 19, 2017, and must be filed in
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
18236
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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–2014–0153, 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, 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:
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to
Other Related Information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:31 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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–2014–0153 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 June 19, 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–
2014–0153, 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 May 23,
2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL–9910–29),
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 3F8227) by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn
Road, Suite A Concord, OH 44077. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by proposing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide, pyriofenone,
in or on, the caneberry subgroup (crop
subgroup 13–07A) at 0.90 ppm, the
bushberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13–
07B) at 1.5 ppm, the small fruit vine
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
climbing subgroup (crop subgroup 13–
07D) at 1.5 ppm, the low growing berry
subgroup except cranberry (crop
subgroup 13–07G) at 0.50 ppm, and
cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9) at
0.30 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
ISK Biosciences Corporation, 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.
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 pyriofenone
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with pyriofenone follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability, as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The liver (dog, rat,
and mouse), kidney (rat and mouse),
and cecum (rat) were the primary organs
affected by pyriofenone in toxicity
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
studies. Symptoms of liver toxicity
observed in the studies were increased
weight, dark color, histological
abnormalities (liver pigment deposition,
microgranuloma, fatty change, necrosis,
and focal hepatic congestion), and
increases in hepatic enzymes (alkaline
phosphatase, g-glutamyltranferase, and
triglycerides) in serum. Indications of
kidney toxicity resulting from
pyriofenone exposure included
increased weight, coarse surface,
histological abnormalities (chronic
nephropathy, cortical tubular
basophilia, cortical scaring, and cortical
cysts), increases in ketones in urine, and
perigenital staining. Effects of
pyriofenone exposure on the cecum
included increased weight; and
enlargement, distension, and
inflammation. Tests were not conducted
to determine toxicity through the
inhalation route of exposure, because
these data were waived. There is no
evidence of dermal toxicity at the limit
dose.
Exposure to pyriofenone did not
result in any developmental effects at
the limit dose in rats, but abortions were
noted in rabbits at 300 mg/kg/day. The
rabbit abortions were associated with
decreased maternal body weight gain
and food consumption. There were no
effects on reproduction observed at the
highest dose tested (334 mg/kg/day),
and no quantitative or qualitative
sensitivity was noted in offspring. There
was no evidence of genotoxicity nor an
increase in the incidence of tumors.
Based on the results of the
immunotoxicity study and other studies
in the toxicity database, there was no
evidence that pyriofenone directly
targets the immune system.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by pyriofenone as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the documents
‘‘Pyriofenone. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Section 3
Registration on: Cucurbit Vegetable
(crop group 9) and berry and small fruit,
crop group 13–07 (except large shrub/
tree berry subgroup 13–07C)’’ and
‘‘Pyriofenone. Revision to Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Section
3 Registration on: Cucurbit Vegetable
(Crop Group 9) and Berry and Small
Fruit, Crop Group 13–07, (Except Large
Shrub/Tree Berry Subgroup 13–07C)’’ in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–
0153.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
18237
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm. A summary of the
toxicological endpoints for pyriofenone
used for human risk assessment is
shown in Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PYRIOFENONE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (All populations) .........................
An endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not identified. An acute RfD was not
established.
Chronic dietary (All populations) ......................
NOAEL = 9.1 mg/kg/
day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL = 61 mg/kg/
day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) ..........
Chronic RfD =
cPAD = 0.091 mg/kg/
day
Carcinogenicity in rat.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on chronic
nephropathy in females.
LOC for MOE = 100 ...
Subchronic oral toxicity in rat.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on increased
cecum weight in males.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
Dermal Short-and Intermediate-Term (1–30
days; 1–6 months).
No quantitative dermal assessment needed. No dermal toxicity at limit dose. No increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility noted in fetus or offspring. Developmental effect (abortions) in rats at 100 mg/kg/day. DAF = 6%. Adjusted value exceeds limit dose. No neurotoxicity
observed in ACN and SCN at the limit dose.
Inhalation short-term and intermediate-term (1
to 30 days; 1–6 months).
NOAEL = 61 mg/kg/
day (inhalation absorption rate =
100%)
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
LOC for MOE = 100 ...
Sfmt 4700
Subchronic oral toxicity in rat.
LOAEL = 150 mg/kg//day based on increased
cecum weight in males.
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
18238
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PYRIOFENONE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
Exposure/scenario
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) .....................
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
ACN = Acute Neurotoxicity Battery. DAF = Dermal Absorption Factor. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowestobserved-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observedadverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. SCN = Subchronic Neurotoxicity Battery.
UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the
human population (intraspecies).
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyriofenone, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing pyriofenone tolerances in 40
CFR 180.660. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from pyriofenone in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies
for pyriofenone; therefore, a quantitative
acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA assumed pyriofenone residues are
present in all commodities at tolerance
levels and that 100% of primary crops
are treated. All populations were
evaluated for chronic dietary exposure
and risk from food and drinking water.
No risks of concern were identified in
the chronic dietary exposure analysis.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyriofenone does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information.
Tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated were assumed for all food
commodities for pyriofenone.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for pyriofenone in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of pyriofenone.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:16 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the Tier 1 Cranberry Model
for surface water and Pesticide Root
Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW)
for ground water, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyriofenone for acute exposures are
estimated to be 20.9 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 4.3 ppb for
ground water. The chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 2.7 ppb for surface water and 3.9 ppb
for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model.
Because no acute dietary endpoint was
identified, no acute dietary assessment
was conducted. For the chronic dietary
risk assessment, the water concentration
of value 3.9 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).
Pyriofenone is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure. Therefore a
residential exposure assessment is not
required.
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 pyriofenone to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
pyriofenone does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that pyriofenone does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
Exposure to pyriofenone did not result
in any developmental effects at the limit
dose in rats, but abortions were noted in
rabbits at 300 mg/kg/day. EPA is
regulating pyriofenone at doses that are
protective of this effect. The abortions
were associated with decreased
maternal body weight gain and food
consumption. There were no
reproductive effects observed in rats at
the highest tested dose (334 mg/kg/day),
nor was any quantitative or qualitative
sensitivity noted in offspring.
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
pyriofenone is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
pyriofenone is a neurotoxic chemical,
and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
pyriofenone results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% crop
treated and tolerance-level residues.
EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to pyriofenone in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by
pyriofenone.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, pyriofenone is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to pyriofenone
from food and water will utilize 7.2% of
the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old
the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for pyriofenone;
therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is
limited to the chronic dietary risk and
is not of concern
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). There are no residential
uses for pyriofenone; therefore, shortterm aggregate risks are addressed by
the chronic aggregate risk estimates and
are not of concern.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:31 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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).
There are no residential uses for
pyriofenone; therefore, intermediateterm aggregate risks are addressed by
the chronic aggregate risk estimates and
are not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
pyriofenone 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 pyriofenone
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The petitioner submitted a liquid
chromatography method with tandem
mass-spectrometry detection (LC–MS/
MS) analytical method, ISK Method
0341/074208, for analysis of residues of
pyriofenone in/on plant commodities.
This method was independently
validated to a limit of quantitation of
0.01 ppm in grapes, wheat grain, and
wheat straw. To support the new
registration actions for pyriofenone, a
radiovalidation study was submitted to
determine the extraction efficiency of
the pyriofenone enforcement method.
Radiovalidation testing of Analytical
Method ISK 0341/074208 demonstrated
an extraction efficiency of
approximately 50–60% for pyriofenone
residues present in plant samples aged
51⁄2 years.
Adequate enforcement methodology
(liquid chromatography method with
tandem mass spectrometric detection
(LC–MS/MS)) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
18239
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 MRLs for pyriofenone.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received from a
private citizen objecting to
establishment of tolerances. The
commenter feels that establishment of
these tolerances would add to the
pesticide body load that is already
carried by the human population. In
addition, the commenter also indicates
that the pesticide body load will
increase the exposure to carcinogens
and increase the prevalence of cancer.
Agency response: The Agency
understands the commenter’s concerns
and recognizes that some individuals
believe that pesticides should be banned
completely. However, under the existing
legal framework provided by section
408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is
authorized to establish pesticide
tolerances or exemptions where persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions
have demonstrated that the pesticide
meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute.
When new or amended tolerances are
requested for the presence of the
residues of a pesticide and its
toxicologically significant metabolite(s)
in food or feed, the Agency, as is
required by Section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
estimates the risk of the potential
exposure to these residues by
performing an aggregate risk assessment.
Such a risk assessment integrates the
individual assessments that are
conducted for food, drinking water, and
residential exposures, and also assesses
cancer risk. Additionally, the Agency, as
is further required by Section 408 of the
FFDCA, considers available information
concerning what are termed the
cumulative toxicological effects of the
residues of that pesticide and of other
substances having a common
mechanism of toxicity with it. For
pyriofenone, the Agency has concluded
after this assessment that the pesticide
is not carcinogenic, and that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from exposure to residues of this
pesticide.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of pyriofenone, in or on, the
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
18240
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with RULES
caneberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13–
07A) at 0.90 ppm, the bushberry
subgroup (crop subgroup 13–07B) at 1.5
ppm, the small fruit vine climbing
subgroup (crop subgroup 13–07D) at 1.5
ppm, the low growing berry subgroup
except cranberry (crop subgroup 13–
07G) at 0.50 ppm, and cucurbit
vegetables (crop group 9) at 0.30 ppm.
Also, the Agency is removing two
individual tolerances from the table at
40 CFR 180.660(a) that were not
identified in the petition to eliminate
redundancies upon the establishment of
the recommended crop group and
subgroup tolerances: grape at 0.3 ppm,
grape, raisin at 0.5 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:31 Apr 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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: February 20, 2017.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Program.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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 § 180.660, revise the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.660 Pyriofenone; tolerance for
residues.
PO 00000
(a) * * *
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Parts per
million
Commodity
Berry, low growing, subgroup
13–07G (except cranberry) ...
Bushberry subgroup 13–07B ....
Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ...
Fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13–07D .......................
Vegetables, cucurbit, crop
group 9 ..................................
*
*
*
*
0.50
1.5
0.90
1.5
0.30
*
[FR Doc. 2017–07818 Filed 4–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 74
[MB Docket Nos. 03–185, 15–137; GN
Docket No. 12–268; FCC 17–29]
Channel Sharing Rules
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this Report and Order, the
Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopted rules to allow
full power and Class A stations with
auction-related channel sharing
agreements (CSAs) to become sharees
outside of the incentive auction context
so that they can continue to operate if
their auction-related CSAs expire or
otherwise terminate. The Commission
also adopted rules to allow all low
power television and TV translator
stations (secondary stations) to share a
channel with another secondary station
or with a full power or Class A station.
This action will assist secondary
stations that are displaced by the
incentive auction and the repacking
process to continue to operate in the
post-auction television bands. The rules
adopted in this R&O will enhance the
benefits of channel sharing for
broadcasters without imposing
significant burdens on multichannel
video programming distributors
(MVPDs).
SUMMARY:
These rules are effective May 18,
2017 except for §§ 73.3800, 73.6028, and
74.799(h), which contain new or
modified information collection
requirements that require approval by
the OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and will become effective
after the Commission publishes a
document in the Federal Register
announcing such approval and the
relevant effective date.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18APR1.SGM
18APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18235-18240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07818]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0153; FRL-9953-96]
Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
pyriofenone in or on the caneberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07A), the
bushberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07B), the small fruit vine
climbing subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07D), the low growing berry
subgroup except cranberry (crop subgroup 13-07G) and cucurbit
vegetables (crop group 9). ISK Biosciences Corporation requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April 18, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 19, 2017, and
must be filed in
[[Page 18236]]
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-2014-0153, 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, 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-2014-0153 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
June 19, 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-2014-0153, 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 May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL-9910-
29), 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
3F8227) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A
Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by proposing tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
pyriofenone, in or on, the caneberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07A) at
0.90 ppm, the bushberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07B) at 1.5 ppm, the
small fruit vine climbing subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07D) at 1.5 ppm,
the low growing berry subgroup except cranberry (crop subgroup 13-07G)
at 0.50 ppm, and cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9) at 0.30 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 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.
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 pyriofenone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with pyriofenone follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The liver (dog, rat, and mouse), kidney (rat and mouse), and
cecum (rat) were the primary organs affected by pyriofenone in toxicity
[[Page 18237]]
studies. Symptoms of liver toxicity observed in the studies were
increased weight, dark color, histological abnormalities (liver pigment
deposition, microgranuloma, fatty change, necrosis, and focal hepatic
congestion), and increases in hepatic enzymes (alkaline phosphatase,
[gamma]-glutamyltranferase, and triglycerides) in serum. Indications of
kidney toxicity resulting from pyriofenone exposure included increased
weight, coarse surface, histological abnormalities (chronic
nephropathy, cortical tubular basophilia, cortical scaring, and
cortical cysts), increases in ketones in urine, and perigenital
staining. Effects of pyriofenone exposure on the cecum included
increased weight; and enlargement, distension, and inflammation. Tests
were not conducted to determine toxicity through the inhalation route
of exposure, because these data were waived. There is no evidence of
dermal toxicity at the limit dose.
Exposure to pyriofenone did not result in any developmental effects
at the limit dose in rats, but abortions were noted in rabbits at 300
mg/kg/day. The rabbit abortions were associated with decreased maternal
body weight gain and food consumption. There were no effects on
reproduction observed at the highest dose tested (334 mg/kg/day), and
no quantitative or qualitative sensitivity was noted in offspring.
There was no evidence of genotoxicity nor an increase in the incidence
of tumors. Based on the results of the immunotoxicity study and other
studies in the toxicity database, there was no evidence that
pyriofenone directly targets the immune system.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyriofenone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the documents ``Pyriofenone. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Section 3 Registration on: Cucurbit Vegetable (crop
group 9) and berry and small fruit, crop group 13-07 (except large
shrub/tree berry subgroup 13-07C)'' and ``Pyriofenone. Revision to
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration on:
Cucurbit Vegetable (Crop Group 9) and Berry and Small Fruit, Crop Group
13-07, (Except Large Shrub/Tree Berry Subgroup 13-07C)'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0153.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for pyriofenone used for human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pyriofenone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations).... An endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not identified. An
acute RfD was not established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations).. NOAEL = 9.1 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = Carcinogenicity in rat.
UFA = 10x............. cPAD = 0.091 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based
UFH = 10x............. on chronic nephropathy in
FQPA SF = 1x.......... females.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL = 61 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100..... Subchronic oral toxicity in
days). UFA = 10x............. rat.
UFH = 10x............. LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based
FQPA SF = 1x.......... on increased cecum weight
in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Short-and Intermediate-Term No quantitative dermal assessment needed. No dermal toxicity at limit dose.
(1-30 days; 1-6 months). No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility noted in fetus or
offspring. Developmental effect (abortions) in rats at 100 mg/kg/day. DAF
= 6%. Adjusted value exceeds limit dose. No neurotoxicity observed in ACN
and SCN at the limit dose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term and NOAEL = 61 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100..... Subchronic oral toxicity in
intermediate-term (1 to 30 days; 1- (inhalation rat.
6 months). absorption rate = LOAEL = 150 mg/kg//day
100%) based on increased cecum
UFA = 10x............. weight in males.
UFH = 10x.............
FQPA SF = 1x..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18238]]
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).. Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACN = Acute Neurotoxicity Battery. DAF = Dermal Absorption Factor. 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. SCN = Subchronic Neurotoxicity Battery. 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 pyriofenone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing pyriofenone tolerances in 40 CFR
180.660. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyriofenone in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for pyriofenone; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA assumed pyriofenone residues are present in all
commodities at tolerance levels and that 100% of primary crops are
treated. All populations were evaluated for chronic dietary exposure
and risk from food and drinking water. No risks of concern were
identified in the chronic dietary exposure analysis.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that pyriofenone does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated were assumed for all
food commodities for pyriofenone.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyriofenone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyriofenone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Tier 1 Cranberry Model for surface water and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) for ground water, the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pyriofenone for acute
exposures are estimated to be 20.9 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 4.3 ppb for ground water. The chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 2.7 ppb for surface water and
3.9 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. Because no acute dietary
endpoint was identified, no acute dietary assessment was conducted. For
the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value
3.9 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). Pyriofenone is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure. Therefore a residential exposure assessment is
not required.
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 pyriofenone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyriofenone does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyriofenone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the 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. Exposure to pyriofenone did
not result in any developmental effects at the limit dose in rats, but
abortions were noted in rabbits at 300 mg/kg/day. EPA is regulating
pyriofenone at doses that are protective of this effect. The abortions
were associated with decreased maternal body weight gain and food
consumption. There were no reproductive effects observed in rats at the
highest tested dose (334 mg/kg/day), nor was any quantitative or
qualitative sensitivity noted in offspring.
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 pyriofenone is complete.
ii. There is no indication that pyriofenone is a neurotoxic
chemical, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or
[[Page 18239]]
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that pyriofenone results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to pyriofenone in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by pyriofenone.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
pyriofenone is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyriofenone from food and water will utilize 7.2% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyriofenone; therefore, the
chronic aggregate risk is limited to the chronic dietary risk and is
not of concern
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). There are no
residential uses for pyriofenone; therefore, short-term aggregate risks
are addressed by the chronic aggregate risk estimates and 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). There are no residential uses for pyriofenone; therefore,
intermediate-term aggregate risks are addressed by the chronic
aggregate risk estimates and are not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, pyriofenone 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 pyriofenone residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The petitioner submitted a liquid chromatography method with tandem
mass-spectrometry detection (LC-MS/MS) analytical method, ISK Method
0341/074208, for analysis of residues of pyriofenone in/on plant
commodities. This method was independently validated to a limit of
quantitation of 0.01 ppm in grapes, wheat grain, and wheat straw. To
support the new registration actions for pyriofenone, a radiovalidation
study was submitted to determine the extraction efficiency of the
pyriofenone enforcement method. Radiovalidation testing of Analytical
Method ISK 0341/074208 demonstrated an extraction efficiency of
approximately 50-60% for pyriofenone residues present in plant samples
aged 5\1/2\ years.
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography method with
tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce
the tolerance expression.
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 MRLs for pyriofenone.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received from a private citizen objecting to
establishment of tolerances. The commenter feels that establishment of
these tolerances would add to the pesticide body load that is already
carried by the human population. In addition, the commenter also
indicates that the pesticide body load will increase the exposure to
carcinogens and increase the prevalence of cancer.
Agency response: The Agency understands the commenter's concerns
and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned completely. However, under the existing legal framework provided
by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA
is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions where
persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that
the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute.
When new or amended tolerances are requested for the presence of
the residues of a pesticide and its toxicologically significant
metabolite(s) in food or feed, the Agency, as is required by Section
408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), estimates the
risk of the potential exposure to these residues by performing an
aggregate risk assessment. Such a risk assessment integrates the
individual assessments that are conducted for food, drinking water, and
residential exposures, and also assesses cancer risk. Additionally, the
Agency, as is further required by Section 408 of the FFDCA, considers
available information concerning what are termed the cumulative
toxicological effects of the residues of that pesticide and of other
substances having a common mechanism of toxicity with it. For
pyriofenone, the Agency has concluded after this assessment that the
pesticide is not carcinogenic, and that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from exposure to residues of this pesticide.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyriofenone,
in or on, the
[[Page 18240]]
caneberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07A) at 0.90 ppm, the bushberry
subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07B) at 1.5 ppm, the small fruit vine
climbing subgroup (crop subgroup 13-07D) at 1.5 ppm, the low growing
berry subgroup except cranberry (crop subgroup 13-07G) at 0.50 ppm, and
cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9) at 0.30 ppm. Also, the Agency is
removing two individual tolerances from the table at 40 CFR 180.660(a)
that were not identified in the petition to eliminate redundancies upon
the establishment of the recommended crop group and subgroup
tolerances: grape at 0.3 ppm, grape, raisin at 0.5 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 20, 2017.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Program.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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. 180.660, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.660 Pyriofenone; tolerance for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G (except cranberry)..... 0.50
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B.................................. 1.5
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A.................................. 0.90
Fruit, small vine climbing subgroup 13-07D................. 1.5
Vegetables, cucurbit, crop group 9......................... 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-07818 Filed 4-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P