Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances, 22595-22601 [2018-10345]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Kentucky Area to remove the emissions
reductions associated with the use of
RFG in this area and to demonstrate that
the RFG opt-out would not interfere
with the area’s ability to attain or
maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
any other NAAQS as required by CAA
section 110(l). (See 40 CFR 80.72(b)).
EPA published a proposed approval of
the SIP revision on February 14, 2018
(83 FR 6496) and a final approval of the
SIP revision on April 2, 2018 (83 FR
13872). The final approval of the
maintenance plan revision was effective
upon publication, April 2, 2018. The
RFG opt-out regulations provide that the
opt-out effective date shall be no less
than 90 days from the EPA SIP approval
effective date. (See 40 CFR 80.72(c)(7)).
EPA is unaware of any reason that the
effective date should be postponed, and
therefore, is establishing an opt-out
effective date of July 1, 2018 for the
Northern Kentucky Area.
As provided by the RFG Opt-out Rule
and the opt-out regulations, EPA will
publish a final rule at a later date to
remove the three counties in the
Northern Kentucky Area from the list of
RFG covered areas in 40 CFR 80.70 after
the effective date of the opt-out. EPA
believes that it is prudent to complete
this ministerial exercise to revise the list
of covered areas in the Code of Federal
Regulations after the effective date of
the opt-out.
III. Action
EPA is approving Kentucky’s petition
because it contained the information
required by 40 CFR 80.72, including
that Kentucky revised the approved
maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for the Northern Kentucky Area
to remove the emissions reductions
associated with RFG. EPA is also
determining the opt-out effective date
by applying the criteria in 40 CFR
80.72(c)(7). As discussed in Section II.A.
of this document, the opt-out
regulations require that if a state
included RFG as a control measure in an
approved SIP, the state must revise the
SIP, reflecting the removal of RFG as a
control measure before an opt-out can
be effective and the opt-out cannot be
effective less than 90 days after the
effective date of the approval of the SIP
revision. EPA published a final approval
of Kentucky’s maintenance plan
revision and noninterference
demonstration on April 2, 2018 (83 FR
13872). The final approval was effective
upon publication.
In summary, EPA is today notifying
the public that it has applied its
regulatory criteria to approve the
petition by Kentucky to opt-out of the
RFG program for the Northern Kentucky
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
Area of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OHKY-IN ozone maintenance area and is
thereby removing the prohibition on the
sale of conventional gasoline in that
area as of July 1, 2018. (See 40 CFR
80.72). This opt-out effective date
applies to retailers, wholesale
purchasers, consumers, refiners,
importers, and distributors.
Dated: May 9, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018–10456 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0032; FRL–9976–62]
Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of tebuconazole
in or on ginseng, fresh at 0.15 parts per
million (ppm) and ginseng, dried at 0.40
ppm. Bayer CropScience LP, requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May
16, 2018. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 16, 2018, 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–2017–0032, 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, Director, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22595
Washington, DC 20460–0001; main
telephone number: (703) 305–7090;
email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
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–2017–0032 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 July 16, 2018. 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
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
22596
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2017–0032, 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.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 10,
2017 (82 FR 17175) (FRL–9959–61),
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 6E8534) by Bayer
CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of tebuconazole, a-[2-(4Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-a-(1,1dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1ethanol, in or on ginseng, fresh at 0.15
ppm and ginseng, dried/red at 0.4 ppm.
This document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Bayer
CropScience LP, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. No comments
were received in response to the notice
of filing.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 tebuconazole
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with tebuconazole 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 toxicological profile remains
unchanged from the discussion
contained in the final rule published in
the Federal Register on November 15,
2013 (78 FR 68741) (FRL–9392–1),
which is hereby incorporated into this
document.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by tebuconazole 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 Aggregate Risk
Assessment for Establishment of a
Permanent Tolerance Without U.S.
Registration for Residues in/on Ginseng
at pages 24–26 in docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0032.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 tebuconazole used for
human risk assessment can be found in
the preamble to the final rule published
in the Federal Register on November 15,
2013.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tebuconazole, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing tebuconazole tolerances in 40
CFR 180.474. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from tebuconazole in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. Such effects were identified
for tebuconazole. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) 2003–2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, a somewhat
refined acute probalistic dietary
exposure assessment was conducted for
all existing and proposed food uses of
tebuconazole. For the acute assessment,
anticipated residues for grapes, grape
juice, and peaches were derived using
the latest USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP) monitoring data. Anticipated
residues for all other registered and
proposed food commodities were based
on field trial data. Anticipated residues
for all current uses were further refined
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
using percent crop treated (%CT) data
where available. Percentage of imported
orange juice and oranges were also
provided. Default DEEM (ver. 7.81) and
empirical processing factors were
assumed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 2003–2008 (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA used field trial data, USDA PDP
data, assumed PCT data levels and used
empirical DEEM (ver. 7.81) default
processing factors as described in Unit
III.C.iv.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD
approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to tebuconazole. The chronic
risk assessment or RfD approach is
considered to be protective of any
cancer effects; therefore, a separate
cancer assessment was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA
to use available data and information on
the anticipated residue levels of
pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have
been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified, or
left in effect, demonstrating that the
levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of these tolerances.
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),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
For the acute assessment, the Agency
estimated the PCT for existing uses as
follows: Almonds 15%; apples 2.5%;
apricots 20%; asparagus 30%; barley
2.5%; beans green 2.5%; cantaloupes
10%; cherries 45%; corn 2.5%; cotton
2.5%; cucumbers 2.5%; dry beans/peas
5%; garlic 95%; grapes 40%; nectarines
30%; oats 2.5%; onions 5%; peaches
25%; peanuts 65%; pears 5%; pecans
25%; plums/prunes 5%; soybeans 2.5%;
squash 5%; sweet corn 5%; and wheat
25%.
For the chronic assessment, the
Agency estimated the PCT for existing
uses as follows: Almonds 5%; apples
2.5%; apricots 10%; asparagus 5%;
barley 2.5%; beans green 1%;
cantaloupes 2.5%; cherries 25%; corn
1%; cotton 1%; cucumbers 1%; dry
beans/peas 2.5%; garlic 65%; grapes
25%; nectarines 20%; oats 2.5%; onions
5%; peaches 10%; peanuts 45%; pears
5%; pecans 10%; pistachios 5%; plums/
prunes 2.5%; pumpkins 2.5%; soybeans
1%; squash 2.5%; sweet corn 2.5%;
walnuts 2.5%; watermelons 15%; and
wheat 5%.
The following estimated percent
import estimates for the import oranges
were used: Acute: Orange 16%; and
orange juice 58%; Chronic: orange 12%;
orange juice 46%. For all other crops
not listed above, EPA assumed that
100% of the crop was treated.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and
California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop
combination for the most recent 10
years. EPA uses an average PCT for
chronic dietary risk analysis and a
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% or 1%. In those
cases, EPA uses 2.5% or 1%,
respectively, as the average PCT value.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 10 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%, except in
those situations in which the maximum
PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum
PCT.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22597
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT 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 tebuconazole 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 tebuconazole in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
tebuconazole. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/
pesticide-science-and-assessingpesticide-risks/about-water-exposuremodels-used-pesticide.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–
GROW) models the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
tebuconazole for acute exposures are
estimated to be 87.7 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for
ground water and for chronic exposures
are estimated to be 68.8 ppb for surface
water and 1.56 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were previously entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, a
distribution of 30-year daily surface
water concentration was estimated for
the EDWCs of tebuconazole. For chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration of value 68.8 ppb was
previously used to assess the
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
22598
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
contribution to drinking water. Because
the use of tebuconazole on ginseng is
not associated with a U.S. registration,
there is no impact on drinking water
residues. As a result, the Agency is
relying on the drinking water residues
used in the dietary risk assessment
previously provided, ‘‘Drinking water
and ecological risk for new use of
tebuconazole/fluoxastrobin combination
for turf and ornamental use’’, which can
be found at https://regulations.gov, under
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–
0653–0007.
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).
Tebuconazole is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf, flower
gardens, trees, ornamentals, and
pressure-treated wood.
EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions: For
residential handlers, exposure is
expected to be short-term. Intermediateterm exposures are not likely because of
the intermittent nature of applications
by homeowners. For post-application
exposures, the Agency assessed
residential dermal and incidental oral
post-application exposure for adults and
children golfing, working in gardens,
and performing physical activities on
pressure-treated wood after application
of tebuconazole may receive exposure to
tebuconazole residues. Post-application
exposure is expected to be short-term in
duration. For assessment of both
handler and post-application exposures,
dermal and inhalation exposures were
combined since the same endpoint and
point of departure (POD) is used for
both routes of exposure.
Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/
standard-operating-proceduresresidential-pesticide.
Because no new residential uses are
being requested at this time, an updated
residential exposure assessment would
not normally be required. Each of the
existing residential use patterns had
been previously assessed and the
resulting exposures and risk estimates
did not exceed the agency’s LOC. Since
those assessments were conducted,
however, a turf transferrable residue
(TTR) study required by the Agency in
2013 was submitted to support a
reevaluation of the aggregate exposures
from the registered use on golf course
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
turf. In addition, the agency updated the
residential standard operating
procedures and body weights to be used
in all human health assessments.
Therefore, the existing residential use
patterns were reassessed using the
updated procedures and data, since the
residential exposures can impact the
aggregate assessment for tebuconazole.
The TTR study is reviewed in a separate
HED memorandum available in the
docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0032.
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.’’
Tebuconazole is a member of the
conazole class of fungicides containing
the 1,2,4-triazole moiety. Although
conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi)
by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis,
there is not necessarily a relationship
between their pesticidal activity and
their mechanism of toxicity in
mammals. Structural similarities do not
constitute a common mechanism of
toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish
that the chemicals operate by the same,
or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles,
however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found; some
are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic
in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in
rats. Some induce developmental,
reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles
produce a diverse range of biochemical
events including altered cholesterol
levels, stress responses, and altered
DNA methylation. It is not clearly
understood whether these biochemical
events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is
currently no conclusive data to indicate
that conazoles share common
mechanisms of toxicity, and EPA is not
following a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For
information regarding EPA’s procedures
for cumulating effects from substances
found to have a common mechanism of
toxicity, see EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
tebuconazole and any other substances.
Although the conazoles produce 1,2,4
triazole and its acid-conjugated
metabolites (triazolylalanine and
triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole and
its acid-conjugated metabolites do not
contribute to the toxicity of the parent
conazoles. The Agency has assessed the
aggregate risks from the 1,2,4 triazole
and its acid-conjugated metabolites
(triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic
acid) separately. Tebuconazole does not
appear to produce any other toxic
metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed
that tebuconazole has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.
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.
The toxicity database for tebuconazole
includes prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in three species (mouse,
rat, and rabbit), a reproductive toxicity
study in rats, and a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats. The data
from prenatal developmental toxicity
studies in mice and a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats indicated an
increased quantitative and qualitative
susceptibility following in utero
exposure to tebuconazole. The NOAELs/
LOAELs for developmental toxicity in
these studies were found at dose levels
less than those that induce maternal
toxicity or in the presence of slight
maternal toxicity. There was no
indication of increased quantitative
susceptibility in the rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, the
NOAELs for developmental toxicity
were comparable to or higher than the
NOAELs for maternal toxicity. In all
three species, however, there was
indication of increased qualitative
susceptibility. For most studies,
minimal maternal toxicity was seen at
the LOAEL (consisting of increases in
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
hematological findings in mice,
increased liver weights in rabbits and
rats, and decreased body weight gain/
food consumption in rats) and did not
increase substantially in severity at
higher doses. However, there was more
concern for the developmental effects at
each LOAEL, which included increases
in runts, increased fetal loss, and
malformations in mice; increased
skeletal variations in rats; and increased
fetal loss and frank malformations in
rabbits. Additionally, more severe
developmental effects (including frank
malformations) were seen at higher
doses in mice, rats and rabbits. In the
developmental neurotoxicity study,
maternal toxicity was seen only at the
high dose (decreased body weights,
body weight gains, and food
consumption, prolonged gestation and
dystocia as well as decreased offspring
survival).
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 3X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
tebuconazole is complete.
ii. Tebuconazole demonstrated
neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity
study in rats; the lowest observable
adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 100 mg/
kg/day was based on increased motor
activity in male and female rats and
decreased footsplay in female rats.
Although the subchronic neurotoxicity
study was unacceptable since there was
inadequate dosing, a new subchronic
neurotoxicity study is not needed to
evaluate levels at which subchronic
neurotoxicity might occur; neurotoxicity
was seen in other studies in the
database at considerably lower doses
than those tested in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study. Malformations
indicative of nervous system
development disruption were seen in
developmental toxicity studies in mice,
rats, and rabbits. Neurotoxicity was also
seen in the rat developmental
neurotoxicity study as decreases in body
weights, decreases in absolute brain
weights, changes in brain morphometric
parameters, and decreases in motor
activity in offspring at the LOAEL of 8.8
mg/kg/day; a no observable adverse
effect level (NOAEL) could not be
established. The LOAEL (8.8 mg/kg/day)
was employed as the point of departure
(POD) for assessing risk for all exposure
scenarios, and an FQPA SF of 3X has
been retained as an uncertainty factor
for use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a
NOAEL (UFL). To determine whether
the UFL is protective of any potential
neurotoxicity, a Benchmark Dose (BMD)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
analysis of the datasets relevant to the
adverse offspring effects (decreased
body weight and brain weight) seen at
the LOAEL in the developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) study was
conducted. All of the BMDLs
(benchmark dose lower limit) modeled
successfully on statistically significant
effects were 1–2X lower than the
LOAEL. Therefore, an extrapolated
NOAEL is not likely to be 10X lower
than the LOAEL and that use of an UFL
of 3X would not underestimate risk.
Using an FQPA SF of 3X in risk
assessment results in a NOAEL of 2.9
mg/kg/day (8.8 mg/kg/day ÷ 3X = 2.9
mg/kg/day), which is further supported
by other studies in the tebuconazole
toxicity database, with the lowest
NOAELs being 3 and 2.9 mg/kg/day,
from a developmental toxicity study in
mice and a chronic toxicity study in
dogs, respectively (respective LOAELs
10 and 4.5 mg/kg/day).
iii. There were increases in qualitative
susceptibility in the prenatal
developmental studies in rats, mice, and
rabbits and in quantitative susceptibility
in mice and developmental
neurotoxicity in rats. However, the
toxicity endpoint observed in
developmental neurotoxicity study in
rats was employed to establish the point
of departure (POD) for risk assessment
for all exposure scenarios. This toxicity
endpoint was the most sensitive one,
and the resulting POD was protective of
all adverse effects found in the
tebuconazole toxicity database.
Therefore, the degree of concern for
residual uncertainties for prenatal and/
or postnatal toxicity was low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
EPA utilized a tiered approach in
estimating exposure to tebuconazole.
While some refinements were
incorporated into dietary and residential
exposure calculations, EPA is confident
that the aggregate risk from exposure to
tebuconazole in food, water and
residential pathways will not be
underestimated. The acute and chronic
dietary exposure assessments
incorporated somewhat refined
estimates of residues in food
commodities from reliable field trial
data reflecting maximum use
conditions, recent monitoring data from
USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP),
and relevant market survey data on the
percentage of crops treated. Estimated
concentrations of tebuconazole in
drinking water were incorporated into
the chronic dietary analysis as the upper
bound point estimate and into the
probabilistic acute dietary analysis as a
distribution. For the residential
exposure pathways (ornamentals, golf
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22599
course turf, and treated wood products),
potential exposure resulting from
tebuconazole outdoor uses in the
residential setting was assessed using
screening-level inputs that assumes an
adult or child will come in contact with
turf and other surfaces immediately
after application.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
tebuconazole will occupy 77% of the
aPAD for all infants (< 1 year old), the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to tebuconazole
from food and water will utilize 22% 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
tebuconazole is not expected.
3. Short-term risk and Intermediateterm risk. Short-term and intermediateterm risk aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure
and intermediate-term residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
Tebuconazole is currently registered for
uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure that could co-occur
with background dietary exposure over
the short-term (1–30 days), whereas cooccurring intermediate exposures (1–6
months) are less likely. However, since
the POD employed for both durations
are the same, the aggregate assessments
address both exposure durations. Using
the exposure assumptions described in
this unit for short-term exposures, EPA
has concluded that residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of
580 for adults, 600 for youths 11 to <16
years old, and children 6 to <11 years
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
22600
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
500 for the activity of golfing and 330
for children (1–2 years old) engaging in
activities on pressure treated wood
surfaces. Because EPA’s level of concern
(LOC) for tebuconazole is a MOE of 300
or below, these MOEs are not of
concern. Therefore, aggregate risk
estimates for all examined population
subgroups were not of concern to the
Agency.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the Agency’s
determination that the chronic risk
assessment will be protective of any
cancer effects, a separate quantitative
cancer risk assessment was not
conducted. Because there is no chronic
risk of concern from aggregate exposure
to tebuconazole, the Agency concludes
that aggregate exposure to tebuconazole
will not result in cancer risks of
concern.
5. Aggregate Assessment for Free
Triazole & its Conjugates. The conazole
class of compounds, which includes
tebuconazole, can form the common
metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and
triazolylacetic acid). To support existing
tolerances and to establish new
tolerances for triazole-containing
pesticides, including tebucaonazole,
EPA conducted a human health risk
assessment for exposure to 1,2,4triazole, triazolylalanine, and
triazolylacetic acid resulting from the
use of all current and pending uses of
any triazole-containing fungicide. The
risk assessment is a highly conservative,
screening-level evaluation in terms of
hazards associated with common
metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum
combination of uncertainty factors) and
potential dietary and non-dietary
exposures (i.e., high end estimates of
both dietary and non-dietary exposures).
The Agency retained a 3X for the
LOAEL to NOAEL safety factor when
the reproduction study was used. In
addition, the Agency retained a 10X for
the lack of studies including a
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study. The assessment includes
evaluations of risks for various
subgroups, including those comprised
of infants and children. The Agency’s
complete risk assessment is found in the
propiconazole reregistration docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
Identification (ID) Number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0497. The Agency’s latest
updated aggregate risk assessment for
the triazole-containing metabolites was
finalized on July 18, 2017 and includes
the proposed new uses of tebuconazole.
That assessment concluded that
aggregate exposure to the triazole
metabolites does not exceed the
Agency’s level of concern.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
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 tebuconazole
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(Gas Chromatography/Nitrogen
Phosphorus Detector (GC/NPD) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905;
email address: residuemethods@
epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level.
The Codex has established MRLs for
tebuconazole in or on ginseng and
ginseng, dried at 0.15 ppm and 0.40
ppm, respectively. These MRLs are the
same as the tolerances established for
tebuconazole in the United States.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
For dried ginseng, the Agency is
revising the commodity definition for
the requested tolerance to reflect the
correct commodity vocabulary currently
used by the Agency. Specifically,
ginseng dried/red was changed to
ginseng, dried. Additionally, the Agency
is revising the significant figures for the
tolerance level based on current policy.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of tebuconazole, a-[2-(4-
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-a-(1,1dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1ethanol, in or on ginseng, dried at 0.40
ppm and ginseng, fresh at 0.15 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); Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997); or Executive Order
13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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,
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
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).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–10345 Filed 5–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160426363–7275–02]
RIN 0648–XF920
Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources
of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
Region; 2017–2018 Commercial
Closure for King Mackerel in the Gulf
of Mexico Northern Zone
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS implements an
accountability measure (AM) for
commercial king mackerel in the
northern zone of the Gulf of Mexico
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
(Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
through this temporary rule. NMFS has
Environmental protection,
determined that the commercial quota
Administrative practice and procedure,
for king mackerel in the northern zone
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping of the Gulf EEZ will be reached by May
15, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the
requirements.
northern zone of the Gulf EEZ to
Dated: April 30, 2018.
commercial king mackerel fishing on
Daniel Rosenblatt,
May 15, 2018. This closure is necessary
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
to protect the Gulf king mackerel
of Pesticide Program.
resource.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
DATES: The closure is effective at 12:01
amended as follows:
a.m., local time, May 15, 2018, until
12:01 a.m., local time, on October 1,
PART 180—[AMENDED]
2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
Kelli O’Donnell, NMFS Southeast
continues to read as follows:
Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
5305, email: kelli.odonnell@noaa.gov.
■ 2. In § 180.474, add alphabetically the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
entries ‘‘Ginseng, dried’’ and ‘‘Ginseng,
fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish
fresh’’ to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to
includes king mackerel, Spanish
read as follows:
mackerel, and cobia, and is managed
under the Fishery Management Plan for
§ 180.474 Tebuconazole; tolerances for
the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources
residues.
of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
(a) * * *
Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared
(1) * * *
by the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
Parts per
Commodity
and is implemented by NMFS under the
million
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
*
*
*
*
*
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by
Ginseng, dried 1 ....................
0.40 regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All
1 ....................
Ginseng, fresh
0.15 weights for Gulf king mackerel below
apply as either round or gutted weight.
*
*
*
*
*
On April 11, 2017, NMFS published
1 There are no U.S. registrations.
a final rule to implement Amendment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:12 May 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
22601
26 to the FMP in the Federal Register
(82 FR 17387). That final rule adjusted
the management boundaries, zones, and
annual catch limits for Gulf migratory
group king mackerel (Gulf king
mackerel). The commercial quota for the
Gulf king mackerel in the Gulf northern
zone is 511,200 lb (231,876 kg) for the
current fishing year, October 1, 2017,
through September 30, 2018 (50 CFR
622.384(b)(1)(ii)).
The Gulf king mackerel northern zone
is located in the EEZ between a line at
87°31.6′ W long., which is a line
extending due south of the state
boundary of Alabama and Florida, and
a line at 26°19.48′ N lat., which is a line
extending west from the boundary of
Lee and Collier Counties in southwest
Florida.
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(i)
require NMFS to close the commercial
sector for Gulf king mackerel in the
northern zone when the commercial
quota is reached, or is projected to be
reached, by filing a notification to that
effect with the Office of the Federal
Register. NMFS has determined the
commercial quota of 511,200 lb (231,876
kg) for Gulf king mackerel in the
northern zone will be reached by May
15, 2018. Accordingly, the northern
zone is closed to commercial fishing for
Gulf king mackerel effective from 12:01
a.m., local time, on May 15, 2018,
through September 30, 2018, the end of
the current fishing year.
During the closure, a person on board
a vessel that has been issued a valid
Federal commercial or charter vessel/
headboat permit for coastal migratory
pelagic fish may continue to retain the
king mackerel in the northern zone
under the recreational bag and
possession limits specified in 50 CFR
622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), as long as
the recreational sector for Gulf king
mackerel in the northern zone is open
(50 CFR 622.384(e)(1)).
Also during the closure, king
mackerel from the closed zone,
including those harvested under the bag
and possession limits, may not be
purchased or sold. This prohibition
does not apply to king mackerel from
the closed zone that were harvested,
landed ashore, and sold prior to the
closure and were held in cold storage by
a dealer or processor (50 CFR
622.384(e)(2)).
Classification
The Regional Administrator for the
NMFS Southeast Region has determined
this temporary rule is necessary for the
conservation and management of Gulf
king mackerel and is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws.
E:\FR\FM\16MYR1.SGM
16MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22595-22601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10345]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032; FRL-9976-62]
Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
tebuconazole in or on ginseng, fresh at 0.15 parts per million (ppm)
and ginseng, dried at 0.40 ppm. Bayer CropScience LP, requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May 16, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 16, 2018, 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-2017-0032, 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, Director, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
[email protected].
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-2017-0032 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
July 16, 2018. 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
[[Page 22596]]
by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17175) (FRL-9959-
61), 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
6E8534) by Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box
12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40
CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
tebuconazole, [alpha]-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-[alpha]-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol, in or on ginseng, fresh at
0.15 ppm and ginseng, dried/red at 0.4 ppm. This document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LP, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the
notice of filing.
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 tebuconazole including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with tebuconazole 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 toxicological profile remains unchanged from the discussion
contained in the final rule published in the Federal Register on
November 15, 2013 (78 FR 68741) (FRL-9392-1), which is hereby
incorporated into this document.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tebuconazole 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 Aggregate Risk Assessment
for Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance Without U.S. Registration
for Residues in/on Ginseng at pages 24-26 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0032.
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 tebuconazole used for
human risk assessment can be found in the preamble to the final rule
published in the Federal Register on November 15, 2013.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tebuconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing tebuconazole tolerances in 40
CFR 180.474. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tebuconazole in food
as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for tebuconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, a somewhat refined acute probalistic dietary exposure assessment
was conducted for all existing and proposed food uses of tebuconazole.
For the acute assessment, anticipated residues for grapes, grape juice,
and peaches were derived using the latest USDA Pesticide Data Program
(PDP) monitoring data. Anticipated residues for all other registered
and proposed food commodities were based on field trial data.
Anticipated residues for all current uses were further refined
[[Page 22597]]
using percent crop treated (%CT) data where available. Percentage of
imported orange juice and oranges were also provided. Default DEEM
(ver. 7.81) and empirical processing factors were assumed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used field trial
data, USDA PDP data, assumed PCT data levels and used empirical DEEM
(ver. 7.81) default processing factors as described in Unit III.C.iv.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to tebuconazole. The chronic risk assessment or RfD
approach is considered to be protective of any cancer effects;
therefore, a separate cancer assessment was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
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.
For the acute assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for existing
uses as follows: Almonds 15%; apples 2.5%; apricots 20%; asparagus 30%;
barley 2.5%; beans green 2.5%; cantaloupes 10%; cherries 45%; corn
2.5%; cotton 2.5%; cucumbers 2.5%; dry beans/peas 5%; garlic 95%;
grapes 40%; nectarines 30%; oats 2.5%; onions 5%; peaches 25%; peanuts
65%; pears 5%; pecans 25%; plums/prunes 5%; soybeans 2.5%; squash 5%;
sweet corn 5%; and wheat 25%.
For the chronic assessment, the Agency estimated the PCT for
existing uses as follows: Almonds 5%; apples 2.5%; apricots 10%;
asparagus 5%; barley 2.5%; beans green 1%; cantaloupes 2.5%; cherries
25%; corn 1%; cotton 1%; cucumbers 1%; dry beans/peas 2.5%; garlic 65%;
grapes 25%; nectarines 20%; oats 2.5%; onions 5%; peaches 10%; peanuts
45%; pears 5%; pecans 10%; pistachios 5%; plums/prunes 2.5%; pumpkins
2.5%; soybeans 1%; squash 2.5%; sweet corn 2.5%; walnuts 2.5%;
watermelons 15%; and wheat 5%.
The following estimated percent import estimates for the import
oranges were used: Acute: Orange 16%; and orange juice 58%; Chronic:
orange 12%; orange juice 46%. For all other crops not listed above, EPA
assumed that 100% of the crop was treated.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a 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% or 1%. In those cases, EPA uses 2.5% or 1%,
respectively, as the average PCT value. The maximum PCT figure is the
highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 10 years of
available public and private market survey data for the existing use
and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except in those
situations in which the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT 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 tebuconazole 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 tebuconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of tebuconazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
tebuconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 87.7 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water and for
chronic exposures are estimated to be 68.8 ppb for surface water and
1.56 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were previously
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, a distribution of 30-year daily surface water concentration
was estimated for the EDWCs of tebuconazole. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 68.8 ppb was previously
used to assess the
[[Page 22598]]
contribution to drinking water. Because the use of tebuconazole on
ginseng is not associated with a U.S. registration, there is no impact
on drinking water residues. As a result, the Agency is relying on the
drinking water residues used in the dietary risk assessment previously
provided, ``Drinking water and ecological risk for new use of
tebuconazole/fluoxastrobin combination for turf and ornamental use'',
which can be found at https://regulations.gov, under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653-0007.
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). Tebuconazole is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf, flower gardens, trees, ornamentals, and
pressure-treated wood.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
For residential handlers, exposure is expected to be short-term.
Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent
nature of applications by homeowners. For post-application exposures,
the Agency assessed residential dermal and incidental oral post-
application exposure for adults and children golfing, working in
gardens, and performing physical activities on pressure-treated wood
after application of tebuconazole may receive exposure to tebuconazole
residues. Post-application exposure is expected to be short-term in
duration. For assessment of both handler and post-application
exposures, dermal and inhalation exposures were combined since the same
endpoint and point of departure (POD) is used for both routes of
exposure.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
Because no new residential uses are being requested at this time,
an updated residential exposure assessment would not normally be
required. Each of the existing residential use patterns had been
previously assessed and the resulting exposures and risk estimates did
not exceed the agency's LOC. Since those assessments were conducted,
however, a turf transferrable residue (TTR) study required by the
Agency in 2013 was submitted to support a reevaluation of the aggregate
exposures from the registered use on golf course turf. In addition, the
agency updated the residential standard operating procedures and body
weights to be used in all human health assessments. Therefore, the
existing residential use patterns were reassessed using the updated
procedures and data, since the residential exposures can impact the
aggregate assessment for tebuconazole. The TTR study is reviewed in a
separate HED memorandum available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0032.
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.''
Tebuconazole is a member of the conazole class of fungicides
containing the 1,2,4-triazole moiety. Although conazoles act similarly
in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not
necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their
mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not
constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to
establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the
same, sequence of major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a
variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are
hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors
in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological
effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range
of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no conclusive data to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity, and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to tebuconazole and any other
substances. Although the conazoles produce 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-
conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid),
1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites do not contribute to
the toxicity of the parent conazoles. The Agency has assessed the
aggregate risks from the 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated
metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid) separately.
Tebuconazole does not appear to produce any other toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action,
therefore, EPA has not assumed that tebuconazole has a common mechanism
of toxicity with other substances.
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. The toxicity database for
tebuconazole includes prenatal developmental toxicity studies in three
species (mouse, rat, and rabbit), a reproductive toxicity study in
rats, and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. The data from
prenatal developmental toxicity studies in mice and a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats indicated an increased quantitative and
qualitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to tebuconazole.
The NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental toxicity in these studies were
found at dose levels less than those that induce maternal toxicity or
in the presence of slight maternal toxicity. There was no indication of
increased quantitative susceptibility in the rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, the NOAELs for developmental toxicity
were comparable to or higher than the NOAELs for maternal toxicity. In
all three species, however, there was indication of increased
qualitative susceptibility. For most studies, minimal maternal toxicity
was seen at the LOAEL (consisting of increases in
[[Page 22599]]
hematological findings in mice, increased liver weights in rabbits and
rats, and decreased body weight gain/food consumption in rats) and did
not increase substantially in severity at higher doses. However, there
was more concern for the developmental effects at each LOAEL, which
included increases in runts, increased fetal loss, and malformations in
mice; increased skeletal variations in rats; and increased fetal loss
and frank malformations in rabbits. Additionally, more severe
developmental effects (including frank malformations) were seen at
higher doses in mice, rats and rabbits. In the developmental
neurotoxicity study, maternal toxicity was seen only at the high dose
(decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption,
prolonged gestation and dystocia as well as decreased offspring
survival).
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 3X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for tebuconazole is complete.
ii. Tebuconazole demonstrated neurotoxicity in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats; the lowest observable adverse effect level
(LOAEL) of 100 mg/kg/day was based on increased motor activity in male
and female rats and decreased footsplay in female rats. Although the
subchronic neurotoxicity study was unacceptable since there was
inadequate dosing, a new subchronic neurotoxicity study is not needed
to evaluate levels at which subchronic neurotoxicity might occur;
neurotoxicity was seen in other studies in the database at considerably
lower doses than those tested in the subchronic neurotoxicity study.
Malformations indicative of nervous system development disruption were
seen in developmental toxicity studies in mice, rats, and rabbits.
Neurotoxicity was also seen in the rat developmental neurotoxicity
study as decreases in body weights, decreases in absolute brain
weights, changes in brain morphometric parameters, and decreases in
motor activity in offspring at the LOAEL of 8.8 mg/kg/day; a no
observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) could not be established. The
LOAEL (8.8 mg/kg/day) was employed as the point of departure (POD) for
assessing risk for all exposure scenarios, and an FQPA SF of 3X has
been retained as an uncertainty factor for use of a LOAEL to
extrapolate a NOAEL (UFL). To determine whether the UFL is protective
of any potential neurotoxicity, a Benchmark Dose (BMD) analysis of the
datasets relevant to the adverse offspring effects (decreased body
weight and brain weight) seen at the LOAEL in the developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) study was conducted. All of the BMDLs (benchmark
dose lower limit) modeled successfully on statistically significant
effects were 1-2X lower than the LOAEL. Therefore, an extrapolated
NOAEL is not likely to be 10X lower than the LOAEL and that use of an
UFL of 3X would not underestimate risk. Using an FQPA SF of 3X in risk
assessment results in a NOAEL of 2.9 mg/kg/day (8.8 mg/kg/day / 3X =
2.9 mg/kg/day), which is further supported by other studies in the
tebuconazole toxicity database, with the lowest NOAELs being 3 and 2.9
mg/kg/day, from a developmental toxicity study in mice and a chronic
toxicity study in dogs, respectively (respective LOAELs 10 and 4.5 mg/
kg/day).
iii. There were increases in qualitative susceptibility in the
prenatal developmental studies in rats, mice, and rabbits and in
quantitative susceptibility in mice and developmental neurotoxicity in
rats. However, the toxicity endpoint observed in developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats was employed to establish the point of
departure (POD) for risk assessment for all exposure scenarios. This
toxicity endpoint was the most sensitive one, and the resulting POD was
protective of all adverse effects found in the tebuconazole toxicity
database. Therefore, the degree of concern for residual uncertainties
for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity was low.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA utilized a tiered approach in estimating exposure to
tebuconazole. While some refinements were incorporated into dietary and
residential exposure calculations, EPA is confident that the aggregate
risk from exposure to tebuconazole in food, water and residential
pathways will not be underestimated. The acute and chronic dietary
exposure assessments incorporated somewhat refined estimates of
residues in food commodities from reliable field trial data reflecting
maximum use conditions, recent monitoring data from USDA's Pesticide
Data Program (PDP), and relevant market survey data on the percentage
of crops treated. Estimated concentrations of tebuconazole in drinking
water were incorporated into the chronic dietary analysis as the upper
bound point estimate and into the probabilistic acute dietary analysis
as a distribution. For the residential exposure pathways (ornamentals,
golf course turf, and treated wood products), potential exposure
resulting from tebuconazole outdoor uses in the residential setting was
assessed using screening-level inputs that assumes an adult or child
will come in contact with turf and other surfaces immediately after
application.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to tebuconazole will occupy 77% of the aPAD for all infants (< 1 year
old), the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
tebuconazole from food and water will utilize 22% 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
tebuconazole is not expected.
3. Short-term risk and Intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term risk aggregate exposure takes into account short-term
residential exposure and intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Tebuconazole is currently registered for uses that
could result in short-term residential exposure that could co-occur
with background dietary exposure over the short-term (1-30 days),
whereas co-occurring intermediate exposures (1-6 months) are less
likely. However, since the POD employed for both durations are the
same, the aggregate assessments address both exposure durations. Using
the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded that residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 580 for adults, 600 for youths 11 to <16 years old,
and children 6 to <11 years
[[Page 22600]]
500 for the activity of golfing and 330 for children (1-2 years old)
engaging in activities on pressure treated wood surfaces. Because EPA's
level of concern (LOC) for tebuconazole is a MOE of 300 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern. Therefore, aggregate risk estimates for all
examined population subgroups were not of concern to the Agency.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the Agency's
determination that the chronic risk assessment will be protective of
any cancer effects, a separate quantitative cancer risk assessment was
not conducted. Because there is no chronic risk of concern from
aggregate exposure to tebuconazole, the Agency concludes that aggregate
exposure to tebuconazole will not result in cancer risks of concern.
5. Aggregate Assessment for Free Triazole & its Conjugates. The
conazole class of compounds, which includes tebuconazole, can form the
common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates
(triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing
tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-containing
pesticides, including tebucaonazole, EPA conducted a human health risk
assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and
triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending
uses of any triazole-containing fungicide. The risk assessment is a
highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards
associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a maximum combination
of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and non-dietary exposures
(i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and non-dietary exposures).
The Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to NOAEL safety factor when the
reproduction study was used. In addition, the Agency retained a 10X for
the lack of studies including a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study. The assessment includes evaluations of risks for various
subgroups, including those comprised of infants and children. The
Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
Identification (ID) Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497. The Agency's latest
updated aggregate risk assessment for the triazole-containing
metabolites was finalized on July 18, 2017 and includes the proposed
new uses of tebuconazole. That assessment concluded that aggregate
exposure to the triazole metabolites does not exceed the Agency's level
of concern.
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 tebuconazole residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography/Nitrogen
Phosphorus Detector (GC/NPD) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
[email protected].
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 established MRLs for tebuconazole in or on ginseng
and ginseng, dried at 0.15 ppm and 0.40 ppm, respectively. These MRLs
are the same as the tolerances established for tebuconazole in the
United States.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
For dried ginseng, the Agency is revising the commodity definition
for the requested tolerance to reflect the correct commodity vocabulary
currently used by the Agency. Specifically, ginseng dried/red was
changed to ginseng, dried. Additionally, the Agency is revising the
significant figures for the tolerance level based on current policy.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tebuconazole,
[alpha]-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)ethyl]-[alpha]-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-
triazole-1-ethanol, in or on ginseng, dried at 0.40 ppm and ginseng,
fresh at 0.15 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); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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,
[[Page 22601]]
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: April 30, 2018.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Program.
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. 180.474, add alphabetically the entries ``Ginseng, dried''
and ``Ginseng, fresh'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.474 Tebuconazole; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Ginseng, dried \1\...................................... 0.40
Ginseng, fresh \1\...................................... 0.15
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-10345 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P