[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44552-44558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22373]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300527; FRL-5736-9]
RIN 2070-AB78
Pyridate; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
combined residues of pyridate in or on chickpeas . This action is in
response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption
[[Page 44553]]
under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act authorizing use of the pesticide on chickpeas. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of pyridate in
this food commodity pursuant to section 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996. The tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 1998.
DATES: This regulation is effective August 22, 1997. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before October 21,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [OPP-300527], must be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to:
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees),
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk identified by the docket
control number, [OPP-300527], must also be submitted to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file
format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket control
number [OPP-300527]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should
be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Andrew Ertman, Registration
Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location,
telephone number, and e-mail address: Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9367, e-mail:
ertman.andrew@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on its own initiative, pursuant to
section 408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing a tolerance for
combined residues of the herbicide pyridate (O- (6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-
pyridazinyl)-S-octyl-carbonothioate), the metabolite 6-chloro-3-phenyl-
pyridazine-4-ol and conjugates of 6-chloro-3-phenyl-pyridazine-ol,
expressed as pyridate, in or on chickpeas at 0.1 part per million
(ppm). This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 1998.
EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the
revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations.
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170)
was signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA amends both the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. The FQPA amendments went into effect immediately. Among other
things, FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA pesticide tolerance-setting
activities under a new section 408 with a new safety standard and new
procedures. These activities are described below and discussed in
greater detail in the final rule establishing the time-limited
tolerance associated with the emergency exemption for use of
propiconazole on sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13, 1996)(FRL-5572-9).
New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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) 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)
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. . . .''
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This provision was not
amended by FQPA. EPA has established regulations governing such
emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment.
Because decisions on section 18-related tolerances must proceed
before EPA reaches closure on several policy issues relating to
interpretation and implementation of the FQPA, EPA does not intend for
its actions on such tolerance to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions.
II. Emergency Exemption for Pyridate on Chickpeas and FFDCA
Tolerances
The applicants state that chickpea growers in the irrigated region
of central Washington and north-central Oregon face an immediate crisis
with broadleaf weeds infesting their chickpea crop. The problem
occurred when there was a period of unusually cool, wet weather after
planting in late March to mid-April, causing a delay in both crop and
weed emergence. This delay, coupled with the breakdown in the pre-
emergence herbicide used, created a condition where broadleaf weeds
were competing on an equal basis with the chickpea crop. Chickpeas are
poor competitors with broadleaf weeds. The applicants state that the
pre-emergence herbicides that were used (Sonalan and Prowl) have a
shorter period of soil activity than the most effective pre-emergence
herbicide available (Pursuit). However, because crop rotation includes
potatoes, Pursuit could not be used.
Because there are no post-emergence herbicides that are currently
registered for use on chickpeas to control broadleaf weeds, the
applicants assert that left uncontrolled, the broadleaf weed
infestation could reduce crop yields by 50 to 60%. EPA has authorized
under FIFRA section 18 the use of pyridate on
[[Page 44554]]
chickpeas for control of broadleaf weeds in Washington and Oregon.
After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency
conditions exist for these states.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of pyridate in or on
chickpeas. In doing so, EPA considered the new safety standard in FFDCA
section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under
FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the new safety
standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move
quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-
routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment under section 408(e), as provided in section
408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on
December 31, 1998, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on chickpeas after that date will not be unlawful,
provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under
FIFRA. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any
experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on
this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions
EPA has not made any decisions about whether pyridate meets EPA's
registration requirements for use on chickpeas or whether a permanent
tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances,
EPA does not believe that this tolerance serves as a basis for
registration of pyridate by a State for special local needs under FIFRA
section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as the basis for any
States other than Washington and Oregon to use this pesticide on this
crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of
section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for pyridate, contact the Agency's
Registration Division at the address provided above.
III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides based primarily on toxicological studies using
laboratory animals. These studies address many adverse health effects,
including (but not limited to) reproductive effects, developmental
toxicity, toxicity to the nervous system, and carcinogenicity. Second,
EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through the diet (e.g., food and
drinking water) and through exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings.
A. Toxicity
1. Threshold and non-threshold effects. For many animal studies, a
dose response relationship can be determined, which provides a dose
that causes adverse effects (threshold effects) and doses causing no
observed effects (the ``no-observed effect level'' or ``NOEL'').
Once a study has been evaluated and the observed effects have been
determined to be threshold effects, EPA generally divides the NOEL from
the study with the lowest NOEL by an uncertainty factor (usually 100 or
more) to determine the Reference Dose (RfD). The RfD is a level at or
below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose
appreciable risks to human health. An uncertainty factor (sometimes
called a ``safety factor'') of 100 is commonly used since it is assumed
that people may be up to 10 times more sensitive to pesticides than the
test animals, and that one person or subgroup of the population (such
as infants and children) could be up to 10 times more sensitive to a
pesticide than another. In addition, EPA assesses the potential risks
to infants and children based on the weight of the evidence of the
toxicology studies and determines whether an additional uncertainty
factor is warranted. Thus, an aggregate daily exposure to a pesticide
residue at or below the RfD (expressed as 100% or less of the RfD) is
generally considered acceptable by EPA. EPA generally uses the RfD to
evaluate the chronic risks posed by pesticide exposure. For shorter
term risks, EPA calculates a margin of exposure (MOE) by dividing the
estimated human exposure into the NOEL from the appropriate animal
study. Commonly, EPA finds MOEs lower than 100 to be unacceptable. This
100-fold MOE is based on the same rationale as the 100-fold uncertainty
factor.
Lifetime feeding studies in two species of laboratory animals are
conducted to screen pesticides for cancer effects. When evidence of
increased cancer is noted in these studies, the Agency conducts a
weight of the evidence review of all relevant toxicological data
including short-term and mutagenicity studies and structure activity
relationship. Once a pesticide has been classified as a potential human
carcinogen, different types of risk assessments (e.g., linear low dose
extrapolations or MOE calculation based on the appropriate NOEL) will
be carried out based on the nature of the carcinogenic response and the
Agency's knowledge of its mode of action.
2. Differences in toxic effect due to exposure duration. The
toxicological effects of a pesticide can vary with different exposure
durations. EPA considers the entire toxicity data base, and based on
the effects seen for different durations and routes of exposure,
determines which risk assessments should be done to assure that the
public is adequately protected from any pesticide exposure scenario.
Both short and long durations of exposure are always considered.
Typically, risk assessments include ``acute'', ``short-term'',
``intermediate term'', and ``chronic'' risks. These assessments are
defined by the Agency as follows.
Acute risk, by the Agency's definition, results from 1-day
consumption of food and water, and reflects toxicity which could be
expressed following a single oral exposure to the pesticide residues.
High end exposure to food and water residues are typically assumed.
Short-term risk results from exposure to the pesticide for a period
of 1-7 days, and therefore overlaps with the acute risk assessment.
Historically, this risk assessment was intended to address primarily
dermal and inhalation exposure which could result, for example, from
residential pesticide applications. However, since enaction of FQPA,
this assessment has been expanded to include both dietary and non-
dietary sources of exposure, and will typically consider exposure from
food, water, and residential uses when reliable data are available. In
this assessment, risks from average food and water exposure, and high-
end residential exposure, are aggregated. High-end exposures from all 3
sources are not typically added because of the very low probability of
this occurring in most cases, and because the other conservative
assumptions built into the assessment assure adequate protection of
public health. However, for cases in which high-end exposure can
reasonably be expected from multiple sources (e.g. frequent and
widespread homeowner use in a specific geographical area), multiple
high-end risks will be aggregated and presented as part of the
comprehensive risk assessment/characterization. Since the toxicological
endpoint considered in this assessment reflects exposure over a period
of at least 7 days, an additional
[[Page 44555]]
degree of conservatism is built into the assessment; i.e., the risk
assessment nominally covers 1-7 days exposure, and the toxicological
endpoint/NOEL is selected to be adequate for at least 7 days of
exposure. (Toxicity results at lower levels when the dosing duration is
increased.)
Intermediate-term risk results from exposure for 7 days to several
months. This assessment is handled in a manner similar to the short-
term risk assessment.
Chronic risk assessment describes risk which could result from
several months to a lifetime of exposure. For this assessment, risks
are aggregated considering average exposure from all sources for
representative population subgroups including infants and children.
B. Aggregate Exposure
In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 requires that
EPA take into account available and reliable information concerning
exposure from the pesticide residue in the food in question, residues
in other foods for which there are tolerances, residues in groundwater
or surface water that is consumed as drinking water, and other non-
occupational exposures through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses). Dietary exposure to
residues of a pesticide in a food commodity are estimated by
multiplying the average daily consumption of the food forms of that
commodity by the tolerance level or the anticipated pesticide residue
level. The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) is an
estimate of the level of residues consumed daily if each food item
contained pesticide residues equal to the tolerance. In evaluating food
exposures, EPA takes into account varying consumption patterns of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
The TMRC is a ``worst case'' estimate since it is based on the
assumptions that food contains pesticide residues at the tolerance
level and that 100% of the crop is treated by pesticides that have
established tolerances. If the TMRC exceeds the RfD or poses a lifetime
cancer risk that is greater than approximately one in a million, EPA
attempts to derive a more accurate exposure estimate for the pesticide
by evaluating additional types of information (anticipated residue data
and/or percent of crop treated data) which show, generally, that
pesticide residues in most foods when they are eaten are well below
established tolerances.
Percent of crop treated estimates are derived from federal and
private market survey data. Typically, a range of estimates are
supplied and the upper end of this range is assumed for the exposure
assessment. By using this upper end estimate of percent of crop
treated, the Agency is reasonably certain that exposure is not
understated for any significant subpopulation group. Further, regional
consumption information is taken into account through EPA's computer-
based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations
including several regional groups, to pesticide residues. For this
pesticide, the most highly exposed population subgroup (children 1-6
years old) was not regionally based.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Consistent with 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 pyridate
and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with
section 408(b)(2), for a time-limited tolerance for combined residues
of pyridate on chickpeas at 0.1 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary
exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance 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 nature of the toxic effects caused by pyridate are
discussed below.
1. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the RfD for pyridate at
0.11 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). This RfD is based on a two
year chronic feeding study in rats with a NOEL of 10.8 mg/kg/day and an
uncertainty factor of 100 based on body weight depression in the males
at the lowest effect level (LEL) of 67.5 mg/kg/day. The 3-generation
reproduction study was considered co-critical with a NOEL of 10.8 mg/
kg/day and an lowest observed effect level (LOEL) of 67.5 mg/kg/day.
Depressed maternal and pup body weight gains were observed at the LOEL.
2. Carcinogenicity. Pyridate has not been to the Office of
Pesticide Program's Cancer Peer Review Committee. However, mouse and
rat oncogenicity studies indicate that pyridate was negative in both
species for carcinogenic effects.
B. Exposures and Risks
1. From food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40
CFR 180.462) for the combined residues of pyridate (O- (6-chloro-3-
phenyl-4-pyridazinyl)-S-octyl-carbonothioate), the metabolite 6-chloro-
3-phenyl-pyridazine-4-ol and conjugates of 6-chloro-3-phenyl-
pyridazine-ol, expressed as pyridate, in or on a variety of raw
agricultural commodities including cabbage, corn (grain, fodder,
forage, silage) and peanuts (nutmeats, hulls), all at 0.03 ppm. Risk
assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures and risks
from pyridate as follows:
Chronic exposure and risk. In conducting this chronic dietary risk
assessment, EPA has made very conservative assumptions -- 100% of
chickpeas and all other commodities having pyridate tolerances will
contain residues and those residues would be at the level of the
tolerance -- which result in an overestimate of human dietary exposure.
Thus, in making a safety determination for this tolerance, EPA is
taking into account this conservative exposure assessment.
The existing pyridate tolerances (published, pending, and including
the necessary Section 18 tolerance(s)) result in a Theoretical Maximum
Residue Contribution (TMRC) that is equivalent to the following
percentages of the RfD:
U.S. population at <1.0%; nursing="" infants="" at=""><1.0%; non-nursing="" infants=""><1 year="" old)="" at=""><1.0%; children="" (1-6="" years="" old)="" at=""><1.0%; and,="" children="" (7-12="" years="" old)="" at=""><1.0% the="" subgroups="" listed="" above="" are:="" (1)="" the="" u.s.="" population="" (48="" states);="" (2)="" those="" for="" infants="" and="" children;="" and,="" (3)="" the="" other="" subgroups="" for="" which="" the="" percentage="" of="" the="" rfd="" occupied="" is="" greater="" than="" that="" occupied="" by="" the="" subgroup="" u.s.="" population="" (48="" states).="" 2.="" from="" drinking="" water.="" based="" on="" information="" available="" to="" the="" agency,="" pyridate="" is="" not="" persistent="" and="" not="" mobile.="" there="" is="" no="" established="" maximum="" contaminant="" level="" for="" residues="" of="" (pyridate)="" in="" drinking="" water.="" no="" health="" advisory="" levels="" for="" pyridate="" in="" drinking="" water="" have="" been="" established.="" chronic="" exposure="" and="" risk.="" because="" the="" agency="" lacks="" sufficient="" water-related="" exposure="" data="" to="" complete="" a="" comprehensive="" drinking="" water="" risk="" assessment="" for="" many="" pesticides,="" epa="" has="" commenced="" and="" nearly="" completed="" a="" process="" to="" identify="" a="" reasonable="" yet="" conservative="" bounding="" figure="" for="" the="" potential="" contribution="" of="" water-related="" [[page="" 44556]]="" exposure="" to="" the="" aggregate="" risk="" posed="" by="" a="" pesticide.="" in="" developing="" the="" bounding="" figure,="" epa="" estimated="" residue="" levels="" in="" water="" for="" a="" number="" of="" specific="" pesticides="" using="" various="" data="" sources.="" the="" agency="" then="" applied="" the="" estimated="" residue="" levels,="" in="" conjunction="" with="" appropriate="" toxicological="" endpoints="" (rfd's="" or="" acute="" dietary="" noel's)="" and="" assumptions="" about="" body="" weight="" and="" consumption,="" to="" calculate,="" for="" each="" pesticide,="" the="" increment="" of="" aggregate="" risk="" contributed="" by="" consumption="" of="" contaminated="" water.="" while="" epa="" has="" not="" yet="" pinpointed="" the="" appropriate="" bounding="" figure="" for="" exposure="" from="" contaminated="" water,="" the="" ranges="" the="" agency="" is="" continuing="" to="" examine="" are="" all="" below="" the="" level="" that="" would="" cause="" pyridate="" to="" exceed="" the="" rfd="" if="" the="" tolerance="" being="" considered="" in="" this="" document="" were="" granted.="" the="" agency="" has="" therefore="" concluded="" that="" the="" potential="" exposures="" associated="" with="" pyridate="" in="" water,="" even="" at="" the="" higher="" levels="" the="" agency="" is="" considering="" as="" a="" conservative="" upper="" bound,="" would="" not="" prevent="" the="" agency="" from="" determining="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" of="" no="" harm="" if="" the="" tolerance="" is="" granted.="" 3.="" from="" non-dietary="" exposure.="" pyridate="" is="" not="" registered="" for="" any="" residential="" uses="" at="" this="" time.="" therefore,="" no="" non-dietary,="" non-="" occupational="" exposure="" is="" anticipated.="" 4.="" cumulative="" exposure="" to="" substances="" with="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity.="" section="" 408(b)(2)(d)(v)="" 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.''="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" ``available="" information''="" in="" this="" context="" might="" include="" not="" only="" toxicity,="" chemistry,="" and="" exposure="" data,="" but="" also="" scientific="" policies="" and="" methodologies="" for="" understanding="" common="" mechanisms="" of="" toxicity="" and="" conducting="" cumulative="" risk="" assessments.="" for="" most="" pesticides,="" although="" the="" agency="" has="" some="" information="" in="" its="" files="" that="" may="" turn="" out="" to="" be="" helpful="" in="" eventually="" determining="" whether="" a="" pesticide="" shares="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" any="" other="" substances,="" epa="" does="" not="" at="" this="" time="" have="" the="" methodologies="" to="" resolve="" the="" complex="" scientific="" issues="" concerning="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" in="" a="" meaningful="" way.="" epa="" has="" begun="" a="" pilot="" process="" to="" study="" this="" issue="" further="" through="" the="" examination="" of="" particular="" classes="" of="" pesticides.="" the="" agency="" hopes="" that="" the="" results="" of="" this="" pilot="" process="" will="" increase="" the="" agency's="" scientific="" understanding="" of="" this="" question="" such="" that="" epa="" will="" be="" able="" to="" develop="" and="" apply="" scientific="" principles="" for="" better="" determining="" which="" chemicals="" have="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" and="" evaluating="" the="" cumulative="" effects="" of="" such="" chemicals.="" the="" agency="" anticipates,="" however,="" that="" even="" as="" its="" understanding="" of="" the="" science="" of="" common="" mechanisms="" increases,="" decisions="" on="" specific="" classes="" of="" chemicals="" will="" be="" heavily="" dependent="" on="" chemical="" specific="" data,="" much="" of="" which="" may="" not="" be="" presently="" available.="" although="" at="" present="" the="" agency="" does="" not="" know="" how="" to="" apply="" the="" information="" in="" its="" files="" concerning="" common="" mechanism="" issues="" to="" most="" risk="" assessments,="" there="" are="" pesticides="" as="" to="" which="" the="" common="" mechanism="" issues="" can="" be="" resolved.="" these="" pesticides="" include="" pesticides="" that="" are="" toxicologically="" dissimilar="" to="" existing="" chemical="" substances="" (in="" which="" case="" the="" agency="" can="" conclude="" that="" it="" is="" unlikely="" that="" a="" pesticide="" shares="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" activity="" with="" other="" substances)="" and="" pesticides="" that="" produce="" a="" common="" toxic="" metabolite="" (in="" which="" case="" common="" mechanism="" of="" activity="" will="" be="" assumed).="" epa="" does="" not="" have,="" at="" this="" time,="" available="" data="" to="" determine="" whether="" pyridate="" has="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" other="" substances="" or="" how="" to="" include="" this="" pesticide="" in="" a="" cumulative="" risk="" assessment.="" unlike="" other="" pesticides="" for="" which="" epa="" has="" followed="" a="" cumulative="" risk="" approach="" based="" on="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity,="" pyridate="" 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="" pyridate="" has="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" other="" substances.="" c.="" aggregate="" risks="" and="" determination="" of="" safety="" for="" u.s.="" population="" 1.="" acute="" risk.="" an="" acute="" aggregate="" risk="" is="" not="" required="" for="" pyridate="" as="" no="" acute="" toxicity="" endpoint="" has="" been="" identified.="" there="" are="" also="" no="" non-dietary="" non-occupational="" exposures.="" the="" agency="" acknowledges="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" in="" drinking="" water,="" but="" does="" not="" expect="" that="" exposure="" would="" result="" in="" an="" aggregate="" (margin="" of="" exposure)="" moe="" (food="" plus="" water)="" that="" would="" exceed="" the="" agency's="" level="" of="" concern="" for="" acute="" dietary="" exposure.="" 2.="" chronic="" risk.="" using="" the="" conservative="" tmrc="" exposure="" assumptions,="" and="" taking="" into="" account="" the="" completeness="" and="" reliability="" of="" the="" toxicity="" data,="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" from="" food="" will="" utilize=""><1.0% of="" the="" rfd="" for="" the="" u.s.="" population.="" epa="" generally="" has="" no="" concern="" for="" exposures="" below="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd="" because="" the="" rfd="" represents="" the="" level="" at="" or="" below="" which="" daily="" aggregate="" dietary="" exposure="" over="" a="" lifetime="" will="" not="" pose="" appreciable="" risks="" to="" human="" health.="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" in="" drinking="" water,="" epa="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" epa="" concludes="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" that="" no="" harm="" will="" result="" from="" chronic="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" residues.="" d.="" aggregate="" risks="" and="" determination="" of="" safety="" for="" infants="" and="" children="" 1.="" safety="" factor="" for="" infants="" and="" children--="" a.="" in="" general.="" in="" assessing="" the="" potential="" for="" additional="" sensitivity="" of="" infants="" and="" children="" to="" residues="" of="" pyridate,="" epa="" considered="" data="" from="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies="" in="" the="" rat="" and="" rabbit="" and="" a="" three-="" generation="" reproduction="" study="" in="" the="" rat.="" the="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies="" are="" designed="" to="" evaluate="" adverse="" effects="" on="" the="" developing="" organism="" resulting="" from="" pesticide="" exposure="" during="" prenatal="" development="" to="" one="" or="" both="" parents.="" reproduction="" studies="" provide="" information="" relating="" to="" effects="" from="" exposure="" to="" the="" pesticide="" on="" the="" reproductive="" capability="" of="" mating="" animals="" and="" data="" on="" systemic="" toxicity.="" ffdca="" section="" 408="" provides="" that="" epa="" shall="" apply="" an="" additional="" tenfold="" margin="" of="" safety="" for="" infants="" and="" children="" in="" the="" case="" of="" threshold="" effects="" to="" account="" for="" pre-and="" post-natal="" toxicity="" and="" the="" completeness="" of="" the="" database="" unless="" epa="" determines="" that="" a="" different="" margin="" of="" safety="" will="" be="" safe="" for="" infants="" and="" children.="" margins="" of="" safety="" are="" incorporated="" into="" epa="" risk="" assessments="" either="" directly="" through="" use="" of="" a="" moe="" analysis="" or="" through="" using="" uncertainty="" (safety)="" factors="" in="" calculating="" a="" dose="" level="" that="" poses="" no="" appreciable="" risk="" to="" humans.="" epa="" believes="" that="" reliable="" data="" support="" using="" the="" standard="" moe="" and="" uncertainty="" factor="" (usually="" 100="" for="" combined="" inter-="" and="" intra-="" species="" variability)="" and="" not="" the="" additional="" tenfold="" moe/uncertainty="" factor="" when="" epa="" has="" a="" complete="" data="" base="" under="" existing="" guidelines="" and="" when="" the="" severity="" of="" the="" effect="" in="" infants="" or="" children="" or="" the="" potency="" or="" unusual="" toxic="" properties="" of="" a="" compound="" do="" not="" raise="" concerns="" regarding="" the="" adequacy="" of="" the="" standard="" moe/safety="" factor.="" b.="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies.="" in="" the="" developmental="" study="" in="" rats,="" the="" maternal="" (systemic)="" noel="" was="" 165="" mg/kg/day,="" based="" on="" mortality="" and="" decreased="" body="" weight="" at="" the="" loel="" of="" 400="" mg/kg/day.="" the="" developmental="" (fetal)="" noel="" was="" 165="" mg/kg/day,="" based="" on="" increased="" incidence="" of="" missing="" and/or="" unossified="" sternabrae="" and="" decreased="" [[page="" 44557]]="" fetal="" body="" weight="" at="" the="" loel="" of="" 400="" mg/kg/day.="" in="" the="" developmental="" toxicity="" study="" in="" rabbits,="" the="" maternal="" (systemic)="" noel="" was="" 300="" mg/kg/day,="" based="" on="" body="" weight="" depression="" at="" the="" loel="" of="" 600="" mg/kg/day.="" the="" developmental="" (pup)="" noel="" was="" 600="" mg/kg/="" day,="" the="" highest="" dose="" tested.="" c.="" reproductive="" toxicity="" study.="" in="" the="" 3-generation="" reproductive="" toxicity="" study="" in="" rats,="" the="" maternal="" (systemic)="" noel="" was="" 10.8="" mg/kg/="" day,="" based="" on="" body="" weight="" depression="" at="" the="" loel="" of="" 67.5="" mg/kg/day.="" the="" developmental/reproductive="" (pup)="" noel="" was="" 10.8="" mg/kg/day,="" based="" on="" body="" weight="" loss="" at="" the="" loel="" of="" 67.5="" mg/kg/day.="" d.="" pre-="" and="" post-natal="" sensitivity.="" the="" toxicological="" data="" base="" for="" evaluating="" pre-="" and="" post-natal="" toxicity="" for="" pyridate="" is="" complete="" with="" respect="" to="" current="" data="" requirements.="" there="" are="" no="" pre-="" or="" post-natal="" toxicity="" concerns="" for="" infants="" and="" children,="" based="" on="" the="" results="" of="" the="" rat="" and="" rabbit="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies="" and="" the="" 3-generation="" rat="" reproductive="" toxicity="" study.="" based="" on="" the="" developmental="" and="" reproductive="" toxicity="" studies="" discussed="" above,="" there="" does="" not="" appear="" to="" be="" an="" extra="" sensitivity="" for="" pre-="" or="" post-natal="" effects.="" e.="" conclusion.="" epa="" concludes="" that="" reliable="" data="" support="" use="" of="" the="" standard="" 100-fold="" margin="" of="" exposure/uncertainty="" factor="" and="" that="" an="" additional="" margin/factor="" is="" not="" needed="" to="" protect="" infants="" and="" children.="" 2.="" chronic="" risk.="" using="" the="" conservative="" exposure="" assumptions="" described="" above,="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" from="" food="" will="" utilize="" less="" than="" 1%="" of="" the="" rfd="" for="" infants="" and="" children.="" epa="" generally="" has="" no="" concern="" for="" exposures="" below="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd="" because="" the="" rfd="" represents="" the="" level="" at="" or="" below="" which="" daily="" aggregate="" dietary="" exposure="" over="" a="" lifetime="" will="" not="" pose="" appreciable="" risks="" to="" human="" health.="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" in="" drinking="" water="" and="" from="" non-dietary,="" non-occupational="" exposure,="" epa="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" epa="" concludes="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" that="" no="" harm="" will="" result="" to="" infants="" and="" children="" from="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" pyridate="" residues.="" v.="" other="" considerations="" a.="" metabolism="" in="" plants="" and="" animals="" the="" nature="" of="" the="" pyridate="" residue="" in="" plants="" and="" ruminants="" is="" adequately="" understood.="" the="" total="" toxic="" residue="" consists="" of="" pyridate="" (o-="" (-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl)="" -s-octyl-carbonothioate),="" its="" metabolite="" 6-chloro-3-phenyl-pyridazine-4-ol="" (aka="" cl9673),="" and="" conjugates="" of="" that="" metabolite,="" all="" expressed="" as="" pyridate.="" .="" b.="" analytical="" enforcement="" methodology="" a="" total="" residue="" method="" using="" uv--hplc="" is="" available="" for="" residue="" data="" gathering="" and="" enforcement="" purposes.="" the="" method="" has="" been="" adequately="" validated="" by="" recovery="" data,="" has="" passed="" a="" successful="" method="" trial,="" and="" has="" been="" forwarded="" to="" fda="" for="" publication="" in="" pam-ii.="" the="" limit="" of="" quantitation="" is="" 0.03="" ppm..="" c.="" magnitude="" of="" residues="" residues="" of="" pyridate,="" its="" metabolite="" 6-chloro-3-phenyl-pyridazine-="" 4-ol="" and="" conjugates="" of="" that="" metabolite="" all="" expressed="" as="" pyridate="" are="" not="" expected="" to="" exceed="" 0.1="" ppm="" in/on="" chickpeas.="" secondary="" residues="" are="" not="" expected="" in="" animal="" commodities="" as="" no="" feed="" items="" are="" associated="" with="" this="" section="" 18="" use.="" d.="" international="" residue="" limits="" there="" are="" no="" codex,="" mexican,="" or="" canadian="" mrls="" established="" for="" pyridate="" in/on="" chickpeas.="" vi.="" conclusion="" therefore,="" the="" tolerance="" is="" established="" for="" combined="" residues="" of="" pyridate="" (o-="" (6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridazinyl)-s-octyl-carbonothioate),="" the="" metabolite="" 6-chloro-3-phenyl-pyridazine-4-ol="" and="" conjugates="" of="" 6-="" chloro-3-phenyl-pyridazine-ol,="" expressed="" as="" pyridate="" in/on="" chickpeas="" at="" 0.1="" ppm.="" vii.="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests="" the="" new="" ffdca="" section="" 408(g)="" provides="" essentially="" the="" same="" process="" for="" persons="" to="" ``object''="" to="" a="" tolerance="" regulation="" issued="" by="" epa="" under="" new="" section="" 408(e)="" and="" (l)(6)="" as="" was="" provided="" in="" the="" old="" section="" 408="" and="" in="" section="" 409.="" however,="" the="" period="" for="" filing="" objections="" is="" 60="" days,="" rather="" than="" 30="" days.="" epa="" currently="" has="" procedural="" regulations="" which="" govern="" the="" submission="" of="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests.="" these="" regulations="" will="" require="" some="" modification="" to="" reflect="" the="" new="" law.="" however,="" until="" those="" modifications="" can="" be="" made,="" epa="" will="" continue="" to="" use="" those="" procedural="" regulations="" with="" appropriate="" adjustments="" to="" reflect="" the="" new="" law.="" any="" person="" may,="" by="" october="" 21,="" 1997,="" file="" written="" objections="" to="" any="" aspect="" of="" this="" regulation="" and="" may="" also="" request="" a="" hearing="" on="" those="" objections.="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests="" must="" be="" filed="" with="" the="" hearing="" clerk,="" at="" the="" address="" given="" above="" (40="" cfr="" 178.20).="" a="" copy="" of="" the="" objections="" and/or="" hearing="" requests="" filed="" with="" the="" hearing="" clerk="" should="" be="" submitted="" to="" the="" opp="" docket="" for="" this="" rulemaking.="" the="" objections="" submitted="" must="" specify="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" regulation="" deemed="" objectionable="" and="" the="" grounds="" for="" the="" objections="" (40="" cfr="" 178.25).="" each="" objection="" must="" be="" accompanied="" by="" the="" fee="" prescribed="" by="" 40="" cfr="" 180.33(i).="" if="" a="" hearing="" is="" requested,="" the="" objections="" must="" include="" a="" statement="" of="" the="" factual="" issues="" on="" which="" a="" hearing="" is="" requested,="" the="" requestor's="" contentions="" on="" such="" issues,="" and="" a="" summary="" of="" any="" evidence="" relied="" upon="" by="" the="" requestor="" (40="" cfr="" 178.27).="" a="" request="" for="" a="" hearing="" will="" be="" granted="" if="" the="" administrator="" determines="" that="" the="" material="" submitted="" shows="" the="" following:="" there="" is="" genuine="" and="" substantial="" issue="" of="" fact;="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" possibility="" that="" available="" evidence="" identified="" by="" the="" requestor="" would,="" if="" established,="" resolve="" one="" or="" more="" of="" such="" issues="" in="" favor="" of="" the="" requestor,="" taking="" into="" account="" uncontested="" claims="" or="" facts="" to="" the="" contrary;="" and="" resolution="" of="" the="" factual="" issues="" in="" the="" manner="" sought="" by="" the="" requestor="" would="" be="" adequate="" to="" justify="" the="" action="" requested="" (40="" cfr="" 178.32).="" information="" submitted="" in="" connection="" with="" an="" objection="" or="" hearing="" request="" may="" be="" claimed="" confidential="" by="" marking="" any="" part="" or="" all="" of="" that="" information="" as="" confidential="" business="" information="" (cbi).="" information="" so="" marked="" will="" not="" be="" disclosed="" except="" in="" accordance="" with="" procedures="" set="" forth="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 2.="" a="" copy="" of="" the="" information="" that="" does="" not="" contain="" cbi="" must="" be="" submitted="" for="" inclusion="" in="" the="" public="" record.="" information="" not="" marked="" confidential="" may="" be="" disclosed="" publicly="" by="" epa="" without="" prior="" notice.="" viii.="" public="" docket="" epa="" has="" established="" a="" record="" for="" this="" rulemaking="" under="" docket="" control="" number="" [opp-300527]="" (including="" any="" comments="" and="" data="" submitted="" electronically).="" a="" public="" version="" of="" this="" record,="" including="" printed,="" paper="" versions="" of="" electronic="" comments,="" which="" does="" not="" include="" any="" information="" claimed="" as="" cbi,="" is="" available="" for="" inspection="" from="" 8:30="" a.m.="" to="" 4="" p.m.,="" monday="" through="" friday,="" excluding="" legal="" holidays.="" the="" public="" record="" is="" located="" in="" room="" 1132="" of="" the="" public="" information="" and="" records="" integrity="" branch,="" information="" resources="" and="" services="" division="" (7506c),="" office="" of="" pesticide="" programs,="" environmental="" protection="" agency,="" crystal="" mall="" #2,="" 1921="" jefferson="" davis="" hwy.,="" arlington,="" va.="" electronic="" comments="" may="" be="" sent="" directly="" to="" epa="" at:="">opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
[[Page 44558]]
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d).
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). This final rule
does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require any prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or
special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
or require OMB review in accordance with Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
In addition, since these tolerances and exemptions that are
established under FFDCA section 408 (l)(6), 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. Nevertheless, the Agency has previously assessed
whether establishing tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising
tolerance levels or expanding exemptions might adversely impact small
entities and concluded, as a generic matter, that there is no adverse
economic impact. The factual basis for the Agency's generic
certification for tolerance actions published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR
24950), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
X. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Agency has submitted 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 General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in
today's Federal Register. This is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 12, 1997.
James Jones,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.462 is amended to read as follows:
a. By designating the existing text as paragraph (a) and adding a
heading.
b. By adding paragraph (b).
c. By adding the headings and reserving paragraphs (c) and (d).
Section 180.462, as amended, reads as follows:
Sec. 180.462 Pyridate; tolerances for residues.
(a) General . * * *
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. A time-limited tolerance is
established for the residue of the herbicide pyridate in connection
with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency exemptions granted
by EPA. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on the date specified
in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per revocation
million date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chickpeas..................................... 0.1 12/31/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 97-22373 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
