Skip to Content

Rule

Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of clomazone in or on sugarcane. This action is in response to a crisis exemption declared by the state of Louisiana under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on sugarcane. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of clomazone in this food commodity. The tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2002.

DATES:

This regulation is effective December 20, 2000. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-301084, must be received by EPA on or before February 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES:

Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and hearing requests must identify docket control number OPP-301084 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

By mail: Libby Pemberton, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9364; and e-mail address: pemberton.libby@epa.gov.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

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. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

CategoriesNAICS codesExamples of Potentially Affected Entities
Industry111Crop production
112Animal production
311Food manufacturing
Start Printed Page 79763
32532Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of This Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically.You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/​. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “Federal Register—Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/​fedrgstr/​. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/​opptsfrs/​home/​guidelin.htm.

2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-301084. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and 408 (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide clomazone, in or on sugarcane at 0.05 ppm part per million (ppm). This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2002. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations.

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. EPA does not intend for its actions on section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.

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. . . .” EPA has established regulations governing emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Clomazone on Sugarcane and FFDCA Tolerances

Louisiana availed itself of a crisis exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of clomazone on sugarcane for control of bermudagrass. After having reviewed the submission, EPA did not concur that emergency conditions existed for this State and use under the crisis exemption ceased.

As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of clomazone in or on sugarcane. In doing so, EPA considered the 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 safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2002, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on sugarcane after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by this tolerance at the time of that application. 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 clomazone meets EPA's registration requirements for use on sugarcane 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 clomazone by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as the basis for any State to use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for clomazone, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Start Printed Page 79764

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7) .

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 clomazone and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a time-limited tolerance for residues of clomazone in or on sugarcane at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints

The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological endpoint. However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.

For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.

For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the level of concern (LOC). For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.

The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1x10-6 or one in a million). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non-linear approach, a “point of departure” is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point of departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for clomazone used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1:

Table 1.—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Use in Human Risk Assessment for Clomazone

Exposure ScenarioDose Used in Risk Assessment, UFFQPA SF and LOC for Risk AssessmentStudy and Toxicological Effects
Acute Dietary females 13-50 years of ageDevelopmental NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day UF = 100 Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/kg/dayFQPA SF = 1x aPAD = acute RfD FQPA SF = 1.0 mg/kg/dayDevelopmental rat Developmental LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day, based on delayed ossification
Acute Dietary general population including infants and childrenA dose and endpoint were not selected for this population group because there were no effects observed in oral toxicology studies including maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits that are attributable to a single exposure (dose). A risk assessment is not required for this population subgroup.
Chronic Dietary all populationsNOAEL = 84.4 mg/kg/day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.84 mg/kg/dayFQPA SF = 1X cPAD = cRfD/FQPA SF =0.84 mg/kg/day2 year rat feeding study LOAEL > 84.4 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)
90-Day oral rat LOAEL = 319.3 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, body weight gains, food consumption and increased absolute and relative liver weights in females and increased absolute liver weights in males
Start Printed Page 79765
2-Generation reproduction rat LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on statistically significantly decreased body wt. and body wt. gain during pre-mating, and decreased body wt. during gestation and lactation male and female. In addition decreased food consumption in females and hydro-nephritic kidneys in males.
Oral, Short-term (1-7 days) (Residential)No residential uses. An endpoint was not proposed/selected.
Oral, Intermediate-term (1 week - several months) (Residential)No residential uses. An endpoint was not proposed/selected.
Dermal1 and Inhalation2, Short-Term (1-7 days) (Occupational/Residential)Maternal NOAEL=100 mg/kg/dayLOC for MOE = 100Developmental rat study Maternal LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day, based on chromorhinorrhea and abdominogenital staining
Dermal1 and Inhalation2, Intermediate-term (1 week—several months) and Long-Term (several months - lifetime) (Occupational/Residential)Oral NOAEL= 84.4 mg/kg/dayLOC for MOE = 1002 year rat feeding study LOAEL > 84.4 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)
90-day oral rat LOAEL = 319.3 mg/kg/day based on based on decreased body weight, body weight gains, food consumption and increased absolute and relative liver weights in females and increased absolute liver weights in males
2-Generation reproduction rat LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on statistically significantly decreased body wt. and body wt. gain during pre-mating, and decreased body wt. during gestation and lactation male and female. In addition decreased food consumption in females and hydro-nephritic kidneys in males.
UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic), RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern, mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilograms/day.
1 Since an oral NOAEL was selected, a dermal absorption factor of 100% (default value) should be used in route-to-route extrapolation.
2 Since an oral NOAEL was selected, an inhalation absorption factor of 100% (default value) should be used in route-to-route extrapolation.

B. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.425) for the residues of clomazone, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from clomazone in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary 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 one day or single exposure. Toxicity observed in oral toxicity studies were not attributable to a single dose or one day exposure. Therefore, no toxicological endpoint was identified for acute toxicity and no acute dietary risk assessment is required.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMtm) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1989-1992 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated (%CT) assumptions were made for the proposed commodity Start Printed Page 79766of this emergency exemption, and all other commodities with tolerances for residues of clomazone, in order to estimate the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) for the general population and subgroups of interest.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for clomazone in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of clomazone.

The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and SCI-GROW, which predicts pesticide concentrations in groundwater. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.

None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.

Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to clomazone they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below.

Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of clomazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 95 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.4 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 68 ppb for surface water and 2.4 ppb for ground 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). Clomazone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.

4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a 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.”

EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether clomazone 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, clomazone 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 clomazone has 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 the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

1. Safety factor for infants and children—i. In general. 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 prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure 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 margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans.

ii. Developmental toxicity studies —a. Rat. From the rat developmental toxicity study, the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 100 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), based on decreased locomotion and abdominal staining at the LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day. The developmental (pup) NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day, based on delayed ossification at the LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day.

b. Rabbit. From the rabbit developmental toxicity study, the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 240 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight gain at the LOAEL of 700 mg/kg/day. The developmental (pup) NOAEL was 700 mg/kg/day at the highest dose tested.

iii. Reproductive toxicity study—Rat. From the rat reproductive toxicity study, the maternal (systemic) NOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, and organ weight changes at the LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day. The reproductive (pup) NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/ day, based on decreased pup viability, reduced survival, and decreased body weight at the LOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day.

iv. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicology data base for clomazone is complete with respect to FQPA considerations. There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. Although there was a suggestion of susceptibility in the rat developmental study based on the presence of delayed ossification in the fetuses, the HIARC concluded that the fetal effects were no more severe than the maternal effects because:

  • There is no dose response relationship for delayed ossification (i.e., absence of increased incidence with increase in dose);
  • Low fetal/litter incidences;
  • Delayed ossifications were not considered to be severe; and no visceral or skeletal malformations were seen.
  • A developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is not required at this time.

Neurotoxicity data is not available nor is it required as the chemical is not a cholinesterase inhibitor and has shown Start Printed Page 79767no indications of central or peripheral nervous system effects in any other studies and does not appear to be structurally related to any other chemical that causes adverse nervous system effects.

v. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for clomazone and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The additional 10X safety factor to account for increased sensitivity of infants and children was reduced to 1X. EPA concluded that the safety factor could be removed for clomazone because:

  • There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure;
  • A developmental neurotoxicity study is not required; and
  • The dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and children (there are currently no registered residential uses).

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + chronic non-dietary, non-occupational exposure). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.

A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 Liters (L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.

When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to clomazone in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of clomazone on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.

1. Acute risk. Acute aggregate risk estimates are below EPA's level of concern. A Tier 1 acute dietary exposure analysis for clomazone was performed using existing and proposed tolerance level residues, 100% CT for all commodities, and DEEMtm default processing factors. The acute analysis was performed for females 13-50 years old. The acute dietary exposure estimate (food only) for this population subgroup was <1% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile. Thus, the acute dietary risk associated with the existing and proposed uses of clomazone does not exceed EPA's level of concern (>100% aPAD). The surface and ground water EECs were used to compare against the back-calculated DWLOC for aggregate risk assessment. For ground and surface water, the EECs for clomazone are less than EPA's DWLOC for clomazone in drinking water as a contribution to acute aggregate exposure (Table 2). Therefore, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that residues of clomazone in drinking water do not contribute significantly to the acute aggregate human health risk at the present time.

Table 2.—Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to Clomazone

Population SubgroupaPAD (mg/kg)<% aPAD (Food)Surface Water EEC (ppb)Ground Water EEC (ppb)Acute DWLOC (ppb)
Females 13-50 yrs old1<1952.430,000

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to clomazone from food will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and all subpopulations. There are no residential uses for clomazone that result in chronic residential exposure to clomazone. In addition, despite the potential for chronic dietary exposure to clomazone in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative model estimated environmental concentrations of clomazone in surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 3:

Table 3.— Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to clomazone

Population SubgroupcPAD mg/kg/day% cPAD (Food)Surface Water EEC (ppb)Ground Water EEC (ppb)Chronic DWLOC (ppb)
U.S. Population0.84<1232.429,000
All infants <1 yr old0.84<1232.48,400
Start Printed Page 79768

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Clomazone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which were previously addressed.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account non-dietary, non-occupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Clomazone is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the riskfrom food and water, which were previously addressed.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Clomazone has been classified as a “not likely human carcinogen” based on the lack of carcinogenic response in rats and mice and the lack of mutagenic concern. Further, there is no data in the literature or structure activity relationship (SAR) information to indicate carcinogenic potential. Therefore, a cancer risk assessment is not required.

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, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to clomazone residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology (GLC/NPD or GLC/MS) are available (PAM II) for enforcement of clomazone residues. Additionally, clomazone is adequately recovered (>80%) via the FDA Multiresidue Methods of PAM I (Pestrak, 1990).

B. International Residue Limits

There is neither a Codex proposal nor Canadian limits for residues of clomazone in/on sugarcane. A Mexican limit of 0.05 ppm is established for clomazone per se in/on sugarcane. Therefore, a compatibility issue is not relevant to the proposed tolerance.

VI. Conclusion

Therefore, the time limited tolerance is established for residues of clomazone, in or on sugarcane at 0.05 ppm.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301084 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before February 20, 2001.

1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as 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.

Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.

2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it “Tolerance Petition Fees.”

EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII.A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your copies, identified by the docket control number OPP-301084, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file format or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries. Start Printed Page 79769

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a 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(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

VIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

This final rule establishes a time limited tolerance under FFDCA section 408. 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) (Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998); 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 or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 exemption under FFDCA section 408, 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

IX. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: December 7, 2000.

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

End Signature Start Amendment Part

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 180—[AMENDED]

End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.

End Authority Start Amendment Part

2. Section 180.425 is amended by alphabetically adding the commodity Sugarcane to the table in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Clomazone; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *

(b)* * *

CommodityParts per millionExpiration/revocation date
*   *   *   *   *
Sugarcane0.0512/31/02
*   *   *   *   *
* * * * *
End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 00-32399 Filed 12-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S