Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-N-phenyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxamide) and its metabolite 5,6-dihydro-3-carboxanilide-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-4-oxide (calculated as carboxin) (from treatment of seed prior to planting) in or on onion, dry bulb. Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, this regulatory action is part of the tolerance reassessment requirements of section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required to reassess 66% of the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 2002, or about 6,400 tolerances. This regulatory action will count for 47 reassessments toward the August 2002 deadline.
This regulation is effective June 12, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0028, must be received on or before August 12, 2002.
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 VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and hearing requests must identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0028 in the subject line on the first page of your response.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
By mail: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail address: email@example.com.Start Printed Page 40212End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be 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:
|Categories||NAICS codes||Examples of potentially affected entities|
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/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a beta site currently under development. 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 ID number OPP-2002-0028. 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
In the Federal Register of March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16608) (FRL-6493-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9F3727) by Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., 74 Amity Road, Bethany, CT. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Gustafson LLC, the registrant. No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.301 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide carboxin, 5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxanilide and its sulfoxide metabolite 5,6-dihydro-3-carboxanilide-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-4-oxide, each expressed as the parent compound, in or on onions (dry bulb) at 0.2 part per million (ppm).
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 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).
III. 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 and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for tolerances for combined residues of carboxin (5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-N-phenyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxamide) and its metabolite 5,6-dihydro-3-carboxanilide-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-4-oxide (calculated as carboxin) (from treatment of seed prior to planting) on onion, dry bulb at 0.2 ppm. EPA's assessment of 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 carboxin are discussed in the following Table 1 as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.Start Printed Page 40213
|Guideline No.||Study Type||Results|
|870.3100||90-Day oral toxicity in rats||NOAEL = Males: not identified; Females: 10 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 10 mg/kg/day based on chronic nephritis,increased urea nitrogen, increased creatinine; Females: 40 mg/kg/day based on chronic nephritis|
|870.3200||21/28-Day dermal toxicity||Not available|
|870.3465||90-Day inhalation toxicity||Not available|
|870.3700||Prenatal developmental in rats||Maternal NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights and body weight gain, decreased food consumption, and increased hair loss Developmental NOAEL = 175 mg/kg/day LOAEL = not identified|
|870.3700||Prenatal developmental in rabbits||Maternal NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 375 mg/kg/day based on increased abortions Developmental NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 375 mg/kg/day based on increased abortions|
|870.3800||Reproduction and fertility effects in rats||Parental NOAEL = Males and Females: 1 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gains in F1 parents, gross and histopathological changes in kidneys; Females: 15 mg/kg/day based on equivocal histopathological changes in kidneys Reproductive NOAEL = Males: 10 mg/kg/day; Females: 15 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 20 mg/kg/day; Females: 30 mg/kg/day based on decreased fertility indices for F1b parents due to decreased number of pregnancies for F2b generation Offspring NOAEL = Males: 10 mg/kg/day; Females: 15 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 20 mg/kg/day; Females: 30 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights for F2b male pups|
|870.4100||Chronic toxicity in dogs||NOAEL = Males: 16 mg/kg/day; Females: 1.3 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 158 mg/kg/day based on decreased RBC,hematocrit and hemoglobin, increased MCH and MCV, increased alkaline phosphatase and cholesterol, increased liver weights; Females: 15 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gains|
|870.4200||Carcinogenicity in mice||NOAEL = Males: 752 mg/kg/day; Females: 9 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: not identified; Females: 451 mg/kg/day based on increased mortality Negative for carcinogenicity|
|870.4300||Combined chronic/carcinogenicity in rats||NOAEL = Males: 0.8 mg/kg/day; Females: 1.0 mg/kg/day LOAEL = Males: 9 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and body weight gain, increased urea nitrogen and creatinine, increased water consumption and urine volume, decreased urine specific gravity, histopathological changes in kidneys; Females: 16 mg/kg/day based on histopathological changes in kidneys Negative for carcinogenicity|
|870.5100||Bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test)||Negative with or without S-9 activation at 5,000 μg/plate and less|
|870.5375||In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration(CHO cells)||Negative without S-9 activation Positive with S-9 activation. Highly significant increases in chromosomal aberrations at several toxic dose levels ranging from 400 to 1,400 μg/mL.|
|870.5385||In vivo mammalian chromosome aberration (rat bone marrow)||Negative at all dose levels up to 48-hours post-dosing Study is unacceptable due to lack of clinical toxicity, lack of a multiple dosing schedule, and/or lack of evidence of transport to target tissue.|
|870.5385||In vivo mammalian chromosome aberration (rat bone marrow)||Negative at all dose levels tested.|
|Start Printed Page 40214|
|870.5385||In vivo mammalian chromosome aberration (rat bone marrow)||Positive. Dose-related statistically significant increased percent of aberrant cells at ≥ 191 mg/kg/day.|
|870.5450||Dominant lethal assay in rats||Not available|
|870.5550||UDS in primary rat hepatocytes||Positive. Dose-dependent positive responses were observed at treatment levels from 5.13 to 103 μg/mL in the absence of moderate to severe toxicity.|
|870.7485||Metabolism and pharmacokinetics in rats||Following oral treatment of rats with [phenyl-UL-C14] carboxin, approximately 78.3-81.1% and 77.0-81.5% of the low and high doses, respectively, were recovered. Urine was the major route of excretion. The major urinary metabolites were 4-acetamidophenol and its glucuronide, acetanilide, and hydroxylated carboxin sulfoxide.|
B. 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 level of concern (LOC). 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 (acute RfD or chronic 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 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 1 x 10-6 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 carboxin used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 2:
|Exposure Scenario||Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF||FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment||Study and Toxicological Effects|
|Acute dietary all populations||Acute RfD = Not required||No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified||None|
|Chronic dietary all populations||NOAEL= 0.8 mg/kg/day UF = 100 Chronic RfD =0.008 mg/kg/day||FQPA SF = 3 cPAD = Chronic RfD/FQPA SF= 0.00267 mg/kg/day||Combined chronic/carcinogenicity - rat LOAEL = Males: 9 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and body weight gain, increased urea nitrogen and creatinine,increased water consumption and urine volume, decreased urine specific gravity, histopathological changes in kidneys; Females: 16 mg/kg/day based on histopathological changes in kidneys|
|Cancer (oral, dermal,inhalation)||Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans||Negative for carcinogenicity in rats and mice||Combined chronic/carcinogenicity - rat and carcinogenicity - mouse|
|*The reference to the FQPA Safety Factor refers to any additional safety factor retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.|
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.301) for the combined residues or residues of carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite 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 1 day or single exposure. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies on carboxin. As a result, an acute endpoint was not identified and an acute dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment, the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 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 chronic dietary exposure analysis was an unrefined assessment. Tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated assumptions were used.
iii. Cancer. Carboxin was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Therefore a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite 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 carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite.
The Agency uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The Screening Concentrations in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water. For a screening-level assessment for surface water, EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, 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 comparisons (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 carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite, they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit E.
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the EECs of carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite for acute exposures are estimated to be 29.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.09 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.63 ppb for surface water and 0.09 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). Carboxin 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 carboxin 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, carboxin 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 carboxin 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).
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. 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.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The developmental toxicity and reproduction studies performed with carboxin did not indicate evidence for enhanced susceptibility to the fetuses/offspring of rats or rabbits. Neither quantitative nor qualitative increased susceptibility was observed in the developmental toxicity study in rats, the developmental toxicity study in rabbits, or the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. In none of the toxicity studies on carboxin was there any toxicologically significant evidence of treatment-related neurotoxicity. A developmental neurotoxicity study in rats is not required. There is, however, a concern for possible germinal cell toxicity.
In genotoxicity studies, carboxin demonstrated clear evidence of clastogenic potential. It was also noted Start Printed Page 40216that in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, treatment-related decreased fertility indices for the F1b male and female parents (due to a decreased number of pregnancies for the F2b generation) were observed. Based on these considerations, the registrant will be required to submit a germinal cell assay, specifically a dominant lethal assay in rats, to the Agency in order to evaluate possible interaction between carboxin and germinal cell targets.
3. Conclusion. Based upon clear evidence of clastogenic activity and the requirement for a dominant lethal study, EPA concluded that a FQPA safety factor of 3X is appropriate for this risk assessment. The safety factor of 10X was reduced to 3X because: (1) There is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure; (2) a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required; (3) the dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential for exposures to infants and children; and (4) there are no registered residential uses for carboxin.
E. 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 + residential 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: 2L/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 ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because EPA 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, EPA will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1. Acute risk. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies on carboxin. As a result, carboxin is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite from food will utilize 41% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 92% of the cPAD for children 1-6 years, the most highly exposed population. There are no residential uses for carboxin. In addition, there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 3:
|Population Subgroup||cPAD mg/kg/day||%cPAD (Food)||Surface Water EEC (ppb)||Ground Water EEC(ppb)||Chronic DWLOC(ppb)|
|Children 1-6 years||0.00267||92||0.63||0.09||2|
3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Both short-term aggregate exposure and intermediate-term aggregate exposure take into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Carboxin 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 do not exceed the Agency's level of concern as described in Table 3 above.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Carboxin was classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Therefore, carboxin is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
5. 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 residues of carboxin and its sulfoxide metabolite.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptor Effects
FQPA requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticides and inerts or inactive ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect. . . .” EPA has been working with interested stakeholders to develop a screening and testing program as well as a priority setting scheme. In the available toxicity studies for carboxin, there is no evidence of endocrine disruptor effects. When appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, carboxin may be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.Start Printed Page 40217
B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The current available enforcement methods for tolerances of the combined residues of carboxin and its carboxin sulfoxide metabolite are described in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II. Method I is a colorimetric method which is used for determination of residues in or on corn, peanuts, rice, rice straw, sorghum, soybeans, eggs, meat, and milk. Method II and its modification, Method A, are GLC methods which are used for wheat, oats, barley, peanuts, peanut oil and meal, sorghum, cottonseed, and cottonseed oil and meal. Adequate recovery data were submitted to validate the methods used in the dry bulb onion field trials. Onions were analyzed by a modified version of Method II wherein carboxin and its metabolite are hydrolyzed to aniline, which was determined by GC/ECD.
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Francis Griffith, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 701 Mapes Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
C. International Residue Limits
There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue levels for carboxin in/on onion seed. As a result, harmonization of tolerances is not an issue.
Submission of a dominant lethal assay in rats will be required as a condition of registration due to the evidence of clastogenic potential for carboxin and its potential effect on male germinal cells.
Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of carboxin,(5,6-dihydro-2-methyl-N-phenyl-1,4-oxathiin-3-carboxamide) and its metabolite 5,6-dihydro-3-carboxanilide-2-methyl-1,4-oxathiin-4-oxide (calculated as carboxin) (from treatment of seed prior to planting) in or on onion, dry bulb at 0.2 ppm.
VI. 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 ID number OPP-2002-0028 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 August 12, 2002.
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 email@example.com, 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 VI.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 docket ID number OPP-2002-0028, 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: firstname.lastname@example.org. 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 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.
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 Start Printed Page 40218that 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).
VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
This final rule establishes a tolerance 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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 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); or 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 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. 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). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.” This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
VIII. 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
- Environmental protection
- Administrative practice and procedure
- Agricultural commodities
- Pesticides and pests
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: May 31, 2002.
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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 Amendment Part
2. Section 180.301 is amended by alphabetically adding an entry for the commodity “Onion, dry bulb” to the table in paragraph (a); removing the text in paragraph (b); and reserving paragraph (b) with a heading to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) * * *
|Commodity||Parts per million|
|* * * * *|
|Onion, dry bulb||0.2|
|* * * * *|
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 02-14769 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S