81 FR 49165 - Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 144 (July 27, 2016)

Page Range		49165-49169
FR Document		2016-17786
This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49165-49169]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735; FRL-9948-73]


Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of 
etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested 
this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 27, 2016. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 2016, 
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's 
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government 
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must 
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before 
September 26, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections 
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without 
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online

[[Page 49166]]

instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
5F8398) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riveira Avenue, Suite 200, 
Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, 
etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean at 0.01 parts per 
million (ppm). A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's 
response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The 
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary 
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in 
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. 
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special 
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide 
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . 
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors 
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available 
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this 
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a 
determination on aggregate exposure for etoxazole including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole 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 effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all 
species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and 
histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to 
increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors 
(elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower 
incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No 
toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study 
in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic.
    No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were 
observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the 
developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe 
(increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and 
adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 mg/kg/day) in the rat 
reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. 
Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic based on the lack of 
carcinogenicity effects in the database.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by etoxazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level 
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pages 20-23 of the document titled ``Etoxazole: 
Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Use and Tolerances 
for Residues of Etoxazole in/on Soybean Seed'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2015-0735.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the 
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to 
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) 
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified 
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with 
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a 
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe 
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes 
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the 
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of 
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the 
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for 
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75426) 
(FRL-9934-60).

 C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for 
tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole in food as 
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk 
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological 
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring 
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for 
etoxazole;

[[Page 49167]]

therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is 
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National 
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America 
(NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 
tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to 
account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in 
the absence of empirical data, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) 
(ver 7.81) default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that etoxazole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing 
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary 
assessment for etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were 
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of etoxazole. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and 
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated 
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic 
exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface 
water and 0.746 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Etoxazole is not 
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in 
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative 
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances 
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity 
with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a 
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this 
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole does not 
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For 
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a 
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of 
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA 
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants 
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal 
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity 
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This 
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, 
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different 
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support 
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased quantitative or 
qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure 
to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies. There is evidence of 
increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat reproduction 
study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-
characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are 
protective of the doses where the offspring toxicity is observed; and 
(3) offspring effects occur in the presence of parental toxicity. There 
are no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following 
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for etoxazole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that etoxazole is a neurotoxic chemical 
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or 
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected 
for by the selected endpoints.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative 
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments 
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide 
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the 
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA 
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the 
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term 
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, 
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an 
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure 
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 
etoxazole 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 chronic exposure to 
etoxazole from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 
1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. 
There are no residential uses for etoxazole.
    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermedieate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level).

[[Page 49168]]

    A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; 
however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would 
result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. 
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or 
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. 
Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure 
and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the 
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the 
POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further 
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA 
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and 
intermediate-term risk for etoxazole.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of 
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity 
studies, etoxazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 or to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to etoxazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective 
detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD)) are 
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for etoxazole in or on soybean 
seed.

C. Response to Comments

    A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was 
primarily concerned about environmental risks, including impacts on 
pollinators and endangered species, and Agency's assessment of the 
pesticide product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise any specific issues 
concerning the safety of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, this 
comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the 
etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential 
harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on 
the environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm is below the validated limit of 
quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the analytical method and is 
therefore being raised to the LOQ level.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of etoxazole, 2-
(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-
dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any 
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any 
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 49169]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
 Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.\

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  180.593, add alphabetically the commodity ``Soybean, seed'' 
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  180.593  Etoxazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts  (per
                        Commodity                            million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Soybean, seed...........................................            0.02
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17786 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
49168 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

A short- and intermediate-term organization in trade agreements to subject to OMB approval under the
adverse effect was identified; however, which the United States is a party. EPA Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
etoxazole is not registered for any use may establish a tolerance that is U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
patterns that would result in either different from a Codex MRL; however, any special considerations under
short- or intermediate-term residential FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that Executive Order 12898, entitled
exposure. Short- and intermediate-term EPA explain the reasons for departing ‘‘Federal Actions to Address
risk is assessed based on short- or from the Codex level. Environmental Justice in Minority
intermediate-term residential exposure The Codex has not established a MRL Populations and Low-Income
plus chronic dietary exposure. Because for etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
there is no short- or intermediate-term C. Response to Comments 1994).
residential exposure and chronic dietary Since tolerances and exemptions that
exposure has already been assessed A comment was submitted by the
Center for Food Safety and was are established on the basis of a petition
under the appropriately protective under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
cPAD (which is at least as protective as primarily concerned about
environmental risks, including impacts the tolerance in this final rule, do not
the POD used to assess short- or require the issuance of a proposed rule,
intermediate-term risk), no further on pollinators and endangered species,
and Agency’s assessment of the the requirements of the Regulatory
assessment of short- or intermediate- Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on pesticide product under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide seq.), do not apply.
the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short- and intermediate-term Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise This action directly regulates growers,
risk for etoxazole. any specific issues concerning the safety food processors, food handlers, and food
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, retailers, not States or tribes, nor does
population. Based on the lack of this comment is not relevant to the this action alter the relationships or
evidence of carcinogenicity in two Agency’s evaluation of safety of the distribution of power and
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the responsibilities established by Congress
etoxazole is not expected to pose a FFDCA focuses on potential harms to in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
cancer risk to humans. human health and does not permit section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
5. Determination of safety. Based on consideration of effects on the has determined that this action will not
these risk assessments, EPA concludes environment. have a substantial direct effect on States
that there is a reasonable certainty that or tribal governments, on the
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For relationship between the national
no harm will result to the general Tolerances
population or to infants and children government and the States or tribal
from aggregate exposure to etoxazole The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm governments, or on the distribution of
residues. is below the validated limit of power and responsibilities among the
quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the various levels of government or between
IV. Other Considerations analytical method and is therefore being the Federal Government and Indian
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology raised to the LOQ level. tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
V. Conclusion that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Adequate enforcement methodology ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
(gas chromatography/mass-selective Therefore, a tolerance is established 1999) and Executive Order 13175,
detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen- for residues of etoxazole, 2-(2,6- entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
phosphorus detector (NPD)) are difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1- with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
available to enforce the tolerance dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5- 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
expression. dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed to this action. In addition, this action
The methods may be requested from: at 0.02 ppm. does not impose any enforceable duty or
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, contain any unfunded mandate as
Environmental Science Center, 701 VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350; Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; This action establishes a tolerance 1501 et seq.).
email address: residuemethods@ under FFDCA section 408(d) in
epa.gov. response to a petition submitted to the This action does not involve any
Agency. The Office of Management and technical standards that would require
B. International Residue Limits Budget (OMB) has exempted these types Agency consideration of voluntary
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA of actions from review under Executive consensus standards pursuant to section
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 12(d) of the National Technology
international standards whenever Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, Transfer and Advancement Act
possible, consistent with U.S. food October 4, 1993). Because this action (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
safety standards and agricultural has been exempted from review under VII. Congressional Review Act
practices. EPA considers the Executive Order 12866, this action is
international maximum residue limits not subject to Executive Order 13211, Pursuant to the Congressional Review
(MRLs) established by the Codex entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as Regulations That Significantly Affect submit a report containing this rule and
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 other required information to the U.S.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

The Codex Alimentarius is a joint FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Senate, the U.S. House of
United Nations Food and Agriculture Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Representatives, and the Comptroller
Organization/World Health Children from Environmental Health General of the United States prior to
Organization food standards program, Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, publication of the rule in the Federal
and it is recognized as an international April 23, 1997). This action does not Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
food safety standards-setting contain any information collections rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 49169

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 management measures prior to the pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Environmental protection, effective suspension date given in this Disaster Relief and Emergency
Administrative practice and procedure, rule, the suspension will not occur and Assistance Act not in connection with a
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides a notice of this will be provided by flood) may be provided for construction
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping publication in the Federal Register on a or acquisition of buildings in identified
requirements. subsequent date. Also, information SFHAs for communities not
identifying the current participation participating in the NFIP and identified
Dated: July 14, 2016. status of a community can be obtained for more than a year on FEMA’s initial
Susan Lewis, from FEMA’s Community Status Book FIRM for the community as having
Director, Registration Division, Office of (CSB). The CSB is available at http:// flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the
Pesticide Programs. www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is DATES: The effective date of each 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This
amended as follows: community’s scheduled suspension is prohibition against certain types of
the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the Federal assistance becomes effective for
PART 180—[AMENDED] third column of the following tables. the communities listed on the date
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If shown in the last column. The
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
you want to determine whether a Administrator finds that notice and
continues to read as follows: public comment procedures under 5
particular community was suspended
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. on the suspension date or for further U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and
■ 2. In § 180.593, add alphabetically the information, contact Patricia Suber, unnecessary because communities listed
commodity ‘‘Soybean, seed’’ to the table Federal Insurance and Mitigation in this final rule have been adequately
in paragraph (a) to read as follows: Administration, Federal Emergency notified.
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Each community receives 6-month,
§ 180.593 Etoxazole; tolerances for Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4149. 90-day, and 30-day notification letters
residues. addressed to the Chief Executive Officer
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
(a) * * * enables property owners to purchase stating that the community will be
Federal flood insurance that is not suspended unless the required
Parts floodplain management measures are
Commodity otherwise generally available from
(per million)
private insurers. In return, communities met prior to the effective suspension
agree to adopt and administer local date. Since these notifications were
* * * * * floodplain management measures aimed made, this final rule may take effect
Soybean, seed ...................... 0.02 at protecting lives and new construction within less than 30 days.
from future flooding. Section 1315 of National Environmental Policy Act.
* * * * * This rule is categorically excluded from
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
* * * * * Environmental Considerations. No
[FR Doc. 2016–17786 Filed 7–26–16; 8:45 am]
prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public environmental impact assessment has
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P been prepared.
body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
enforcement measures. The Administrator has determined that this
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND communities listed in this document no rule is exempt from the requirements of
SECURITY longer meet that statutory requirement the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
for compliance with program the National Flood Insurance Act of
Federal Emergency Management 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42
Agency regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance
suspended on the effective date in the coverage unless an appropriate public
44 CFR Part 64 body adopts adequate floodplain
third column. As of that date, flood
[Docket ID FEMA–2016–0002; Internal insurance will no longer be available in management measures with effective
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8439] the community. We recognize that some enforcement measures. The
of these communities may adopt and communities listed no longer comply
Suspension of Community Eligibility submit the required documentation of with the statutory requirements, and
AGENCY: Federal Emergency legally enforceable floodplain after the effective date, flood insurance
Management Agency, DHS. management measures after this rule is will no longer be available in the
ACTION: Final rule. published but prior to the actual communities unless remedial action
suspension date. These communities takes place.
SUMMARY: This rule identifies will not be suspended and will continue Regulatory Classification. This final
communities where the sale of flood to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood rule is not a significant regulatory action
insurance has been authorized under insurance. A notice withdrawing the under the criteria of section 3(f) of
the National Flood Insurance Program suspension of such communities will be Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
(NFIP) that are scheduled for published in the Federal Register. 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
suspension on the effective dates listed In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood 58 FR 51735.
within this rule because of Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

noncompliance with the floodplain identifies the Special Flood Hazard This rule involves no policies that have
management requirements of the Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. federalism implications under Executive
program. If the Federal Emergency The date of the FIRM, if one has been Order 13132.
Management Agency (FEMA) receives published, is indicated in the fourth Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
documentation that the community has column of the table. No direct Federal Reform. This rule meets the applicable
adopted the required floodplain financial assistance (except assistance standards of Executive Order 12988.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Jul 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\27JYR1.SGM 27JYR1
Document Created: 2018-02-08 08:02:54
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 08:02:54
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		This regulation is effective July 27, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
Contact		Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
FR Citation		81 FR 49165
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Administrative Practice and Procedure; Agricultural Commodities; Pesticides and Pests and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements