Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide Tolerances, 45730-45736 [2017-21113]
Download as PDF
45730
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0727; FRL–9966–09]
Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fluoxastrobin
in or on multiple commodities which
are identified and discussed later in this
document. Arysta LifeScience North
America, LLC requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
October 2, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before December 1, 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–2015–0727, 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:
SUMMARY:
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2015–0727 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before December 1, 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–
2015–0727, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 March 16,
2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL–9942–86),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 5F8406) by Arysta
LifeScience North America, LLC, 15401
Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, North
Carolina, 27513. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.609 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide fluoxastrobin, (1E)-[2-[[6(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl] (5,6-dihydrol,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone Omethyloxime, and its Z isomer, (1Z)-[2[[6-(2chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl] (5,6-dihydrol,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone Omethyloxime, in or on avocado at 0.9
parts per million (ppm); barley, grain at
0.4 ppm; barley, hay at 15 ppm; barley,
straw at 15 ppm; rapeseed subgroup
20A at 0.8 ppm; and dried shelled pea
and bean (except soybean) subgroup 6C
at 0.2 ppm. No comments were
submitted on this notice of filing. Based
on data submitted with the petition, the
tolerances established by the Agency in
this action differ slightly from what the
petitioner requested. The reasons for
these deviations are 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
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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 fluoxastrobin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with fluoxastrobin 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.
In mammals, the liver and kidney
were the main target organs. Liver
effects (cholestasis) were observed in
dogs following subchronic and chronic
oral exposures. Dogs were the more
sensitive species, with liver effects in
dogs occurring at a 35-fold lower dose
than elicited adverse effects in other
species. Kidney effects were observed in
rats and dogs following subchronic
exposures, but not following chronic
exposures. In rats, effects were also
observed in the adrenal glands, urinary
bladder, and urethra. There were doserelated changes in the liver and kidneys
of mice, however, the changes were not
considered to be adverse.
There was no evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative fetal or
offspring susceptibility in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats or
rabbits or the two-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats.
There were no maternal or
developmental effects in the rat
developmental study. In the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits,
maternal effects (cold ears, transient
body-weight loss, and decreased food
consumption) occurred in the absence
of fetal toxicity. In the two-generation
reproduction study in rats, offspring
effects (decreased body weights, delayed
preputial separation, and incomplete
ossification) occurred at the same dose
as parental toxicity (decreased
premating absolute body weight and
body-weight gain).
Fluoxastrobin has low acute toxicity
via the oral, dermal, and inhalation
routes of exposure. Overall, it is mildly
irritating to the eyes, but is neither a
dermal irritant nor a dermal sensitizer.
There were no signs of neurotoxicity or
immunotoxicity in the database.
Fluoxastrobin is classified as ‘‘Not
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’
based on the absence of treatmentrelated tumors in two adequate rodent
carcinogenicity studies. There was no
concern for mutagenicity.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by fluoxastrobin as well
as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
Human Health Risk Assessment in
Support of Application to Avocado,
Barley, Rapeseed subgroup 20A, and
Dried Shelled Pea and Bean on pages 14
45731
and 15 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2015–0727.
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 fluoxastrobin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the
Table of this unit.
TABLE—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUOXASTROBIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
No appropriate toxicological effect attributable to a single dose was observed. Therefore, a dose and endpoint
were not identified for this risk assessment.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (All Populations)
NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x ................
UFH = 10x ................
FQPA SF = 1x .........
NOAEL = 3.0 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x ................
UFH = 10x ................
FQPA SF = 1x .........
Incidental oral short-term (1–30
days) and Intermediate-term
(1–6 months).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Chronic RfD = 0.015
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.015 mg/
kg/day.
LOC for MOE =
<100.
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Chronic Toxicity Study in Dogs.
LOAEL = M/F 8.1/7/7 mg/kg/day based on body weight reductions and hepatocytomegaly and cytoplasmic changes associated with increased serum liver alkaline phosphatase indicative of cholestasis.
90-Day Toxicity in Dogs.
LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on reductions in body-weight
gain and food efficiency, liver effects (cholestasis), and kidney effects (increased relative weights in females, degeneration of proximal tubular epithelium in males).
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
45732
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUOXASTROBIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Dermal short-term (1–30 days)
and intermediate-term (1–6
months).
Inhalation short and Intermediate-Term.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
Oral study NOAEL =
3.0 mg/kg/day
(dermal absorption
rate = 2.3%.
UFA = 10x ................
UFH = 10x ................
FQPA SF = 1x .........
Oral study NOAEL =
3.0 mg/kg/day (inhalation toxicity is
considered equivalent to oral toxicity).
UFA = 10x ................
UFH = 10x ................
FQPA SF = 1x .........
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Residential LOC for
MOE = <100.
Occupational LOC
for MOE = <100.
90-Day Toxicity in Dog.
LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on reductions in body-weight
gain and food efficiency, liver effects (cholestasis), and kidney effects (increased relative weights in females, degeneration of proximal tubular epithelium in males).
Residential LOC for
MOE = <100.
Occupational LOC
for MOE = <100.
90-Day Toxicity in Dogs.
LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on reductions in body-weight
gain and food efficiency, liver effects (cholestasis), and kidney effects (increased relative weights in females, degeneration of proximal tubular epithelium in males).
Classification: Fluoxastrobin is classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’ based on the absence of
treatment-related tumors in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
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 fluoxastrobin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing fluoxastrobin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.609. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the DEEM–FCID, Version
3.16, food consumption data from the
2003–2008 U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed tolerance-level residues
for livestock commodities, average field
trial residues for some crop
commodities, and percent crop treated
(PCT) and percent crop treated for new
use (PCTn) estimates for some
commodities. DEEM version 7.81
default processing factors were
assumed, except for tolerances that were
established for processed commodities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
or when processing studies showed no
concentration.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluoxastrobin 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. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of the 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic
evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of
the estimate of PCT as required by
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may
require registrants to submit data on
PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for
existing uses as follows: corn, 1.0%;
peanuts, 2.5%; peppers, 2.5%; potatoes,
1.0%; soybeans, 1.0%; and wheat, 2.5%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), and
proprietary market surveys for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average
PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis
and maximum PCT for acute dietary risk
analysis. The average PCT figure for
each existing use is derived by
combining available public and private
market survey data for that use,
averaging across all observations, and
rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average
PCT is less than 2.5%. The maximum
PCT figure is the highest observed
maximum value reported within the
most recent 6 years of available public
and private market survey data for the
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
existing use and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5%, except for
situations in which the maximum PCT
is less than 2.5%. In cases where the
estimated value is less than 2.5% but
greater than 1%, the average and
maximum PCT used are 2.5%. If the
estimated value is less than 1%, 1% is
used as the average PCT and 2.5% is
used as the maximum PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for
new uses as follows: avocado, 12%;
barley, 16%; canola, 9%; and dry beans/
peas, 14%.
EPA estimates percent crop treated for
new uses (PCTn) of fluoxastrobin based
on the PCT of the dominant pesticide
(i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) used
on that crop over the three most recent
years of available data. Comparisons are
only made among pesticides of the same
pesticide types (i.e., the dominant
fungicide on the crop is selected for
comparison with a new fungicide). The
PCTs included in the analysis may be
for the same pesticide or for different
pesticides since the same or different
pesticides may dominate for each year.
Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the
source for raw PCT data because it is
publicly available and does not have to
be calculated from available data
sources. When a specific use site is not
surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses
proprietary market research data or
other publicly available state data when
80% or more of the crop acreage is
grown in that state and calculates the
PCTn.
This estimated PCTn, based on the
average PCT of the market leader, is
appropriate for use in the chronic
dietary risk assessment. This method of
estimating a PCT for a new use of a
registered pesticide or a new pesticide
produces a high-end estimate that is
unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded
during the initial five years of actual
use. The predominant factors that bear
on whether the estimated PCTn could
be exceeded are (1) the extent of pest
pressure on the crops in question; (2)
the pest spectrum of the new pesticide
in comparison with the market leaders
as well as whether the market leaders
are well-established for this use; and (3)
resistance concerns with the market
leaders. EPA has examined the relevant
data and determined that it is unlikely
that the actual PCT with fluoxastrobin
on avocado, barley, canola (rapeseed
subgroup 20A) and dried shelled pea
and bean (crop subgroup 6C) will
exceed the PCTn within the next five
years.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT and PCTn estimates
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
are derived from Federal and private
market survey data, which are reliable
and have a valid basis. The Agency is
reasonably certain that the percentage of
the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and
c, regional consumption information
and consumption information for
significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA’s computer-based
model for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which fluoxastrobin may be applied in
a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening-level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for fluoxastrobin in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
fluoxastrobin. 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.
The estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) in surface
water resulting from the proposed
fluoxastrobin uses were calculated using
the pesticide water calculator (PWC).
Groundwater EDWCs for fluoxastrobin
were derived for the proposed and
existing uses using PRZM-Groundwater
(PRZM GW). Based on PRZM GW, the
EDWCs of fluoxastrobin for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 47.8 ppb for surface
water and 182 ppb for ground water.
The more conservative modeled
estimate of drinking water
concentrations (182 ppb) was directly
entered into the dietary exposure model
to assess the contribution to drinking
water and chronic dietary risk.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45733
Fluoxastrobin is currently registered
for the following uses that could result
in residential exposures: Broadcast
control of diseases on turf, including
lawns and golf courses. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following
assumptions:
i. Residential Handler Exposure: All
registered fluoxastrobin product labels
with residential use sites (e.g., turf and
ornamentals) require that handlers wear
specific clothing (e.g., long sleeve shirt/
long pants) and/or use personalprotective equipment (PPE). Therefore,
the Agency has made the assumption
that these products are not intended for
homeowner use, and has not conducted
a quantitative residential handler
assessment.
ii. Residential Post-Application
Exposure: Adults and children
performing physical activities on turf
and ornamentals during postapplication activities (e.g., high-contact
lawn activities, mowing, and gardening)
may receive dermal exposure to
fluoxastrobin residues. Young children
1 to <2 years old may also receive
incidental oral post-application
exposure to fluoxastrobin from treated
turf. Residential post-application
exposure is expected to be short-term in
duration. Intermediate-term exposures
are not likely because of the intermittent
nature of exposure to homeowners.
Post-application dermal and hand-tomouth exposure scenarios were
combined for children 1 <2 years old.
This combination was considered a
protective estimate of children’s
exposure. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/
standard-operating-proceduresresidential-pesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found fluoxastrobin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
fluoxastrobin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that fluoxastrobin does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
45734
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at https://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
Food Quality Protection Act Safety
Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
As discussed in Unit III.A., there is no
evidence of quantitative or qualitative
fetal or offspring susceptibility in the
developmental toxicity studies in rats or
rabbits nor in two-generation
reproduction studies in rats.
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
fluoxastrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
fluoxastrobin is a neurotoxic chemical,
and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
fluoxastrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases. A
partially refined chronic aggregate
dietary (food and drinking water)
exposure and risk assessments were
conducted. The assumptions of the
dietary assessment include tolerancelevel residues for livestock
commodities, average field-trial residues
for some crop commodities, and PCT
and PCTn estimates for some
commodities. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to fluoxastrobin in
drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well
as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by fluoxastrobin.
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, fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin
from food and water will utilize 31% of
the cPAD for the general U.S population
and 77% of the cPAD for all infants <1year-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
fluoxastrobin 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). Fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin.
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 150 for adults and 100 for
children (1–2 years old). The Agency
does not have concern if the MOEs are
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
equal to or greater than 100.
Furthermore, many conservative
assumptions were incorporated into the
assessment, so the actual exposure and
risk are likely to be considerably lower
than the estimates in the Agency
assessment.
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, fluoxastrobin 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
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluoxastrobin.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Method No. 00604
is available for plant commodities and
Method No. 00691 is available for
livestock commodities. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
45735
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for fluoxastrobin.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA is establishing tolerance levels
for the following commodities that
differ from what the petitioner
requested: Avocado from 0.9 ppm to 1.0
ppm; barley, grain from 0.4 ppm to 0.40
ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A from 0.8
ppm to 0.70 ppm; pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C
from 0.2 ppm to 0.20 ppm. The
tolerances for avocado and rapeseed
subgroup 20A differ because the Agency
used different inputs for determining
those tolerance levels. Although the
petitioner and the Agency both used the
Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) calculation
procedures to obtain tolerance levels,
the Agency determined that some of the
trials were not independent. In addition,
if a higher residue value was observed
at a preharvest interval (PHI) longer
than the minimum labeled PHI, then the
Agency used the highest value.
The Agency added a significant figure
to the tolerances for barley, grain and
pea and bean, dried shelled, except
soybean to conform to current Agency
policy on significant figures. In
addition, the Agency has modified the
commodity definition for dried shelled
pea and bean (crop subgroup 6C) to pea
and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C in order for consistency
with the Agency’s food and feed
commodity vocabulary.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of fluoxastrobin, and its Zisomer in or on avocado at 1.0 ppm;
barley, grain at 0.40 ppm; barley, hay at
15 ppm; barley, straw at 15 ppm;
rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.70 ppm;
and pea and bean, dried shelled, except
soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.20 ppm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: August 31, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
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 § 180.609, add alphabetically
‘‘avocado’’, ‘‘barley, grain’’; ‘‘barley,
hay’’; ‘‘barley, straw’’; ‘‘pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
6C’’; and ‘‘rapeseed, subgroup 20A’’ to
the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
■
§ 180.609 Fluoxastrobin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
Avocado ......................................
Barley, grain ...............................
Barley, hay ..................................
Barley, straw ...............................
1.0
0.40
15
15
*
*
*
*
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C ....
*
0.20
*
*
*
*
Rapeseed, subgroup 20A ...........
*
0.70
*
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
*
02OCR1
*
*
*
45736
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 189 / Monday, October 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
*
[FR Doc. 2017–21113 Filed 9–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
For
technical information regarding the
Samsung Austin Semiconductor
petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214–
665–7430 or by email at
peace.michelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254; FRL–9968–
61–Region 6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Samsung Austin
Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude
from hazardous waste control (or delist)
a certain solid waste. This final rule
responds to the petition submitted by
Samsung to have the copper filter cake
from the electroplating process
excluded, or delisted from the definition
of a hazardous waste. The Copper filter
cake is listed as F006, wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating
operations. The basis of the listing is
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel,
and cyanide (complexed). After careful
analysis and evaluation of comments
submitted by the public, the EPA has
concluded that the petitioned wastes are
not hazardous waste when disposed of
in Subtitle D landfills. This exclusion
applies to the copper filter cake
generated at Samsung Austin
Semiconductor’s Austin, Texas facility.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of
in Subtitle D landfills, but imposes
testing conditions to ensure that the
future-generated wastes remain
qualified for delisting.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
October 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2017–0254. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:21 Sep 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Samsung Austin
Semiconductor manage the waste if it is
delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a ‘‘delisting’’?
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator
supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste Data
A. What waste and how much did
Samsung Austin Semiconductor petition
EPA to delist?
B. How did Samsung Austin
Semiconductor sample and analyze the
waste data in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
Who submitted comments on the proposed
rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing:
(1) The decision to grant Samsung
Austin Semiconductor’s petition to have
its copper filter cake excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, subject to certain
continued verification and monitoring
conditions; and
(2) To use the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software v.3.0.35 to
evaluate the potential impact of the
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. The Agency used this
model to predict the concentration of
hazardous constituents released from
the petitioned waste, once it is
disposed.
After evaluating the petition, EPA
proposed a rule, on July 14, 2017, to
exclude the Samsung Austin
Semiconductor copper filter cake waste
from the lists of hazardous wastes under
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. There were no
comments received on this rulemaking.
B. Why is EPA approving this delisting?
Samsung’s petition requests an
exclusion from the F006 waste listing
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
Samsung does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. Samsung also
believes no additional constituents or
factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition
included consideration of the original
listing criteria and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are
to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).
In making the initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous, with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s
proposed decision to delist waste from
Samsung is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the Austin, Texas
facility.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the petition only if the
requirements described in Table 1 of
part 261, appendix IX and the
conditions contained herein are
satisfied. The conditional exclusion
applies to 750 cubic yards of copper
filter cake sludge generated annually
from the Samsung Austin
Semiconductor facility in Austin, TX.
D. How will Samsung Austin
Semiconductor manage the waste if it is
delisted?
Storage containers of the copper filter
cake will be transported to an
E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM
02OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45730-45736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21113]
[[Page 45730]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0727; FRL-9966-09]
Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluoxastrobin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective October 2, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 1, 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-2015-0727, 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-2015-0727 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 1, 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-2015-0727, 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 March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL-9942-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F8406) by Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway,
Suite 150, Cary, North Carolina, 27513. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.609 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide fluoxastrobin, (1E)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl] (5,6-dihydro-l,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, and its Z isomer, (1Z)-[2-[[6-(2chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl] (5,6-dihydro-l,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, in or on avocado at 0.9 parts per million (ppm); barley,
grain at 0.4 ppm; barley, hay at 15 ppm; barley, straw at 15 ppm;
rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.8 ppm; and dried shelled pea and bean
(except soybean) subgroup 6C at 0.2 ppm. No comments were submitted on
this notice of filing. Based on data submitted with the petition, the
tolerances established by the Agency in this action differ slightly
from what the petitioner requested. The reasons for these deviations
are 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
[[Page 45731]]
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 fluoxastrobin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluoxastrobin
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.
In mammals, the liver and kidney were the main target organs. Liver
effects (cholestasis) were observed in dogs following subchronic and
chronic oral exposures. Dogs were the more sensitive species, with
liver effects in dogs occurring at a 35-fold lower dose than elicited
adverse effects in other species. Kidney effects were observed in rats
and dogs following subchronic exposures, but not following chronic
exposures. In rats, effects were also observed in the adrenal glands,
urinary bladder, and urethra. There were dose-related changes in the
liver and kidneys of mice, however, the changes were not considered to
be adverse.
There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative
fetal or offspring susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies
in rats or rabbits or the two-generation reproduction toxicity study in
rats. There were no maternal or developmental effects in the rat
developmental study. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits,
maternal effects (cold ears, transient body-weight loss, and decreased
food consumption) occurred in the absence of fetal toxicity. In the
two-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring effects (decreased
body weights, delayed preputial separation, and incomplete
ossification) occurred at the same dose as parental toxicity (decreased
premating absolute body weight and body-weight gain).
Fluoxastrobin has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. Overall, it is mildly irritating to the
eyes, but is neither a dermal irritant nor a dermal sensitizer. There
were no signs of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the database.
Fluoxastrobin is classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' based on the absence of treatment-related tumors in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies. There was no concern for
mutagenicity.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluoxastrobin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document Human Health Risk Assessment in Support
of Application to Avocado, Barley, Rapeseed subgroup 20A, and Dried
Shelled Pea and Bean on pages 14 and 15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2015-0727.
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 fluoxastrobin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluoxastrobin 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).. No appropriate toxicological effect attributable to a single dose was
observed. Therefore, a dose and endpoint were not identified for this risk
assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.015 Chronic Toxicity Study in Dogs.
day. mg/kg/day. LOAEL = M/F 8.1/7/7 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x........... cPAD = 0.015 mg/kg/ based on body weight reductions
UFH = 10x........... day. and hepatocytomegaly and
FQPA SF = 1x........ cytoplasmic changes associated
with increased serum liver
alkaline phosphatase indicative
of cholestasis.
Incidental oral short-term (1-30 NOAEL = 3.0 mg/kg/ LOC for MOE = <100. 90-Day Toxicity in Dogs.
days) and Intermediate-term (1-6 day. LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on
months). UFA = 10x........... reductions in body-weight gain
UFH = 10x........... and food efficiency, liver
FQPA SF = 1x........ effects (cholestasis), and kidney
effects (increased relative
weights in females, degeneration
of proximal tubular epithelium in
males).
[[Page 45732]]
Dermal short-term (1-30 days) and Oral study NOAEL = Residential LOC for 90-Day Toxicity in Dog.
intermediate-term (1-6 months). 3.0 mg/kg/day MOE = <100. LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on
(dermal absorption Occupational LOC reductions in body-weight gain
rate = 2.3%. for MOE = <100. and food efficiency, liver
UFA = 10x........... effects (cholestasis), and kidney
UFH = 10x........... effects (increased relative
FQPA SF = 1x........ weights in females, degeneration
of proximal tubular epithelium in
males).
Inhalation short and Intermediate- Oral study NOAEL = Residential LOC for 90-Day Toxicity in Dogs.
Term. 3.0 mg/kg/day MOE = <100. LOAEL = 24 mg/kg/day based on
(inhalation Occupational LOC reductions in body-weight gain
toxicity is for MOE = <100. and food efficiency, liver
considered effects (cholestasis), and kidney
equivalent to oral effects (increased relative
toxicity). weights in females, degeneration
UFA = 10x........... of proximal tubular epithelium in
UFH = 10x........... males).
FQPA SF = 1x........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Fluoxastrobin is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based on the absence of treatment-related tumors in
two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 fluoxastrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluoxastrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.609. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16, food consumption data
from the 2003-2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America,
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-
level residues for livestock commodities, average field trial residues
for some crop commodities, and percent crop treated (PCT) and percent
crop treated for new use (PCTn) estimates for some commodities. DEEM
version 7.81 default processing factors were assumed, except for
tolerances that were established for processed commodities or when
processing studies showed no concentration.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluoxastrobin 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: corn,
1.0%; peanuts, 2.5%; peppers, 2.5%; potatoes, 1.0%; soybeans, 1.0%; and
wheat, 2.5%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), and proprietary market surveys for the chemical/crop
combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for
chronic dietary risk analysis and maximum PCT for acute dietary risk
analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by
combining available public and private market survey data for that use,
averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%,
except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 2.5%.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 6 years of available public and private market
survey data for the
[[Page 45733]]
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except for
situations in which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%. In cases where
the estimated value is less than 2.5% but greater than 1%, the average
and maximum PCT used are 2.5%. If the estimated value is less than 1%,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows: avocado, 12%;
barley, 16%; canola, 9%; and dry beans/peas, 14%.
EPA estimates percent crop treated for new uses (PCTn) of
fluoxastrobin based on the PCT of the dominant pesticide (i.e., the one
with the greatest PCT) used on that crop over the three most recent
years of available data. Comparisons are only made among pesticides of
the same pesticide types (i.e., the dominant fungicide on the crop is
selected for comparison with a new fungicide). The PCTs included in the
analysis may be for the same pesticide or for different pesticides
since the same or different pesticides may dominate for each year.
Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the source for raw PCT data because it
is publicly available and does not have to be calculated from available
data sources. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS,
EPA uses proprietary market research data or other publicly available
state data when 80% or more of the crop acreage is grown in that state
and calculates the PCTn.
This estimated PCTn, based on the average PCT of the market leader,
is appropriate for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. This
method of estimating a PCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a
new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most
cases, to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. The
predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PCTn could be
exceeded are (1) the extent of pest pressure on the crops in question;
(2) the pest spectrum of the new pesticide in comparison with the
market leaders as well as whether the market leaders are well-
established for this use; and (3) resistance concerns with the market
leaders. EPA has examined the relevant data and determined that it is
unlikely that the actual PCT with fluoxastrobin on avocado, barley,
canola (rapeseed subgroup 20A) and dried shelled pea and bean (crop
subgroup 6C) will exceed the PCTn within the next five years.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT and PCTn
estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data,
which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably
certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fluoxastrobin may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluoxastrobin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluoxastrobin. 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.
The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) in surface
water resulting from the proposed fluoxastrobin uses were calculated
using the pesticide water calculator (PWC). Groundwater EDWCs for
fluoxastrobin were derived for the proposed and existing uses using
PRZM-Groundwater (PRZM GW). Based on PRZM GW, the EDWCs of
fluoxastrobin for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 47.8 ppb for surface water and 182 ppb for ground
water. The more conservative modeled estimate of drinking water
concentrations (182 ppb) was directly entered into the dietary exposure
model to assess the contribution to drinking water and chronic dietary
risk.
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).
Fluoxastrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Broadcast control of diseases on
turf, including lawns and golf courses. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following assumptions:
i. Residential Handler Exposure: All registered fluoxastrobin
product labels with residential use sites (e.g., turf and ornamentals)
require that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long sleeve shirt/
long pants) and/or use personal-protective equipment (PPE). Therefore,
the Agency has made the assumption that these products are not intended
for homeowner use, and has not conducted a quantitative residential
handler assessment.
ii. Residential Post-Application Exposure: Adults and children
performing physical activities on turf and ornamentals during post-
application activities (e.g., high-contact lawn activities, mowing, and
gardening) may receive dermal exposure to fluoxastrobin residues. Young
children 1 to <2 years old may also receive incidental oral post-
application exposure to fluoxastrobin from treated turf. Residential
post-application exposure is expected to be short-term in duration.
Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent
nature of exposure to homeowners. Post-application dermal and hand-to-
mouth exposure scenarios were combined for children 1 <2 years old.
This combination was considered a protective estimate of children's
exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and
generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found fluoxastrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluoxastrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluoxastrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
[[Page 45734]]
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. As discussed in Unit III.A.,
there is no evidence of quantitative or qualitative fetal or offspring
susceptibility in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits
nor in two-generation reproduction studies in rats.
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 fluoxastrobin is complete.
ii. There is no indication that fluoxastrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that fluoxastrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. A partially refined chronic aggregate dietary (food and
drinking water) exposure and risk assessments were conducted. The
assumptions of the dietary assessment include tolerance-level residues
for livestock commodities, average field-trial residues for some crop
commodities, and PCT and PCTn estimates for some commodities. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin.
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,
fluoxastrobin 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
fluoxastrobin from food and water will utilize 31% of the cPAD for the
general U.S population and 77% of the cPAD for all infants <1-year-old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the
explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues of fluoxastrobin 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). Fluoxastrobin
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 fluoxastrobin.
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 150 for adults
and 100 for children (1-2 years old). The Agency does not have concern
if the MOEs are equal to or greater than 100. Furthermore, many
conservative assumptions were incorporated into the assessment, so the
actual exposure and risk are likely to be considerably lower than the
estimates in the Agency assessment.
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,
fluoxastrobin 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
fluoxastrobin.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. Method
No. 00604 is available for plant commodities and Method No. 00691 is
available for livestock commodities. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905;
email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural
[[Page 45735]]
practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for fluoxastrobin.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA is establishing tolerance levels for the following commodities
that differ from what the petitioner requested: Avocado from 0.9 ppm to
1.0 ppm; barley, grain from 0.4 ppm to 0.40 ppm; rapeseed subgroup 20A
from 0.8 ppm to 0.70 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C from 0.2 ppm to 0.20 ppm. The tolerances for avocado and
rapeseed subgroup 20A differ because the Agency used different inputs
for determining those tolerance levels. Although the petitioner and the
Agency both used the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) calculation procedures to obtain tolerance levels,
the Agency determined that some of the trials were not independent. In
addition, if a higher residue value was observed at a preharvest
interval (PHI) longer than the minimum labeled PHI, then the Agency
used the highest value.
The Agency added a significant figure to the tolerances for barley,
grain and pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean to conform to
current Agency policy on significant figures. In addition, the Agency
has modified the commodity definition for dried shelled pea and bean
(crop subgroup 6C) to pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C in order for consistency with the Agency's food and feed
commodity vocabulary.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
fluoxastrobin, and its Z-isomer in or on avocado at 1.0 ppm; barley,
grain at 0.40 ppm; barley, hay at 15 ppm; barley, straw at 15 ppm;
rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.70 ppm; and pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.20 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: August 31, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
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. 180.609, add alphabetically ``avocado'', ``barley, grain'';
``barley, hay''; ``barley, straw''; ``pea and bean, dried shelled,
except soybean, subgroup 6C''; and ``rapeseed, subgroup 20A'' to the
table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.609 Fluoxastrobin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avocado..................................................... 1.0
Barley, grain............................................... 0.40
Barley, hay................................................. 15
Barley, straw............................................... 15
* * * * *
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C.... 0.20
* * * * *
Rapeseed, subgroup 20A...................................... 0.70
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45736]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-21113 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P