Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances, 57333-57339 [2018-24974]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
that time,’’ the EPA explained, states
‘‘may also begin applying EPA’s
interpretations to the extent they do not
conflict with their approved SIPs.’’ Id.
We now believe it is likely that state and
local permitting authorities would have
understood this straightforward
explanation.
Further, as previously discussed,
determining whether a source has
sought to circumvent NSR by failing to
treat nominally-separate activities as a
single project is inherently case-specific
and fact-dependent. Given this, it is not
reasonable to imagine that perfect
clarity could ever be achieved. To the
extent, however, that the 2009 NSR
Aggregation Action, in setting forth both
the ‘‘substantially related’’
interpretation and the EPA’s policy for
applying that interpretation, provides
some meaningful guidance to sources
and to state and local permitting
authorities, we fail to understand how
revoking the 2009 NSR Aggregation
Action would serve to promote clarity.
Indeed, in this regard, we believe in
most cases that sources and state and
local air agencies already implement a
standard that is similar to the
substantially related standard. To the
extent that a state or local air agency
desires to formally adopt the 2009 NSR
Aggregation Action, the EPA will
provide support to those agencies to
process SIP submittals and issue
approvals, as warranted. In most cases,
however, we do not think changes in
state plans would be needed to
implement this interpretation.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
C. Completing the Reconsideration
Proceeding
We believe that this final action
addresses the concerns raised by the
petitioner with respect to the 2009 NSR
Aggregation Action—e.g., adequate
notice and logical outgrowth, the legal
underpinnings of the action, state
adoption, and our need to change or
clarify our aggregation policy.
Accordingly, this action concludes the
reconsideration proceeding of the 2009
NSR Aggregation Action.
D. Lifting the Administrative Stay;
Announcement of Effective Date
On May 18, 2010, after a series of
temporary administrative stays of the
2009 NSR Aggregation Action, the EPA
exercised the provisions of the APA
section 705 to postpone the
effectiveness of the action ‘‘until
judicial review is no longer pending or
the EPA completes the reconsideration
process.’’ 75 FR 27644. Since this action
concludes the reconsideration
proceeding, and we have affirmed the
legal consistency and policy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
appropriateness of the 2009 NSR
Aggregation Action, we are hereby
lifting the indefinite administrative stay
and announcing the effective date of the
action. The effective date of the 2009
NSR Aggregation Action, published in
the Federal Register on January 15,
2009 (74 FR 2376), and delayed on
February 13, 2009 (74 FR 7284), May 14,
2009 (74 FR 22693), and May 18, 2010
(75 FR 27643), begins again on
November 15, 2018.
IV. Environmental Justice
Considerations
We believe that this action does not
have any effect on environmental justice
communities. Through this action, the
EPA is affirming its interpretation that
its current NSR regulations allow for the
2009 NSR Aggregation Action and, as
such, no increased burden is expected
for source owners, permitting
authorities, or environmental justice
communities.
V. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant action that
was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket.
VI. Judicial Review
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates
which Federal Courts of Appeal have
venue for petitions of review of final
agency actions by the EPA under the
CAA. This section provides, in part, that
petitions for review must be filed in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency
action consists of ‘‘nationally applicable
regulations promulgated, or final actions
taken, by the Administrator’’ or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ‘‘such action is based on
a determination of nationwide scope or
effect and if in taking such action the
Administrator finds and publishes that
such action is based on such a
determination.’’
This action completes the
reconsideration proceeding and makes
effective the 2009 NSR Aggregation
Action. The 2009 NSR Aggregation
Action is an interpretation of NSR rule
language that applies in every state and
territory in the United States where EPA
is the permitting authority. Therefore, to
the extent that this action is a ‘‘final
action,’’ it is ‘‘nationally applicable’’
within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57333
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, to
the extent that this action is judicially
reviewable, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit by January 14, 2019.
VII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by section 301(a) of the CAA
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7601(a)). This
document is also subject to section
307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).
Dated: November 7, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018–24820 Filed 11–14–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0744; FRL–9985–45]
Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of azoxystrobin
in or on beet, sugar, roots and vegetable,
root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
November 15, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before January 14, 2019, 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–2017–0744, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
57334
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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).
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2017–0744, 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.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
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.
In the Federal Register of March 6,
2018 (83 FR 9471) (FRL–9973–27), 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 7F8590) by Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, 18300 Greensboro
Road, NC. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.507 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide azoxystrobin, in or on
beet, sugar, roots at 5.0 parts per million
(ppm) and vegetable, root, subgroup 1B
at 0.5 ppm. The petition also requested
that the tolerance for vegetable, root,
subgroup 1A be removed once these
new tolerances are established. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA’s
response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing the tolerance level for
vegetable, root, subgroup 1B at 1.0 ppm
instead of 0.5 ppm. Additionally, the
Agency has revised the commodity
name to vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B. The reason for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; main telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2017–0744 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 January 14, 2019. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 azoxystrobin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with azoxystrobin 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.
With repeated dosing by the oral
route, the liver and bile ducts were
consistently affected by azoxystrobin.
Liver and biliary effects were seen in
rats (increased liver weights, gross and
histopathological lesions of the bile duct
and liver), and in dogs (increased liver
weights, clinical observations including
fluid feces and salivation) and clinical
chemistry alterations (including
increased serum levels of alkaline
phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl
transferase; and decreases in serum
albumin). The effects seen are indicative
of changes to liver/biliary function.
Decreased body weight (rats and mice)
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
and decreased body weight gain (rats
and rabbits) were also consistent
findings across studies and species.
Other effects including decreased food
intake/utilization, increased diarrhea
and other clinical toxicity observations
such as urinary incontinence, salivation,
hunched postures and distended
abdomens were also seen in various
studies (developmental toxicity,
reproduction, and 90-day oral toxicity)
in rats. Inhalation exposure to a solubleconcentrate (SC) formulation of
azoxystrobin resulted in adverse
microscopic changes in the nasal cavity
and larynx.
No developmental effects were seen
in the rabbit and rat developmental
toxicity studies and no reproductive or
offspring effects were seen in the 2generation rat reproduction study. In the
reproduction study, decreased body
weights and increased adjusted liver
weights were observed at the same dose
in both offspring and parental animals.
Therefore, the toxicity data showed no
increased susceptibility in the young.
In the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies, there were no
consistent indications of treatmentrelated neurotoxicity. There was no
evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the
acute neurotoxicity study in rats from a
single gavage dose up to 2,000 mg/kg.
There was also no evidence of
neurotoxicity seen in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats up to the
highest dose tested (201 mg/kg/day).
Based on the toxicity profile of
azoxystrobin, a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats is not
needed.
Although azoxystrobin induced a
weak mutagenic response in the mouse
lymphoma assay (non-linear, slight but
significant increases in the mutation
frequency of mouse lymphoma cells),
the activity expressed in vitro is not
expected to be expressed in whole
animals. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in rats and mice at
acceptable tested dose levels; therefore,
azoxystrobin is classified as ‘‘not likely
to be carcinogenic to humans’’.
Azoxystrobin has a low order of acute
toxicity via oral, dermal and inhalation
routes of exposure. Azoxystrobin is not
an eye or skin irritant and is not a skin
sensitizer.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by azoxystrobin 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
Azoxystrobin: Human Health Risk
Assessment for a New Post-Harvest Use
on Sugar Beets and Amend the existing
Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1A to
Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1B (except
Sugar Beets) at pages 11–18 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0744.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
57335
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for azoxystrobin used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR AZOXYSTROBIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (All populations) ...........
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 3x
NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 3x
NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
UFA= 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Inhalation study NOAEL
= 3.8 μg/L (inhalation
absorption rate =
100%).
UFA = 3x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.67 mg/
kg/day.
aPAD = 0.67 mg/kg/day
Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat.
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on diarrhea at two-hours post dose at
all dose levels tested.
Chronic RfD = 0.18 mg/
kg/day.
cPAD = 0.18 mg/kg/day
Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Feeding Study—Rat.
LOAEL = 82.4/117 mg/kg/day (M/F) based on reduced body weights in
both sexes and bile duct lesions in males.
Residential LOC for
MOE = 300.
Acute Neurotoxicity—Rat.
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on diarrhea at two-hours post dose at
all dose levels tested.
Residential LOC for
MOE = 100.
2-generation reproduction study—Rats.
LOAEL = 165 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weights in both
males and females (↓8–21%).
LOC for MOE = 30 ......
28-Day inhalation toxicity study in rats on SC formulation+.
LOAEL = 12.2 μg/L based on adverse histopathological changes in the
larynx (squamous metaplasia) and nasal cavity (metaplasia of the
respiratory epithelium). There was an increase in severity with increases in the test concentrations.
Chronic dietary (All populations) ........
Episodic granule ingestion (Children
1 to <2 years old).
Incidental oral short-term (1–30 days)
(Intermediate-term (1–6 months)).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Inhalation (All durations) ....................
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) ......
Azoxystrobin is classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’’.
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day.
MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
57336
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to azoxystrobin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing azoxystrobin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.507. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from azoxystrobin 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 azoxystrobin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Nationwide Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA)
conducted from 2003–2008. As to
residue levels in food, the acute dietary
analysis was obtained from the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model using the
Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM–FCID; version 3.16). The
assessment is based on 100% of the
registered crops treated, and tolerancelevel residues for all existing and
proposed commodities, except citrus
fruits where the highest field trial
residue was used as a refinement.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA Nationwide Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA)
conducted from 2003–2008. As to
residue levels in food, the chronic
dietary analysis was obtained from the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
using the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM–FCID; version 3.16).
The assessment was partially refined,
and used tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and average percent crop
treated (PCT) estimates when available.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that azoxystrobin does not
pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore,
a dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified, or
left in effect, demonstrating that the
levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide
for periodic evaluation of any estimates
used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F),
EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for
existing uses for the chronic dietary
exposure assessment as follows:
Almonds, 20%; apricots, 10%;
artichokes, 20%; asparagus, <2.5%;
barley, <2.5%; green beans, 15%;
blueberries, 15%; broccoli, 10%;
cabbage, 10%; caneberries, 5%;
cantaloupes, 20%; carrots, 10%;
cauliflower, <2.5%; celery, 10%; corn,
<2.5%; cotton, <2.5%; cotton (seed
treatment), 25%; cucumbers, 20%; dry
beans/peas, <2.5%; eggplant, 30%;
garlic, 70%; grapefruit, 20%; grapes,
5%; hazelnuts, 5%; lemons, <2.5%;
lettuce, <2.5%; nectarines, <2.5%;
onions, 5%; oranges, 5%; peaches, 5%;
peanuts, 20%; peanuts (seed treatment),
30%; green peas, <2.5%; pecans, 5%;
peppers, 20%; pistachios, 5%; plums/
prunes, <2.5%; potatoes, 40%; potatoes
(seed treatment), <1%; pumpkins, 20%;
rice, 40%; soybeans, 5%; soybeans (seed
treatment), <1%; spinach, 10%; squash,
20%; strawberries, 25%; sugar beets,
10%; sugar beets (seed treatment),
<2.5%; sweet corn, 15%; tangelos, 25%;
tangerines, 10%; tobacco, 15%;
tomatoes, 25%; walnuts, <2.5%;
watermelons, 15%; wheat, 5%; wheat
seed (seed treatment), <1%. For crops
not specified, 100 PCT was used.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (CalDPR) 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 figures for
each existing use is derived by
combining available public and private
market survey data for that use,
averaging across all observations, and
rounding up to the nearest 5%, except
for those situations in which the average
PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%.
In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the
average PCT value, respectively. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the most 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 where the maximum PCT is
less than 2.5%, in which case, the
Agency uses less than 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 azoxystrobin 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
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
for azoxystrobin in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
azoxystrobin. 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 Surface Water
Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and
Screening Concentration in Ground
Water (SCI–GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of azoxystrobin for acute
exposures are estimated to be 70.2 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and
3.1 ppb for ground water. For chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments
the EDWCs of azoxystrobin are
estimated to be 48.5 ppb for surface
water and 3.1 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 70.2 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 48.5 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Azoxystrobin is currently registered for
the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Conventional
residential use on turf and ornamentals
and antimicrobial uses as a materials
preservative in paints and plastics. The
proposed use will not result in
additional residential exposures.
Existing residential uses result in (1)
short-term handler dermal and
inhalation exposures for adults; (2)
short-term post-application dermal
exposures for adults, youth 11 to 16
years old, children 6 to 11 years old,
and children 1 to <2 years old; and (3)
short-term incidental oral exposures to
children 1 to <2 years old. Since the
effects from inhalation exposure differ
from effects from oral exposure, the
residential handler exposures are not
aggregated with dietary exposures. No
hazard was identified for dermal
exposure. The Agency’s assessment of
risk aggregates residential exposure
from hand-to-mouth incidental oral
exposures to children 1 to <2 years old
from preserved vinyl flooring.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
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.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found azoxystrobin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
azoxystrobin does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that azoxystrobin does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s website at https://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
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.
No developmental effects were seen in
the rabbit and rat developmental
toxicity studies, and no reproductive or
offspring effects were seen in the 2generation rat reproduction study. In the
reproduction study, decreased body
weights and increased adjusted liver
weights were observed at the same dose
in both offspring and parental animals.
Therefore, the toxicity data showed no
increased susceptibility in the young.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57337
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X for all exposure
scenarios except acute exposure and
episodic granule ingestion. For
assessing acute dietary risk and episodic
oral ingestion of granules, EPA is
retaining an FQPA factor of 3X to
account for the use of a LOAEL from the
acute neurotoxicity study to derive an
acute reference dose. The Agency
believes that a 3X FQPA SF (as opposed
to a 10X) will be adequate to extrapolate
a NOAEL in assessing acute risk based
on the following considerations:
• The LOAEL is based on a transient
effect (diarrhea in rats) expected to be
relatively insignificant in nature. This
effect is also seen in other chemicals of
the same class.
• The diarrhea was only seen in
studies using gavage dosing in the rat,
but not in studies using repeat dosing
through dietary administration in rats or
mice, and not through gavage dosing in
rabbits.
• The very high dose level needed to
reach the acute oral lethal dose (LD)50
(>5,000 mg/kg), and the overall low
toxicity of azoxystrobin.
The decision to reduce the FQPA
safety factor to 1X for the assessment of
the remaining exposure scenarios is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
azoxystrobin is considered sufficient for
selecting toxicity endpoints and PODs
for risk assessment.
ii. There is no indication that
azoxystrobin is a neurotoxic chemical.
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity
seen in the acute neurotoxicity study in
rats from a single gavage dose up to
2,000 mg/kg. There was also no
evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats
up to the highest dose tested (201 mg/
kg/day). Therefore, there is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
azoxystrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study. In the reproduction
study, the offspring and the parental
effects occurred at the same dose level.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute dietary (food) exposure
assessments utilized conservative
upper-bound inputs including assuming
100% CT and tolerance-level residues
for all commodities except citrus fruits
where the highest field trial residue was
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
57338
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
used as a refinement. The chronic
dietary exposure assessment was
partially refined, and used tolerancelevel residues for all commodities and
PCT information for selected crops. EPA
made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to azoxystrobin in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by azoxystrobin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure
from food and water to azoxystrobin
will occupy 82% of the aPAD for
children 1–2 years old, the population
group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to azoxystrobin
from food and water will utilize 18% of
the cPAD for children 1–2 years old the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in
Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of azoxystrobin is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Azoxystrobin is
currently registered for uses that could
result in short-term residential
exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short-term residential
exposures to azoxystrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 390 for children 1 to <2 years
old. Because EPA’s level of concern for
azoxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below,
these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Because no intermediate-term adverse
effect was identified, azoxystrobin is not
expected to pose an intermediate-term
risk. Therefore, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk would be equivalent to
the chronic dietary exposure estimate.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
azoxystrobin is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to azoxystrobin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography with nitrogenphosphorus detector (GC/NPD) method,
RAM 243/04) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression for residues of
azoxystrobin and its Z-isomer in crop
commodities. This method (designated
RAM 243, dated 5/15/98) has been
submitted to FDA for inclusion in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM,
Volume II).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
azoxystrobin in or on root and tuber
vegetables (except potato) at 1.0 ppm.
This MRL is the same as the tolerance
being established for azoxystrobin in the
United States.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received ten comments to the
docket EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0744.
However, only three comments were in
response to the petition filed by
Syngenta Crop Protection. One
comment (ID: EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–
0744–0007) among the three, is
inclusive of the other two comments
(ID: EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0744–0008
and EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0744–0009),
and describes portions of the content of
the Federal Register notice EPA
published on March 6, 2018 (83 FR
9471), and expresses support for
tolerances. The remaining seven
comments were not germane to this
action, therefore no further response
from the Agency is required.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The Agency recommends increasing
the tolerance for vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B from the
proposed 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm to
harmonize with the existing Codex
MRL. Additionally, the Agency is
revising the significant figure on root
vegetables subgroup 1B based on
current policy and revising the
commodity definition to reflect the
common commodity vocabulary
currently used by the Agency. The
commodity definition was revised from
vegetable, root, subgroup 1B to
vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of azoxystrobin, in or on
beet, sugar, roots at 5.0 ppm and
vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B at 1.0 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) nor is it considered a
regulatory action under 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,
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.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Nov 14, 2018
Jkt 247001
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).
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
VII. Congressional Review Act
RIN 0648–XG618
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
57339
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160906822–7547–02]
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic; 2018 Commercial Closure for
Hogfish in the Florida Keys/East
Florida Area of the South Atlantic
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
NMFS implements
accountability measures (AMs) for the
hogfish commercial sector in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the
South Atlantic for the Florida Keys/East
Florida (FLK/EFL) stock for the 2018
fishing year through this temporary rule.
Dated: November 1, 2018.
NMFS estimates commercial hogfish
Michael Goodis,
landings for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock
Director, Registration Division, Office of
for the 2018 fishing year will reach the
Pesticide Programs.
annual catch limit (ACL) on November
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
16, 2018. Therefore, NMFS closes the
amended as follows:
commercial sector for the FLK/EFL
hogfish stock in the South Atlantic EEZ
PART 180—[AMENDED]
on November 16, 2018, through the
remainder of the 2018 fishing year. This
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
closure is necessary to protect the
continues to read as follows:
hogfish resource in the FLK/EFL region
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
of the South Atlantic.
■ 2. In § 180.507:
DATES: This rule is effective 12:01 a.m.,
■ a. Remove the entry for ‘‘Vegetable,
local time, November 16, 2018, until
root, subgroup 1A’’ from the table in
12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2019.
paragraph (a)(1).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
■ b. Add alphabetically ‘‘Beet, sugar,
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional
roots’’; and ‘‘Vegetable, root, except
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
sugar beet, subgroup 1B’’ to the table in
mary.vara@noaa.gov.
paragraph (a)(1).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
The additions read as follows:
snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic includes hogfish and is
§ 180.507 Azoxystrobin; tolerances for
managed under the Fishery
residues.
Management Plan for the Snapper(a) * * *
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
(1) * * *
Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared
by the South Atlantic Fishery
Parts
per
Commodity
million
Management Council and is
implemented by NMFS under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
*
*
*
*
*
Fishery Conservation and Management
Beet, sugar, roots .......................
5.0
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by
regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
*
*
*
*
*
The final rule for Amendment 37 to
Vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B ..................
1.0 the FMP established two stocks of
hogfish in Federal waters of the South
Atlantic and new stock boundaries
*
*
*
*
*
under the jurisdiction of the South
*
*
*
*
*
Atlantic Fishery Management Council
[FR Doc. 2018–24974 Filed 11–14–18; 8:45 am]
(82 FR 34584; July 25, 2017). One stock
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
is the Georgia through North Carolina
SUMMARY:
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM
15NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 221 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57333-57339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24974]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0744; FRL-9985-45]
Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
azoxystrobin in or on beet, sugar, roots and vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective November 15, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 14, 2019,
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-2017-0744, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
[[Page 57334]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [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-2017-0744 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
January 14, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0744, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of March 6, 2018 (83 FR 9471) (FRL-9973-
27), 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
7F8590) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 18300 Greensboro Road, NC.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.507 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin, in or on beet,
sugar, roots at 5.0 parts per million (ppm) and vegetable, root,
subgroup 1B at 0.5 ppm. The petition also requested that the tolerance
for vegetable, root, subgroup 1A be removed once these new tolerances
are established. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing the tolerance level for vegetable, root, subgroup 1B at
1.0 ppm instead of 0.5 ppm. Additionally, the Agency has revised the
commodity name to vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B. The
reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
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 azoxystrobin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with azoxystrobin 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.
With repeated dosing by the oral route, the liver and bile ducts
were consistently affected by azoxystrobin. Liver and biliary effects
were seen in rats (increased liver weights, gross and histopathological
lesions of the bile duct and liver), and in dogs (increased liver
weights, clinical observations including fluid feces and salivation)
and clinical chemistry alterations (including increased serum levels of
alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase; and decreases in
serum albumin). The effects seen are indicative of changes to liver/
biliary function. Decreased body weight (rats and mice)
[[Page 57335]]
and decreased body weight gain (rats and rabbits) were also consistent
findings across studies and species. Other effects including decreased
food intake/utilization, increased diarrhea and other clinical toxicity
observations such as urinary incontinence, salivation, hunched postures
and distended abdomens were also seen in various studies (developmental
toxicity, reproduction, and 90-day oral toxicity) in rats. Inhalation
exposure to a soluble-concentrate (SC) formulation of azoxystrobin
resulted in adverse microscopic changes in the nasal cavity and larynx.
No developmental effects were seen in the rabbit and rat
developmental toxicity studies and no reproductive or offspring effects
were seen in the 2-generation rat reproduction study. In the
reproduction study, decreased body weights and increased adjusted liver
weights were observed at the same dose in both offspring and parental
animals. Therefore, the toxicity data showed no increased
susceptibility in the young.
In the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, there were no
consistent indications of treatment-related neurotoxicity. There was no
evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats
from a single gavage dose up to 2,000 mg/kg. There was also no evidence
of neurotoxicity seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats up
to the highest dose tested (201 mg/kg/day). Based on the toxicity
profile of azoxystrobin, a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is
not needed.
Although azoxystrobin induced a weak mutagenic response in the
mouse lymphoma assay (non-linear, slight but significant increases in
the mutation frequency of mouse lymphoma cells), the activity expressed
in vitro is not expected to be expressed in whole animals. There was no
evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice at acceptable tested dose
levels; therefore, azoxystrobin is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans''.
Azoxystrobin has a low order of acute toxicity via oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. Azoxystrobin is not an eye or skin
irritant and is not a skin sensitizer.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by azoxystrobin 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 Azoxystrobin: Human Health Risk
Assessment for a New Post-Harvest Use on Sugar Beets and Amend the
existing Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1A to Vegetable, Root, Subgroup 1B
(except Sugar Beets) at pages 11-18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0744.
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 azoxystrobin used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Azoxystrobin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and RfD, PAD, LOC for
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety factors risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day....... Acute RfD = 0.67 Acute Neurotoxicity--Rat.
populations). UFA = 10x................... mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x................... aPAD = 0.67 mg/kg/ diarrhea at two-hours post
day. dose at all dose levels
tested.
FQPA SF = 3x
Chronic dietary (All NOAEL = 18 mg/kg/day........ Chronic RfD = Combined Chronic Toxicity/
populations). UFA = 10x................... 0.18 mg/kg/day. Carcinogenicity Feeding Study--
UFH = 10x................... cPAD = 0.18 mg/kg/ Rat.
day. LOAEL = 82.4/117 mg/kg/day (M/
F) based on reduced body
weights in both sexes and bile
duct lesions in males.
FQPA SF = 1x
Episodic granule ingestion LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day....... Residential LOC Acute Neurotoxicity--Rat.
(Children 1 to <2 years old). UFA = 10x................... for MOE = 300. LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x................... diarrhea at two-hours post
dose at all dose levels
tested.
FQPA SF = 3x
Incidental oral short-term (1- NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day........ Residential LOC 2-generation reproduction
30 days) (Intermediate-term UFA= 10x.................... for MOE = 100. study--Rats.
(1-6 months)). UFH = 10x................... LOAEL = 165 mg/kg/day based on
decreased pup weights in both
males and females ([darr]8-
21%).
FQPA SF = 1x
Inhalation (All durations).... Inhalation study NOAEL = 3.8 LOC for MOE = 30. 28-Day inhalation toxicity
[micro]g/L (inhalation study in rats on SC
absorption rate = 100%). formulation\+\.
UFA = 3x.................... LOAEL = 12.2 [micro]g/L based
on adverse histopathological
changes in the larynx
(squamous metaplasia) and
nasal cavity (metaplasia of
the respiratory epithelium).
There was an increase in
severity with increases in the
test concentrations.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, Azoxystrobin is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans''.
inhalation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
members of the human population (intraspecies).
[[Page 57336]]
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to azoxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing azoxystrobin tolerances in 40
CFR 180.507. EPA assessed dietary exposures from azoxystrobin 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 azoxystrobin. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, the acute dietary analysis was obtained from
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model using the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID; version 3.16). The assessment is based on 100% of
the registered crops treated, and tolerance-level residues for all
existing and proposed commodities, except citrus fruits where the
highest field trial residue was used as a refinement.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA Nationwide
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America
(NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food,
the chronic dietary analysis was obtained from the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model using the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID;
version 3.16). The assessment was partially refined, and used
tolerance-level residues for all commodities and average percent crop
treated (PCT) estimates when available.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that azoxystrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses for the chronic
dietary exposure assessment as follows: Almonds, 20%; apricots, 10%;
artichokes, 20%; asparagus, <2.5%; barley, <2.5%; green beans, 15%;
blueberries, 15%; broccoli, 10%; cabbage, 10%; caneberries, 5%;
cantaloupes, 20%; carrots, 10%; cauliflower, <2.5%; celery, 10%; corn,
<2.5%; cotton, <2.5%; cotton (seed treatment), 25%; cucumbers, 20%; dry
beans/peas, <2.5%; eggplant, 30%; garlic, 70%; grapefruit, 20%; grapes,
5%; hazelnuts, 5%; lemons, <2.5%; lettuce, <2.5%; nectarines, <2.5%;
onions, 5%; oranges, 5%; peaches, 5%; peanuts, 20%; peanuts (seed
treatment), 30%; green peas, <2.5%; pecans, 5%; peppers, 20%;
pistachios, 5%; plums/prunes, <2.5%; potatoes, 40%; potatoes (seed
treatment), <1%; pumpkins, 20%; rice, 40%; soybeans, 5%; soybeans (seed
treatment), <1%; spinach, 10%; squash, 20%; strawberries, 25%; sugar
beets, 10%; sugar beets (seed treatment), <2.5%; sweet corn, 15%;
tangelos, 25%; tangerines, 10%; tobacco, 15%; tomatoes, 25%; walnuts,
<2.5%; watermelons, 15%; wheat, 5%; wheat seed (seed treatment), <1%.
For crops not specified, 100 PCT was used.
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 (CalDPR) 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 figures for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding up
to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT
is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most 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 where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 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 azoxystrobin 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
[[Page 57337]]
for azoxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of azoxystrobin. 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 Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of azoxystrobin for
acute exposures are estimated to be 70.2 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 3.1 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments the EDWCs of azoxystrobin are estimated to be
48.5 ppb for surface water and 3.1 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 70.2 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 48.5 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Azoxystrobin is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Conventional residential use on turf and
ornamentals and antimicrobial uses as a materials preservative in
paints and plastics. The proposed use will not result in additional
residential exposures. Existing residential uses result in (1) short-
term handler dermal and inhalation exposures for adults; (2) short-term
post-application dermal exposures for adults, youth 11 to 16 years old,
children 6 to 11 years old, and children 1 to <2 years old; and (3)
short-term incidental oral exposures to children 1 to <2 years old.
Since the effects from inhalation exposure differ from effects from
oral exposure, the residential handler exposures are not aggregated
with dietary exposures. No hazard was identified for dermal exposure.
The Agency's assessment of risk aggregates residential exposure from
hand-to-mouth incidental oral exposures to children 1 to <2 years old
from preserved vinyl flooring.
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.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found azoxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and azoxystrobin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
azoxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No developmental effects
were seen in the rabbit and rat developmental toxicity studies, and no
reproductive or offspring effects were seen in the 2-generation rat
reproduction study. In the reproduction study, decreased body weights
and increased adjusted liver weights were observed at the same dose in
both offspring and parental animals. Therefore, the toxicity data
showed no increased susceptibility in the young.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for all exposure scenarios except acute
exposure and episodic granule ingestion. For assessing acute dietary
risk and episodic oral ingestion of granules, EPA is retaining an FQPA
factor of 3X to account for the use of a LOAEL from the acute
neurotoxicity study to derive an acute reference dose. The Agency
believes that a 3X FQPA SF (as opposed to a 10X) will be adequate to
extrapolate a NOAEL in assessing acute risk based on the following
considerations:
The LOAEL is based on a transient effect (diarrhea in
rats) expected to be relatively insignificant in nature. This effect is
also seen in other chemicals of the same class.
The diarrhea was only seen in studies using gavage dosing
in the rat, but not in studies using repeat dosing through dietary
administration in rats or mice, and not through gavage dosing in
rabbits.
The very high dose level needed to reach the acute oral
lethal dose (LD)50 (>5,000 mg/kg), and the overall low
toxicity of azoxystrobin.
The decision to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X for the
assessment of the remaining exposure scenarios is based on the
following findings:
i. The toxicity database for azoxystrobin is considered sufficient
for selecting toxicity endpoints and PODs for risk assessment.
ii. There is no indication that azoxystrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats from a single gavage dose up to 2,000 mg/
kg. There was also no evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats up to the highest dose tested (201 mg/kg/
day). Therefore, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity
study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that azoxystrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. In the reproduction study, the offspring and the parental
effects occurred at the same dose level.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary (food) exposure assessments utilized
conservative upper-bound inputs including assuming 100% CT and
tolerance-level residues for all commodities except citrus fruits where
the highest field trial residue was
[[Page 57338]]
used as a refinement. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was
partially refined, and used tolerance-level residues for all
commodities and PCT information for selected crops. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to azoxystrobin in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by azoxystrobin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
azoxystrobin will occupy 82% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
azoxystrobin from food and water will utilize 18% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
azoxystrobin is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Azoxystrobin
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to azoxystrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 390 for children
1 to <2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for azoxystrobin is a
MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified,
azoxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk would be equivalent to
the chronic dietary exposure estimate.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, azoxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to azoxystrobin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen-
phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) method, RAM 243/04) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression for residues of azoxystrobin and its
Z-isomer in crop commodities. This method (designated RAM 243, dated 5/
15/98) has been submitted to FDA for inclusion in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM, Volume II).
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 azoxystrobin in or on root and
tuber vegetables (except potato) at 1.0 ppm. This MRL is the same as
the tolerance being established for azoxystrobin in the United States.
C. Response to Comments
EPA received ten comments to the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0744.
However, only three comments were in response to the petition filed by
Syngenta Crop Protection. One comment (ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0744-0007)
among the three, is inclusive of the other two comments (ID: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2017-0744-0008 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0744-0009), and describes
portions of the content of the Federal Register notice EPA published on
March 6, 2018 (83 FR 9471), and expresses support for tolerances. The
remaining seven comments were not germane to this action, therefore no
further response from the Agency is required.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The Agency recommends increasing the tolerance for vegetable, root,
except sugar beet, subgroup 1B from the proposed 0.5 ppm to 1.0 ppm to
harmonize with the existing Codex MRL. Additionally, the Agency is
revising the significant figure on root vegetables subgroup 1B based on
current policy and revising the commodity definition to reflect the
common commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency. The commodity
definition was revised from vegetable, root, subgroup 1B to vegetable,
root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of azoxystrobin,
in or on beet, sugar, roots at 5.0 ppm and vegetable, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 1.0 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and
[[Page 57339]]
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) nor is it considered a regulatory action under
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, 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: November 1, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.507:
0
a. Remove the entry for ``Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A'' from the table
in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Add alphabetically ``Beet, sugar, roots''; and ``Vegetable, root,
except sugar beet, subgroup 1B'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 180.507 Azoxystrobin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Beet, sugar, roots.......................................... 5.0
* * * * *
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B............. 1.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-24974 Filed 11-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P