MCPA; Pesticide Tolerances, 19145-19149 [2021-07517]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
your search to documents published by
the Department.
David Cantrell,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education
Programs. Delegated the authority to perform
the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2021–07524 Filed 4–9–21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marietta Echeverria, 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?
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0639; FRL–10020–79]
MCPA; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of MCPA in or on
tea and intermediate wheatgrass forage,
grain, hay, and straw. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR–4)
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective April
13, 2021. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 14, 2021, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
DATES:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0639, 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.
Due to the public health concerns
related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is
closed to visitors with limited
exceptions. The staff continues to
provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the
latest status information on EPA/DC
services and docket access, visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Apr 12, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 Publishing Office’s eCFR 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–2019–0639 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing and must be received
by the Hearing Clerk on or before June
14, 2021. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19145
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–
2019–0639, 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 15,
2020 (85 FR 20910) (FRL–10006–54),
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 9E8797) by IR–4,
Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.339 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4chloro-2-methylphenoxy) acetic acid),
both free and conjugated, resulting from
the direct application of MCPA or its
sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2ethylhexyl ester in or on the following
agricultural commodities: Tea, plucked
leaves at 0.3 parts per million (ppm);
Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage at 20
ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain at
1 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, hay at
115 ppm; and Wheatgrass, intermediate,
straw at 25 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Nufarm, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. A comment was
received on the notice of filing but was
unrelated to the chemical MCPA, this
action, or pesticides in general.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which the
wheatgrass tolerances are being
established as well as the commodity
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
19146
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
definition for tea. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for MCPA including
exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with MCPA follows.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
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 kidney is the major target organ
following MCPA exposure. In the
subchronic inhalation toxicity study,
respiratory tract effects were observed
following repeat inhalation exposure.
Additional toxic effects include
neurotoxicity, which was observed in
the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
(ACN/SCN) studies and in a rat
developmental toxicity study. The
developmental neurotoxicity study
(DNT) did not identify developmental
neurotoxicity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Apr 12, 2021
Jkt 253001
Quantitative susceptibility was
observed in the rat developmental
toxicity study with MCPA acid based on
increased incidence of skeletal
retardation and decreased fetal body
weight at a dose that was a maternal no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL).
There was also quantitative
susceptibility in the 2-generation rat
reproductive toxicity study with MCPA
acid as evidenced by decreased
lactational pup body weight at an
offspring lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) corresponding to a
parental NOAEL. Qualitative
susceptibility was noted in the DNT
study based on increased pup mortality
and decreased body weights at the same
LOAEL as the maternal LOAEL
(decreased body weight and food
consumptions).
MCPA is classified as ‘‘Not Likely to
Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’, based on
long-term studies in rats and mice, and
there are low mutagenicity concerns.
There is no concern for immunotoxicity.
Additional information on the
toxicological profile can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the
document titled ‘‘MCPA. Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support a New Use
on Intermediate Wheatgrass and the
Establishment of a Tolerance without a
U.S. Registration for Tea’’ (hereinafter
‘‘MCPA Human Health Risk
Assessment’’) in docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0639.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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-pesticide.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for MCPA used for human
risk assessment can be found in the
MCPA Human Health Risk Assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to MCPA, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing MCPA
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from MCPA
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 MCPA.
In conducting the acute dietary
exposure assessment, EPA used the
2003–2008 food consumption data from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). The acute
dietary exposure assessment is
unrefined and is based on tolerancelevel residues and 100 percent crop
treated (PCT).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the 2003–2008
food consumption data from the USDA’s
NHANES/WWEIA. The chronic dietary
exposure assessment is unrefined and is
based on tolerance-level residues and
100 PCT.
iii. Cancer. MCPA is classified as
‘‘Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans’’ therefore, a cancer assessment
is not needed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for MCPA.
Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT
were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for MCPA in drinking water. Further
information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/aboutwater-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Based on the Pesticide in Water
Calculator (PWC), for the acute dietary
risk assessment, EPA used an estimated
drinking water concentration (EDWC) of
236 ppb into the DEEM–FCID Model.
For the chronic exposure assessment,
EPA used a value of 208 ppb.
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).
MCPA is currently registered for uses
that may result in residential handler
and post-application exposures,
including commercial and residential
use on lawns, as well as commercial use
on ornamental turf and trees, golf
courses, and parks.
For the residential exposure
scenarios, the most conservative, or
worst case, residential adult and child
scenarios have been selected to be
included in the aggregate risk
assessment. The scenarios are as
follows:
Adult aggregate assessment: Granular
formulations: dermal post-application
exposure from high contact activities on
treated lawns (Day 0 turf transferable
residue (TTR)) at both the 1.85 lb acid
equivalent (ae)/A and 1.5 lb ae/A rate.
Liquid formulations: dermal postapplication exposure from high contact
activities on treated lawns (average
TTR) at both the 1.5 lb ae/A and 1.25
lb ae/A rate.
Children 11 to <16 years old and
children 6 to <11 years old aggregate
assessments: Liquid formulations:
dermal post-application exposures from
golfing (Day 0 TTR) on treated turf.
Children 1 to <2 years old aggregate
assessment: Granular formulations:
combined (dermal plus incidental oral)
post-application exposures from high
contact activities on treated lawns (Day
0 TTR) at both the 1.85 lb ae/A and 1.5
lb ae/A rate.
Liquid formulations: combined
(dermal plus incidental oral) postapplication exposures from high contact
activities on treated lawns (average
TTR) at both the 1.5 lb ae/A and 1.25
lb ae/A rate.
Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/
standard-operating-proceduresresidential-pesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Apr 12, 2021
Jkt 253001
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.’’
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
MCPA and any other substances and
MCPA does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not
assumed that MCPA 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.
In the developmental rat study with
MCPA acid, quantitative susceptibility
was demonstrated based on increased
incidence of skeletal retardation and
decreased fetal body weight at a dose
that was a maternal NOAEL. MCPA
acid, however, did not produce
developmental toxicity in rabbits.
Quantitative susceptibility was also
evident in the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats with MCPA acid, in which
lactational pup body weight decrements
were noted at a dose in offspring that
was a parental NOAEL. Qualitative
susceptibility was noted in the
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study with MCPA acid based on
increased pup mortality and body
weights at the same LOAEL as the
maternal LOAEL (decreased body
weight and food consumptions). There
was no evidence of quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility in the
developmental rat studies with MCPA
dimethylamine (DMA) salt and MCPA
ester forms.
Considering the overall toxicity
profile and the doses and endpoints
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19147
selected for risk assessment, the degree
of concern for the effects observed in the
studies are low because the
developmental/offspring effects
observed in the studies are well
characterized and clear NOAELs/
LOAELs have been identified in the
studies for the effects of concern.
Additionally, the endpoints and PODs
selected for risk assessment are
protective of potential developmental/
reproductive effects.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X, except for acute
dietary (general population) and
inhalation scenarios where a 10X SF is
retained for extrapolation of a LOAEL to
a NOAEL. That decision is based on the
following findings:
i. The toxicity database for MCPA is
complete.
ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was
observed in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies in rats, as
indicated by various clinical signs of
neurotoxicity. There were no
developmental neurotoxic effects in the
rat DNT study. There is a low degree of
concern for the potential neurotoxic
effects of MCPA since clear NOAELs
were identified for the effects described
above, there were no adverse
neuropathological effects, and the
endpoints chosen for risk assessment
are protective of any potential
neurotoxicity.
iii. As noted above, quantitative
susceptibility was demonstrated in the
developmental rat study, but not in
rabbits. Quantitative susceptibility was
also evident in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats. However, the
degree of concern for the effects
observed in the studies is low for the
reasons summarized in Unit III.D.3.ii.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The Agency has used high-end
assumptions in the dietary exposure
assessment, including the use of 100
PCT and tolerance-level residues, and
upper-bound estimates of potential
exposure through drinking water. In
addition, the residential exposure
assessment was conducted using
chemical-specific data (where available)
and the Agency’s 2012 Residential
SOPs; as such, residential exposures are
unlikely to be underestimated.
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
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
19148
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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
described in this unit for acute
exposure, EPA has concluded that acute
exposure to MCPA from food and water
will utilize 29% of the aPAD for all
infants less than 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 MCPA from
food and water will utilize 28% of the
cPAD for all infants less than 1 year old,
the population group receiving the
greatest exposure.
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). MCPA is 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 MCPA.
For the granular formulation exposure
scenarios, the short-term aggregate
MOEs using Day 0 residues for adults
and children 1 to less than 2 years old
are not of concern, at 230 and 120,
respectively.
Some residential exposure scenarios
on treated turf (liquid formulations)
resulted in risk estimates of concern for
adults and children when using the day
of application (Day 0; screening level)
residues from the chemical specific turf
transferable residue (TTR) data. For
these scenarios, aggregate assessments
using risk estimates resulting from
refinement of the TTR values (i.e., using
average modeled TTR values) were
conducted.
For the liquid formulation scenarios
using Day 0 residues, the short-term
aggregate MOEs are as follows: for
children 6 to <11 years old the MOE =
330, and for children 11 to <16 years
old, the MOE = 390. These MOEs are
equal to or above the LOC (100) and are
therefore not of concern. For the liquid
formulation scenarios using average
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Apr 12, 2021
Jkt 253001
TTR (a refinement in the risk
assessment), the short-term aggregate
MOEs are not of concern for adults
(MOE = 210) and for children 1 to <2
years old (MOE = 100) using 11-day
average TTR. As noted above, a MOE
equal to or greater than 100 is not of
concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
An intermediate-term adverse effect
was identified; however, MCPA is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term
residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to
assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term
risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
MCPA.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. MCPA is classified as ‘‘Not
Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’;
therefore, EPA does not expect MCPA
exposures to pose an aggregate cancer
risk.
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 MCPA
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
For enforcement of tolerances for
residues of MCPA, Pesticide Analytical
Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists PAM Vol. I
Sections 221.1, 421, and 422. No limit
of quantitation is specified. It is noted
that Section 221.1 has now become
Section 402 (gas chromatography (GC)
method for acids and phenols) and
Sections 421 and 422 (thin-layer
chromatography (TLC) methods) no
longer exist. The Residue Chemistry
Chapter of the Registration Standard
dated 8/31/1981 noted that the PAM
Vol. I method is adequate for
enforcement of tolerances for residues of
MCPA in livestock commodities as-is,
but recommended that the method be
modified with a hydrolysis step for
enforcement of MCPA tolerances for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
plant commodities. The current PAM
Vol II methods are adequate for the
enforcement of MCPA on plants and
livestock commodities and no further
modifications are required at this time
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).
There are no Codex MRLs for MCPA
in or on tea or intermediate wheatgrass.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA is establishing the tolerance on
‘‘tea, dried’’ rather than ‘‘tea, plucked
leaves’’ to be consistent with Agency
nomenclature.
The petitioner proposed tolerance
levels for wheatgrass commodities based
on the current tolerance levels for wheat
commodities in 40 CFR 180.339. While
EPA agrees that it is appropriate to base
the tolerance levels for wheatgrass
commodities on the tolerance levels for
wheat commodities, given the
similarities in crops, the Agency has
reviewed the tolerances for wheat, grain
and wheat, hay and determined that the
current tolerances are too high. Upon
review, crop field trial studies reflecting
the use of MCPA showed residue levels
that were lower than current tolerances.
The OECD calculation procedure
recommended tolerance levels of 0.2
ppm for wheat, grain and 40 ppm for
wheat, hay. This discrepancy was
identified during Registration Review;
see ‘‘MCPA. Second Revision: Draft
Human Health Risk Assessment in
Support of Registration Review’’, which
is available in docket ID EPA–HQ–OPP–
2014–0180. Moreover, the current
Codex MRLs for wheat, forage, hay and
straw are set at 50 ppm. Therefore, EPA
intends to revise the existing wheat
tolerances to reflect this analysis and to
harmonize with Codex MRLs when
updating the MCPA tolerances as part of
Registration Review. Applying the same
logic to the wheatgrass commodities,
EPA is establishing those tolerances at
0.2 ppm for intermediate wheatgrass,
grain and at 50 ppm for intermediate
wheatgrass, forage, hay, and straw.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of MCPA in or on Tea, dried
at 0.3 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate,
forage at 50 ppm; Wheatgrass,
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 13, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
intermediate, grain at 0.2 ppm;
Wheatgrass, intermediate, hay at 50
ppm; and Wheatgrass, intermediate,
straw at 50 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerances 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:58 Apr 12, 2021
Jkt 253001
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).
19149
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Tea, dried .....................................
*
*
*
*
Wheatgrass, intermediate,
Wheatgrass, intermediate,
Wheatgrass, intermediate,
Wheatgrass, intermediate,
*
*
*
*
*
*
forage
grain ...
hay .....
straw ..
0.3
50
0.2
50
50
*
[FR Doc. 2021–07517 Filed 4–12–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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 7, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR
chapter I as follows:
PART 180—TOLERANCES AND
EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE
CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.339, amend paragraph
(a)(1) by designating the table as Table
1 to paragraph (a)(1) and adding in
alphabetical order to newly designated
Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1) entries for
‘‘Tea, dried’’; ‘‘Wheatgrass,
intermediate, forage’’; ‘‘Wheatgrass,
intermediate, grain’’; ‘‘Wheatgrass,
intermediate, hay’’ and ‘‘Wheatgrass,
intermediate, straw’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 180.339
PO 00000
MCPA; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
40 CFR Part 1519
RIN 0331–AA04
Guidance Document Procedures
Rescission
Council on Environmental
Quality.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On January 8, 2021, the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) issued a final rule to implement
Executive Order (E.O.) 13891,
‘‘Promoting the Rule of Law Through
Improved Agency Guidance
Documents.’’ In accordance with E.O.
13992, ‘‘Revocation of Certain Executive
Orders Concerning Federal Regulation,’’
this final rule rescinds CEQ’s rule on
guidance document procedures.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
13, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy B. Coyle, Deputy General Counsel,
Council on Environmental Quality, 730
Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC
20503, (202) 395–5750, amy.b.coyle@
ceq.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E.O.
13891, ‘‘Promoting the Rule of Law
Through Improved Agency Guidance
Documents,’’ addressed the
development, use, and public
availability of agency guidance
documents and required agencies to
promulgate or update existing
regulations setting forth their
procedures for issuing guidance
documents. 84 FR 55235 (Oct. 15, 2019).
On January 8, 2021, CEQ issued a final
rule, ‘‘Guidance Document Procedures’’
to implement E.O. 13891. 86 FR 1279.
The final rule established 40 CFR part
1519 to establish guidance document
procedures, procedures for the public to
request withdrawal or modification of a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19145-19149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07517]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0639; FRL-10020-79]
MCPA; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of MCPA in
or on tea and intermediate wheatgrass forage, grain, hay, and straw.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April 13, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 14, 2021, 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-2019-0639, 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.
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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
Publishing 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-2019-0639 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 14, 2021. 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-2019-0639, 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 15, 2020 (85 FR 20910) (FRL-10006-
54), 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
9E8797) by IR-4, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.339 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide MCPA ((4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) acetic
acid), both free and conjugated, resulting from the direct application
of MCPA or its sodium or dimethylamine salts, or its 2-ethylhexyl ester
in or on the following agricultural commodities: Tea, plucked leaves at
0.3 parts per million (ppm); Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage at 20
ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain at 1 ppm; Wheatgrass,
intermediate, hay at 115 ppm; and Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 25
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Nufarm, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing but
was unrelated to the chemical MCPA, this action, or pesticides in
general.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which the wheatgrass tolerances are being
established as well as the commodity
[[Page 19146]]
definition for tea. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for MCPA including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with MCPA 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 kidney is the major target organ following MCPA exposure. In
the subchronic inhalation toxicity study, respiratory tract effects
were observed following repeat inhalation exposure. Additional toxic
effects include neurotoxicity, which was observed in the acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity (ACN/SCN) studies and in a rat developmental
toxicity study. The developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) did not
identify developmental neurotoxicity.
Quantitative susceptibility was observed in the rat developmental
toxicity study with MCPA acid based on increased incidence of skeletal
retardation and decreased fetal body weight at a dose that was a
maternal no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). There was also
quantitative susceptibility in the 2-generation rat reproductive
toxicity study with MCPA acid as evidenced by decreased lactational pup
body weight at an offspring lowest observed adverse effect level
(LOAEL) corresponding to a parental NOAEL. Qualitative susceptibility
was noted in the DNT study based on increased pup mortality and
decreased body weights at the same LOAEL as the maternal LOAEL
(decreased body weight and food consumptions).
MCPA is classified as ``Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'',
based on long-term studies in rats and mice, and there are low
mutagenicity concerns. There is no concern for immunotoxicity.
Additional information on the toxicological profile can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``MCPA. Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support a New Use on Intermediate Wheatgrass and the
Establishment of a Tolerance without a U.S. Registration for Tea''
(hereinafter ``MCPA Human Health Risk Assessment'') in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0639.
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-pesticide.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for MCPA used for human
risk assessment can be found in the MCPA Human Health Risk Assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to MCPA, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing MCPA tolerances in 40 CFR 180.339.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from MCPA 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 MCPA.
In conducting the acute dietary exposure assessment, EPA used the
2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The acute dietary exposure
assessment is unrefined and is based on tolerance-level residues and
100 percent crop treated (PCT).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the 2003-2008 food consumption data from the
USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. The chronic dietary exposure assessment is
unrefined and is based on tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT.
iii. Cancer. MCPA is classified as ``Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic
to Humans'' therefore, a cancer assessment is not needed.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
MCPA. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for MCPA in drinking water. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
[[Page 19147]]
Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC), for the acute
dietary risk assessment, EPA used an estimated drinking water
concentration (EDWC) of 236 ppb into the DEEM-FCID Model. For the
chronic exposure assessment, EPA used a value of 208 ppb.
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).
MCPA is currently registered for uses that may result in
residential handler and post-application exposures, including
commercial and residential use on lawns, as well as commercial use on
ornamental turf and trees, golf courses, and parks.
For the residential exposure scenarios, the most conservative, or
worst case, residential adult and child scenarios have been selected to
be included in the aggregate risk assessment. The scenarios are as
follows:
Adult aggregate assessment: Granular formulations: dermal post-
application exposure from high contact activities on treated lawns (Day
0 turf transferable residue (TTR)) at both the 1.85 lb acid equivalent
(ae)/A and 1.5 lb ae/A rate.
Liquid formulations: dermal post-application exposure from high
contact activities on treated lawns (average TTR) at both the 1.5 lb
ae/A and 1.25 lb ae/A rate.
Children 11 to <16 years old and children 6 to <11 years old
aggregate assessments: Liquid formulations: dermal post-application
exposures from golfing (Day 0 TTR) on treated turf.
Children 1 to <2 years old aggregate assessment: Granular
formulations: combined (dermal plus incidental oral) post-application
exposures from high contact activities on treated lawns (Day 0 TTR) at
both the 1.85 lb ae/A and 1.5 lb ae/A rate.
Liquid formulations: combined (dermal plus incidental oral) post-
application exposures from high contact activities on treated lawns
(average TTR) at both the 1.5 lb ae/A and 1.25 lb ae/A rate.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
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 MCPA and any other
substances and MCPA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that MCPA 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. In the developmental rat
study with MCPA acid, quantitative susceptibility was demonstrated
based on increased incidence of skeletal retardation and decreased
fetal body weight at a dose that was a maternal NOAEL. MCPA acid,
however, did not produce developmental toxicity in rabbits.
Quantitative susceptibility was also evident in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats with MCPA acid, in which lactational pup
body weight decrements were noted at a dose in offspring that was a
parental NOAEL. Qualitative susceptibility was noted in the
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study with MCPA acid based on
increased pup mortality and body weights at the same LOAEL as the
maternal LOAEL (decreased body weight and food consumptions). There was
no evidence of quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in the
developmental rat studies with MCPA dimethylamine (DMA) salt and MCPA
ester forms.
Considering the overall toxicity profile and the doses and
endpoints selected for risk assessment, the degree of concern for the
effects observed in the studies are low because the developmental/
offspring effects observed in the studies are well characterized and
clear NOAELs/LOAELs have been identified in the studies for the effects
of concern. Additionally, the endpoints and PODs selected for risk
assessment are protective of potential developmental/reproductive
effects.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X, except for acute dietary (general
population) and inhalation scenarios where a 10X SF is retained for
extrapolation of a LOAEL to a NOAEL. That decision is based on the
following findings:
i. The toxicity database for MCPA is complete.
ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats, as indicated by various
clinical signs of neurotoxicity. There were no developmental neurotoxic
effects in the rat DNT study. There is a low degree of concern for the
potential neurotoxic effects of MCPA since clear NOAELs were identified
for the effects described above, there were no adverse
neuropathological effects, and the endpoints chosen for risk assessment
are protective of any potential neurotoxicity.
iii. As noted above, quantitative susceptibility was demonstrated
in the developmental rat study, but not in rabbits. Quantitative
susceptibility was also evident in the 2-generation reproduction study
in rats. However, the degree of concern for the effects observed in the
studies is low for the reasons summarized in Unit III.D.3.ii.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The Agency has used high-end assumptions in the dietary
exposure assessment, including the use of 100 PCT and tolerance-level
residues, and upper-bound estimates of potential exposure through
drinking water. In addition, the residential exposure assessment was
conducted using chemical-specific data (where available) and the
Agency's 2012 Residential SOPs; as such, residential exposures are
unlikely to be underestimated.
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
[[Page 19148]]
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 described in this unit
for acute exposure, EPA has concluded that acute exposure to MCPA from
food and water will utilize 29% of the aPAD for all infants less than 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
MCPA from food and water will utilize 28% of the cPAD for all infants
less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
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). MCPA is
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 MCPA.
For the granular formulation exposure scenarios, the short-term
aggregate MOEs using Day 0 residues for adults and children 1 to less
than 2 years old are not of concern, at 230 and 120, respectively.
Some residential exposure scenarios on treated turf (liquid
formulations) resulted in risk estimates of concern for adults and
children when using the day of application (Day 0; screening level)
residues from the chemical specific turf transferable residue (TTR)
data. For these scenarios, aggregate assessments using risk estimates
resulting from refinement of the TTR values (i.e., using average
modeled TTR values) were conducted.
For the liquid formulation scenarios using Day 0 residues, the
short-term aggregate MOEs are as follows: for children 6 to <11 years
old the MOE = 330, and for children 11 to <16 years old, the MOE = 390.
These MOEs are equal to or above the LOC (100) and are therefore not of
concern. For the liquid formulation scenarios using average TTR (a
refinement in the risk assessment), the short-term aggregate MOEs are
not of concern for adults (MOE = 210) and for children 1 to <2 years
old (MOE = 100) using 11-day average TTR. As noted above, a MOE equal
to or greater than 100 is not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, MCPA
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for MCPA.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. MCPA is classified as
``Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans''; therefore, EPA does not
expect MCPA exposures to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
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 MCPA residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
For enforcement of tolerances for residues of MCPA, Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists PAM Vol. I Sections 221.1, 421,
and 422. No limit of quantitation is specified. It is noted that
Section 221.1 has now become Section 402 (gas chromatography (GC)
method for acids and phenols) and Sections 421 and 422 (thin-layer
chromatography (TLC) methods) no longer exist. The Residue Chemistry
Chapter of the Registration Standard dated 8/31/1981 noted that the PAM
Vol. I method is adequate for enforcement of tolerances for residues of
MCPA in livestock commodities as-is, but recommended that the method be
modified with a hydrolysis step for enforcement of MCPA tolerances for
plant commodities. The current PAM Vol II methods are adequate for the
enforcement of MCPA on plants and livestock commodities and no further
modifications are required at this time
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).
There are no Codex MRLs for MCPA in or on tea or intermediate
wheatgrass.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA is establishing the tolerance on ``tea, dried'' rather than
``tea, plucked leaves'' to be consistent with Agency nomenclature.
The petitioner proposed tolerance levels for wheatgrass commodities
based on the current tolerance levels for wheat commodities in 40 CFR
180.339. While EPA agrees that it is appropriate to base the tolerance
levels for wheatgrass commodities on the tolerance levels for wheat
commodities, given the similarities in crops, the Agency has reviewed
the tolerances for wheat, grain and wheat, hay and determined that the
current tolerances are too high. Upon review, crop field trial studies
reflecting the use of MCPA showed residue levels that were lower than
current tolerances. The OECD calculation procedure recommended
tolerance levels of 0.2 ppm for wheat, grain and 40 ppm for wheat, hay.
This discrepancy was identified during Registration Review; see ``MCPA.
Second Revision: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of
Registration Review'', which is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-
0180. Moreover, the current Codex MRLs for wheat, forage, hay and straw
are set at 50 ppm. Therefore, EPA intends to revise the existing wheat
tolerances to reflect this analysis and to harmonize with Codex MRLs
when updating the MCPA tolerances as part of Registration Review.
Applying the same logic to the wheatgrass commodities, EPA is
establishing those tolerances at 0.2 ppm for intermediate wheatgrass,
grain and at 50 ppm for intermediate wheatgrass, forage, hay, and
straw.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of MCPA in or on
Tea, dried at 0.3 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage at 50 ppm;
Wheatgrass,
[[Page 19149]]
intermediate, grain at 0.2 ppm; Wheatgrass, intermediate, hay at 50
ppm; and Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 50 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances 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: April 7, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD
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. 180.339, amend paragraph (a)(1) by designating the table as
Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1) and adding in alphabetical order to newly
designated Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1) entries for ``Tea, dried'';
``Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate,
grain''; ``Wheatgrass, intermediate, hay'' and ``Wheatgrass,
intermediate, straw'' to read as follows:
Sec. 180.339 MCPA; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Tea, dried................................................... 0.3
* * * * *
Wheatgrass, intermediate, forage............................. 50
Wheatgrass, intermediate, grain.............................. 0.2
Wheatgrass, intermediate, hay................................ 50
Wheatgrass, intermediate, straw.............................. 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-07517 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P