Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances, 4196-4200 [2024-01109]
Download as PDF
4196
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FDA–2020–C–2131]
Listing of Color Additives Exempt
From Certification; Jagua (GenipinGlycine) Blue; Confirmation of
Effective Date
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; confirmation of
effective date.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
confirming the effective date of
December 4, 2023, for the final rule that
appeared in the Federal Register of
November 3, 2023, and that amended
the color additive regulations to provide
for the safe use of jagua (genipinglycine) blue as a color additive in
various food categories at levels
consistent with good manufacturing
practice.
DATES: The effective date of December 4,
2023, for the final rule published in the
Federal Register of November 3, 2023
(88 FR 75490) is confirmed.
ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this final rule into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts,
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shayla West-Barnette, Office of Food
Additive Safety (HFS–255), Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,
240–402–1262.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of November 3, 2023
(88 FR 75490), we amended the color
additive regulations to add § 73.225 (21
CFR 73.225), ‘‘Jagua (genipin-glycine)
blue,’’ to provide for the safe use of
jagua (genipin-glycine) blue as a color
additive at levels consistent with good
manufacturing practice in flavored milk;
dairy drinks and substitutes; dairy and
dairy alternative yogurt; ice cream,
frozen dairy and dairy alternative
desserts, puddings, gelatins, ices,
sorbets; ready-to-eat multicolored
cereals; flavored potato chips, tortilla,
corn, and other chips; candy and
chewing gum; non-alcoholic fruit based/
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
flavored drinks, nutritional beverages
and smoothies; flavored cream cheesebased spreads; and icings, frostings,
jams, syrups, and fruit toppings and
fillings.
We gave interested persons until
December 4, 2023, to file objections or
requests for a hearing. We received no
objections or requests for a hearing on
the final rule. Therefore, we find that
the effective date of the final rule that
published in the Federal Register of
November 3, 2023, should be confirmed.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs,
Foods, Medical devices.
■ Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321,
341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361,
362, 371, 379e) and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, we are giving notice that no
objections or requests for a hearing were
filed in response to the November 3,
2023, final rule. Accordingly, the
amendments issued thereby became
effective December 4, 2023.
Dated: January 17, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024–01106 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0134; FRL–11402–01–
OCSPP]
Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of linuron in or
on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay.
Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
January 23, 2024. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before March 25, 2024, 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–2022–0134, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 and OPP Docket
is (202) 566–1744. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; main
telephone number: (202) 566–1030;
email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code
32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Federal Register Office’s e-CFR site
at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.
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–2022–0134 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 March
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
25, 2024. 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–
2022–0134, 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.
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 22,
2022 (87 FR 16133) (FRL–9410–11–
OCSPP), 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 1F8972) by
Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2910 N 44th
Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85018.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.184 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide
linuron, in or on alfalfa, forage and
alfalfa, hay at 1.0 and 3.0 parts per
million (ppm), respectively. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Tessenderlo
Kerley, Inc., the registrant, which is
available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA’s
response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 linuron including
exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with linuron follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The toxicological
database for linuron is robust and the
data requirements are satisfied. With
repeated oral dosing in test animals,
linuron produces three primary effects:
(1) changes in the hematopoietic system
in dogs, rats, and mice; (2) changes in
the male reproductive system in
developing rats; and (3) decreases in T3
and T4 levels detected in Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)
Tier 1 screening assays in rats. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by linuron 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 Linuron. Human Health
Risk Assessment for a New Use on
Alfalfa hereinafter ‘‘Linuron Human
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4197
Health Risk Assessment’’ in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0134.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm. A summary of the
toxicological endpoints for linuron used
for human risk assessment is shown in
the Linuron Human Health Risk
Assessment on pages 16–17.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to linuron, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing linuron
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.184. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from linuron
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 linuron. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4198
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
tolerance-level residues, 100% crop
treated (PCT) and incorporated
empirical processing factors and default
processing factors.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA. As
to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues, average PCT,
and incorporated empirical processing
factors and default processing factors.
The chronic dietary analysis
incorporated average PCT data for
asparagus (15%), carrots (85%), celery
(20%), corn (≤1.0%), cotton (≤1.0%),
dry beans/peas (≤1.0%), potatoes (10%),
grain sorghum (≤1.0%), soybeans
(≤1.0%), and wheat (≤1.0%).
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that linuron 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)(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.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the
National Pesticide Use Database for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6–7 years. EPA uses an average
PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis.
The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations
in which the average PCT is less than
one. In those cases, 1% is used as the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%.
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 linuron may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for linuron in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of linuron.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Water
Calculator (PWC), a graphical user
interface that runs the Pesticide Root
Zone Model (PRZM, v 5, November 15,
2006), PRZM–GW, and the Variable
Volume Water Body Model (VVWM, 3/
6/2014), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of linuron for
acute exposures are estimated to be 65
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 40 ppb for ground water, and those
for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 47 ppb
for surface water and 37 ppb for ground
water.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 65 ppb was used
to assess the contribution to drinking
water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 47 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).
Linuron is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure.
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 linuron to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and linuron does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that linuron 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://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
Food Quality Protection Act (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.
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
EPA has determined that reliable data
show the safety of infants and children
would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That
decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for linuron is
considered adequate. The requirement
for the comparative thyroid assay that
was required as part of the EDSP to
evaluate the potential for increased
sensitivity in the young was waived. As
a result, the FQPA SF of 10X for linuron
has been removed for all exposure
routes and durations.
ii. Although findings were observed
in the acute neurotoxicity study, the
concern for neurotoxicity is low since:
(1) a clear NOAEL was established and
is 5-fold lower than the dose causing
potential neurotoxic effects; (2) the
selected endpoints for risk assessment
are protective of the observed
neurotoxicity; (3) no corroborative
neuropathology was associated at the
LOAEL or higher dose in the acute
neurotoxicity study; and (4) there were
no other neurotoxic-like effects
observed in the linuron database
indicating the nervous system is not the
most sensitive for linuron.
iii. There is evidence of quantitative
susceptibility in the two-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats and
developmental effects, but not
susceptibility, in the rat and rabbit
developmental studies; however,
concern is low since there are clear
NOAELs established for the
developmental and offspring effects and
the selected endpoints are protective of
these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute dietary (food) exposure
assessment utilized conservative upperbound inputs including assuming 100%
of the registered crops treated, and
tolerance-level residues for all
commodities. The chronic dietary
exposure assessment was partially
refined, used tolerance-level residues
for all commodities and average PCT
estimates when available. The drinking
water assessment utilized water
concentration values generated by
models and associated modeling
parameters which are designed to
produce conservative, health protective,
high-end estimates of water
concentrations which are not likely to
be exceeded. The dietary (food and
drinking water) exposure assessment
does not underestimate the potential
exposure for infants, children, or
women of childbearing age. No
residential uses are proposed or
registered for linuron at this time, so no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
residential exposure assessment was
conducted.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to linuron
will occupy 9.5% of the aPAD for
infants, 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 linuron from
food and water will utilize 84% of the
cPAD for children 1–2 years old the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses
for linuron.
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). A short-term adverse
effect was identified; however, linuron
is not registered for any use patterns
that would result in short-term
residential exposure. Short-term risk is
assessed based on short-term residential
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short-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 short-term risk),
no further assessment of short-term risk
is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term risk for linuron.
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, linuron is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term
residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4199
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
linuron.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Linuron is considered a
Group C carcinogen requiring no
quantification of human 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 linuron
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methods are
available for the determination of
linuron residues of concern in/on plant
and livestock tissues. The current
enforcement methods determine linuron
and all metabolites hydrolyzable to 3,4dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA). The method
may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905;
email address: residuemethods@
epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for linuron.
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
4200
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 23, 2024 / Rules and Regulations
C. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment to the
notice of filing from March 22, 2022,
which opposed the use of linuron on
any food. The commenter expressed a
general opposition to the use of ‘‘toxic
chemicals’’ on food. The Agency
understands the commenter’s concerns
and recognizes that some individuals
believe that certain pesticide chemicals
should not be permitted in our food.
However, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the FFDCA
states that tolerances may be set when
the pesticide meets the safety standard
imposed by that statute. The Agency is
required by section 408 of the FFDCA to
estimate the risk of the potential
exposure to these residues. EPA has
concluded, based on data submitted in
support of the petition and other
reliable data, that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate human exposure to linuron
residues from use on alfalfa. Testing
requirements for pesticide tolerances
have been specified by rulemaking after
allowing for notice and comment by the
public and peer review by appropriate
scientific bodies. See 40 CFR part 158
for further information.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of linuron in or on alfalfa,
forage and alfalfa, hay at 1 and 3 ppm.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Jan 22, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
Dated: November 7, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
VII. Congressional Review Act
General Services Acquisition
Regulation (GSAR); Standardizing
Federal Supply Schedule Clause and
Provision Prescriptions; Correction
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 § 180.184, amend the table in
paragraph (a) by:
■ a. Adding a heading for the table; and
■ b. Adding in alphabetical order the
entries ‘‘Alfalfa, forage’’ and ‘‘Alfalfa,
hay’’.
The additions read as follows:
■
§ 180.184
Linuron; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)
Parts per
million
Commodity
Alfalfa, forage .............................
Alfalfa, hay ..................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
3
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–01109 Filed 1–22–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 538
[GSAR Case 2022–G514; Docket No. 2023–
0009; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 3090–AK58
Office of Acquisition Policy,
General Services Administration (GSA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
On January 12, 2024, GSA
published a final rule amending the
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to
clarify when GSAR clauses apply to
Federal Supply Schedule contracts.
Some text inadvertently appeared in a
section revision. This correction
removes that text.
DATES: This correction is effective
February 12, 2024.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAR1.SGM
23JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4196-4200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01109]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134; FRL-11402-01-OCSPP]
Linuron; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of linuron
in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc.
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective January 23, 2024. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 25, 2024, 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-2022-0134, 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 and OPP Docket is (202) 566-1744. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Director, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; 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 Federal Register
Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.
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-2022-0134 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
March
[[Page 4197]]
25, 2024. 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-2022-0134, 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.
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 22, 2022 (87 FR 16133) (FRL-9410-
11-OCSPP), 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
1F8972) by Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2910 N 44th Street, Suite 100,
Phoenix, AZ 85018. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.184 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
linuron, in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay at 1.0 and 3.0 parts
per million (ppm), respectively. That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., the registrant,
which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments
were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments
is discussed in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FDCA 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 linuron including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with linuron follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicological database for linuron is robust and the data
requirements are satisfied. With repeated oral dosing in test animals,
linuron produces three primary effects: (1) changes in the
hematopoietic system in dogs, rats, and mice; (2) changes in the male
reproductive system in developing rats; and (3) decreases in
T3 and T4 levels detected in Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP) Tier 1 screening assays in rats. Specific
information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by linuron 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 Linuron. Human Health Risk Assessment for a New Use on Alfalfa
hereinafter ``Linuron Human Health Risk Assessment'' in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0134.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for linuron used for human risk assessment is shown in the
Linuron Human Health Risk Assessment on pages 16-17.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to linuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing linuron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.184. EPA assessed dietary exposures from linuron 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 linuron. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed
[[Page 4198]]
tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated (PCT) and incorporated
empirical processing factors and default processing factors.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues, average PCT, and incorporated empirical processing factors
and default processing factors. The chronic dietary analysis
incorporated average PCT data for asparagus (15%), carrots (85%),
celery (20%), corn (<=1.0%), cotton (<=1.0%), dry beans/peas (<=1.0%),
potatoes (10%), grain sorghum (<=1.0%), soybeans (<=1.0%), and wheat
(<=1.0%).
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that linuron 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)(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.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
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 linuron may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for linuron in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of linuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Water Calculator (PWC), a graphical user
interface that runs the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM, v 5, November
15, 2006), PRZM-GW, and the Variable Volume Water Body Model (VVWM, 3/
6/2014), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of linuron
for acute exposures are estimated to be 65 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 40 ppb for ground water, and those for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 47 ppb for
surface water and 37 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 65 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 47 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).
Linuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure.
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 linuron
to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
linuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that linuron 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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (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.
[[Page 4199]]
EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants
and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for linuron is considered adequate. The
requirement for the comparative thyroid assay that was required as part
of the EDSP to evaluate the potential for increased sensitivity in the
young was waived. As a result, the FQPA SF of 10X for linuron has been
removed for all exposure routes and durations.
ii. Although findings were observed in the acute neurotoxicity
study, the concern for neurotoxicity is low since: (1) a clear NOAEL
was established and is 5-fold lower than the dose causing potential
neurotoxic effects; (2) the selected endpoints for risk assessment are
protective of the observed neurotoxicity; (3) no corroborative
neuropathology was associated at the LOAEL or higher dose in the acute
neurotoxicity study; and (4) there were no other neurotoxic-like
effects observed in the linuron database indicating the nervous system
is not the most sensitive for linuron.
iii. There is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the two-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats and developmental
effects, but not susceptibility, in the rat and rabbit developmental
studies; however, concern is low since there are clear NOAELs
established for the developmental and offspring effects and the
selected endpoints are protective of these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary (food) exposure assessment utilized
conservative upper-bound inputs including assuming 100% of the
registered crops treated, and tolerance-level residues for all
commodities. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was partially
refined, used tolerance-level residues for all commodities and average
PCT estimates when available. The drinking water assessment utilized
water concentration values generated by models and associated modeling
parameters which are designed to produce conservative, health
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations which are not
likely to be exceeded. The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure
assessment does not underestimate the potential exposure for infants,
children, or women of childbearing age. No residential uses are
proposed or registered for linuron at this time, so no residential
exposure assessment was conducted.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to linuron will occupy 9.5% of the aPAD for infants, 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
linuron from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for children
1-2 years old the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for linuron.
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). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, linuron is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure.
Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure
plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-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 short-term risk), no further
assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
linuron.
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,
linuron 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
linuron.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Linuron is considered
a Group C carcinogen requiring no quantification of human 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 linuron residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of
linuron residues of concern in/on plant and livestock tissues. The
current enforcement methods determine linuron and all metabolites
hydrolyzable to 3,4-dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA). 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 not
established a MRL for linuron.
[[Page 4200]]
C. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment to the notice of filing from March 22,
2022, which opposed the use of linuron on any food. The commenter
expressed a general opposition to the use of ``toxic chemicals'' on
food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes
that some individuals believe that certain pesticide chemicals should
not be permitted in our food. However, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set
when the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute.
The Agency is required by section 408 of the FFDCA to estimate the risk
of the potential exposure to these residues. EPA has concluded, based
on data submitted in support of the petition and other reliable data,
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate human exposure to linuron residues from use on alfalfa.
Testing requirements for pesticide tolerances have been specified by
rulemaking after allowing for notice and comment by the public and peer
review by appropriate scientific bodies. See 40 CFR part 158 for
further information.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of linuron in or
on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay at 1 and 3 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 7, 2023.
Charles Smith,
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. 180.184, amend the table in paragraph (a) by:
0
a. Adding a heading for the table; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the entries ``Alfalfa, forage'' and
``Alfalfa, hay''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 180.184 Linuron; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage............................................. 1
Alfalfa, hay................................................ 3
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-01109 Filed 1-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P