13196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2021–04413 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0665; FRL–10020–34] 

Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of quizalofop 

ethyl in or on multiple commodities 

which are identified and discussed later 

in this document. The Interregional 

Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 8, 2021. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 7, 2021, 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–2019–0665, 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. 

Due to the public health concerns 

related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is 

closed to visitors with limited 

exceptions. The staff continues to 

provide remote customer service via 

email, phone, and webform. For the 

latest status information on EPA/DC 

services and docket access, visit https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director, 

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: RDFRNotices@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Publishing Office’s eCFR 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–2019–0665 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 May 

7, 2021. 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– 

2019–0665, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. 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 May 8, 2020 

(85 FR 27346) (FRL–10008–38), 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 9E8803) by IR–4, Rutgers, 

the State University of New Jersey, 500 

College Road East, Suite 201W, 

Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.441 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the herbicide quizalofop 

ethyl convertible to 2-methoxy-6- 

chloroquinoxaline, expressed as 

quizalofop ethyl, in or on carinata at 1.5 

parts per million (ppm); cottonseed 

subgroup 20C at 0.1 ppm; fruit, pome, 

group 11–10 at 0.1 ppm; fruit, small, 

vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13 07F at 0.1 ppm; fruit, stone, 

group 12–12 at 0.1 ppm; pennycress, 

meal at 2 ppm; pennycress, seed at 1.5 

ppm; and sunflower subgroup 20B at 3 

ppm. Additionally, the petition 

requested, upon approval of the above 

tolerances, to remove the existing 

tolerances in 40 CFR 180.441(a) in or on 

cotton, undelinted seed at 0.1 ppm and 

sunflower, seed at 1.9 ppm. That 

document referenced a summary of the 

petition prepared by AMVAC Chemical 

Corporation, the registrant, which is 

available in the docket, http://

www.regulations.gov. Two comments 

were received on the notice of filing. 

EPA’s response to these comments is 

discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA corrected 

several tolerance definitions and is not 

establishing a tolerance on pennycress, 

meal, as proposed by the petitioner. The 

reasons for these changes are explained 

in Unit IV.D. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13197 

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 quizalofop ethyl 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with quizalofop ethyl 

follows. 

In an effort to streamline its 

publications in the Federal Register, 

EPA is not reprinting sections that 

repeat what has been previously 

published for tolerance rulemakings of 

the same pesticide chemical. Where 

scientific information concerning a 

particular chemical remains unchanged, 

the content of those sections would not 

vary between tolerance rulemakings and 

republishing the same sections is 

unnecessary. EPA considers referral 

back to those sections as sufficient to 

provide an explanation of the 

information EPA considered in making 

its safety determination for the new 

rulemaking. 

EPA has previously published a 

number of tolerance rulemakings for 

quizalofop ethyl, in which EPA 

concluded, based on the available 

information, that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm would result 

from aggregate exposure to quizalofop 

ethyl and established tolerances for 

residues of that chemical. EPA is 

incorporating previously published 

sections from those rulemakings as 

described further in this rulemaking, as 

they remain unchanged. 

Toxicological Profile. For a discussion 

of the Toxicological Profile of 

quizalofop ethyl, see Unit III.A. of the 

February 23, 2018 rulemaking (83 FR 

8006) (FRL–9972–30). 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern. For a summary of the 

Toxicological Points of Departure/ 

Levels of Concern used for the safety 

assessment, see Unit III.B. of the 

December 1, 2016 rulemaking (81 FR 

86581) (FRL–9950–89). 

Exposure Assessment. Much of the 

exposure assessment remains the same, 

although updates have occurred to 

accommodate exposures from the 

petitioned-for tolerances. These updates 

are discussed in this section; for a 

description of the rest of the EPA 

approach to and assumptions for the 

exposure assessment, see Unit III.C. of 

the February 23, 2018 rulemaking. 

EPA’s dietary exposure assessments 

have been updated to include the 

additional exposure from the new uses 

of quizalofop ethyl on brassica carinata; 

fruit, pome, group 11–10; fruit, small, 

vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F; fruit, stone, group 12– 

12; and pennycress and the crop 

subgroup expansions for cottonseed 

subgroup 20C and sunflower subgroup 

20B. The assessment used the same 

assumptions as the February 23, 2018 

final rule concerning tolerance level 

residues and default processing factors 

for all processed commodities except 

sunflower oil, where an empirical factor 

was used. 

Updated average percent crop treated 

values were used for the following crops 

that are currently registered for 

quizalofop-ethyl: Beans, green: 2.5%; 

canola: 5%; cotton: 1%; dry beans/peas: 

15%; peas, green: 2.5%; soybeans: 2.5%; 

sugar beets: 1%; and sunflowers: 5%; 

and 100% crop treated for other 

registered and new uses of quizalofop 

ethyl. 

Anticipated residue and PCT 

information. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of 

FFDCA states that the Agency may use 

data on the actual percent of food 

treated for assessing chronic dietary risk 

only if: 

• Condition a: The data used are 

reliable and provide a valid basis to 

show what percentage of the food 

derived from such crop is likely to 

contain the pesticide residue. 

• Condition b: The exposure estimate 

does not underestimate exposure for any 

significant subpopulation group. 

• Condition c: Data are available on 

pesticide use and food consumption in 

a particular area, and the exposure 

estimate does not understate exposure 

for the population in such area. 

In addition, the Agency must provide 

for periodic evaluation of any estimates 

used. To provide for the periodic 

evaluation of the estimate of PCT as 

required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), 

EPA may require registrants to submit 

data on PCT. 

In most cases, EPA uses available data 

from United States Department of 

Agriculture/National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), 

proprietary market surveys, and the 

National Pesticide Use Database for the 

chemical/crop combination for the most 

recent 6 to 7 years. EPA uses an average 

PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. 

The average PCT figure for each existing 

use is derived by combining available 

public and private market survey data 

for that use, averaging across all 

observations, and rounding to the 

nearest 5%, except for those situations 

in which the average PCT is less than 

one. In those cases, 1% is used as the 

average PCT and 2.5% is used as the 

maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum 

PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The 

maximum PCT figure is the highest 

observed maximum value reported 

within the recent 6 years of available 

public and private market survey data 

for the existing use and rounded up to 

the nearest multiple of 5%. 

The Agency believes that Conditions 

a, b, and c discussed above have been 

met. With respect to Condition a, PCT 

estimates are derived from Federal and 

private market survey data, which are 

reliable and have a valid basis. The 

Agency is reasonably certain that the 

percentage of the food treated is not 

likely to be an underestimation. As to 

Conditions b and c, regional 

consumption information and 

consumption information for significant 

subpopulations is taken into account 

through EPA’s computer-based model 

for evaluating the exposure of 

significant subpopulations including 

several regional groups. Use of this 

consumption information in EPA’s risk 

assessment process ensures that EPA’s 

exposure estimate does not understate 

exposure for any significant 

subpopulation group and allows the 

Agency to be reasonably certain that no 

regional population is exposed to 

residue levels higher than those 

estimated by the Agency. Other than the 

data available through national food 

consumption surveys, EPA does not 

have available reliable information on 

the regional consumption of food to 

which quizalofop-ethyl may be applied 

in a particular area. 

Drinking water, non-occupational, 

and cumulative exposures. Drinking 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
13198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

water exposures and residential (nonoccupational) exposures are not 

impacted by the new uses, and thus 

have not changed since the last 

assessment. EPA’s conclusions 

concerning cumulative risk remain 

unchanged from the February 23, 2018 

rulemaking. 

Safety Factor for Infants and 

Children. EPA continues to conclude 

that there is reliable data to support the 

reduction of the Food Quality Protection 

Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. 

of the February 23, 2018 rulemaking for 

a discussion of the Agency’s rationale 

for that determination. 

Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety. EPA determines whether acute 

and chronic dietary pesticide exposures 

are safe by comparing dietary exposure 

estimates to the acute population 

adjusted dose (aPAD) and the chronic 

population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-, 

intermediate-, and chronic-term risks 

are evaluated by comparing the 

estimated aggregate food, water, and 

residential exposure to the appropriate 

points of departure to ensure that an 

adequate margin of exposure (MOE) 

exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA 

calculates the lifetime probability of 

acquiring cancer given the estimated 

aggregate exposure. 

An acute dietary exposure assessment 

was not conducted as toxicological 

effects attributable to a single dose were 

not identified. Chronic dietary risks are 

below the Agency’s level of concern of 

100% of the cPAD: They are 92% of the 

cPAD for all infants less than 1-year old, 

the population subgroup with the 

highest exposure estimate. Quizalofopethyl is classified as a Category D 

chemical, i.e. ‘‘Not Classifiable as to 

Human Carcinogenicity;’’ therefore, 

quantification of chronic risks using a 

non-linear approach will adequately 

account for all chronic toxicity, 

including any potential carcinogenicity 

that would result from exposure. There 

are no registered or new uses of 

quizalofop ethyl that would result in 

residential exposure, therefore the 

aggregate risk estimates are equivalent 

to the chronic dietary (food and water) 

risk estimates and are not of concern. 

Therefore, based on the risk 

assessments and information described 

above, EPA concludes there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to the general population, or to 

infants and children, from aggregate 

exposure to quizalofop ethyl residues. 

More detailed information about the 

Agency’s analysis can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

documents titled ‘‘Quizalofop-P-ethyl. 

Human-Health Risk Assessment in 

Support of the Proposed New Uses on 

Carinata, Pennycress, Pome Fruit 

(Group 11–10), Stone Fruit (Group 12– 

12), and Small Vine-climbing Fruit, 

Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (Subgroup 13– 

07F); and Use Expansions for Sunflower 

and Cottonseed (Subgroups 20B and 

20C)’’ in docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2019–0665. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

For a discussion of the available 

analytical enforcement method, see Unit 

IV.A. of the February 23, 2018 

rulemaking. 

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 has not established MRLs 

for quizalofop ethyl. 

C. Response to Comments 

Although two comments were 

submitted to the docket in response to 

the May 8, 2020 Notice of Filing, only 

one specifically related to this tolerance 

action. The commenter requested that 

EPA deny IR–4’s request for tolerances 

for quizalofop ethyl on cotton sunflower 

seeds out of a concern for the general 

health impacts of pesticides. 

Although the Agency recognizes that 

some individuals believe that pesticides 

should be banned on agricultural crops, 

the existing legal framework provided 

by section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes 

EPA to establish tolerances when it 

determines that the tolerance is safe. 

Upon consideration of the validity, 

completeness, and reliability of the 

available data as well as other factors 

the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, 

EPA has determined that the quizalofop 

ethyl tolerances are safe. The 

commenter has provided no information 

indicating that a safety determination 

cannot be supported. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The commodity definition for carinata 

has been revised to brassica carinata, 

seed; and brassica carinata, meal. The 

tolerance for brassica carinata, seed will 

be established at 1.5 ppm; and the 

tolerance for brassica carinata, meal will 

be established at 2 ppm. EPA is not 

establishing a tolerance for pennycress, 

meal as requested by the petitioner 

because the glucosinolates in 

pennycress meal restrict its use to a 

livestock feedstuff, not a human food. 

EPA’s current practice is to set 

tolerances for livestock feedstuffs only if 

they are significant, which is not the 

case for pennycress meal. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of quizalofop ethyl 

convertible to 2-methoxy-6- 

chloroquinoxaline, expressed as 

quizalofop ethyl, in or on brassica 

carinata, meal at 2 ppm; brassica 

carinata, seed at 1.5 ppm; cottonseed 

subgroup 20C at 0.1 ppm; fruit, pome, 

group 11–10 at 0.1 ppm; fruit, small, 

vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F at 0.1 ppm; fruit, 

stone, group 12–12 at 0.1 ppm; 

pennycress, seed at 1.5 ppm; and 

sunflower subgroup 20B at 3 ppm. Upon 

establishment of the above tolerances, 

the established tolerances for cotton, 

undelinted seed at 0.1 ppm; and 

sunflower, seed at 1.9 ppm will be 

removed as they are superseded by the 

new tolerances on subgroups 20C and 

20B, respectively. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to petitions 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), nor is it considered a 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations 

and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82 

FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 13199 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerances in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or Tribal Governments, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States or Tribal 

Governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In 

addition, this action does not impose 

any enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 2, 2021. 

Marietta Echeverria, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE 

CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 180.441, amend the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) as follows: 

■ i. Add a table heading. 

■ ii. Add alphabetically the entries 

‘‘Brassica carinata, meal’’; and ‘‘Brassica 

carinata, seed’’. 

■ iii. Remove the entry for ‘‘Cotton, 

undelinted seed’’. 

■ iv. Add alphabetically the entries 

‘‘Cottonseed subgroup 20C’’; ‘‘Fruit, 

pome, group 11–10’’; ‘‘Fruit, small, vine 

climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 

subgroup 13–07F’’; ‘‘Fruit, stone, group 

12–12’’; and ‘‘Pennycress, seed’’. 

■ v. Remove the entry for ‘‘Sunflower, 

seed’’. 

■ vi. Add alphabetically the entry 

‘‘Sunflower subgroup 20B’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1) 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*******

Brassica carinata, meal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Brassica carinata, seed ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5 

* * * * * * * 

Cottonseed subgroup 20C ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

* * * * * * * 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F .................................................................................................. 0.1 

Fruit, stone, group 12–12 .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

* * * * * * * 

Pennycress, seed ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1.5 

* * * * * * * 

Sunflower subgroup 20B ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
13200 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–04720 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013; 

FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] 

RIN 1018–BD59 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removing Bradshaw’s 

Lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) 

From the Federal List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), remove 

Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium 

bradshawii, also known as Bradshaw’s 

desert parsley), a plant found in western 

Oregon and southwestern Washington, 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Plants. Our review of the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data indicates that the threats to 

Bradshaw’s lomatium have been 

eliminated or reduced to the point that 

the species no longer meets the 

definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 7, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under FWS–R1– 

ES–2019–0013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Henson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, 

Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266; 

telephone 503–231–6179. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal Relay 

Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

On November 26, 2019, we published 

in the Federal Register (84 FR 65067) a 

proposed rule to remove Bradshaw’s 

lomatium from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Plants (i.e., to ‘‘delist’’ 

the species). Please refer to that 

proposed rule for a detailed description 

of the Federal actions concerning this 

species that occurred prior to November 

26, 2019. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

In response to public comments and 

in the process of developing this final 

rule, we have made the following 

changes from our November 26, 2019, 

proposed rule (84 FR 65067): 

• We added language in the final 

post-delisting monitoring plan to 

indicate that additional Bradshaw’s 

lomatium populations may be visited 

upon occasion, as time and resources 

allow, to provide for a ‘‘spot check’’ on 

the status of additional populations that 

are outside of the 18 priority sites 

identified for regular visits during the 

post-delisting monitoring period. These 

abbreviated field visits may collect 

information through assessment of 

population abundance, photo points, 

and/or evaluation of management 

practices and habitat condition. 

• We incorporated into the preamble 

to this final rule mention of the recently 

developed MOU among the U.S. Army 

Core of Engineers, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service and the Service, to 

provide for the long-term conservation 

of Bradshaw’s lomatium, regardless of 

listing status. 

• We made minor editorial changes in 

the preamble of this final rule, including 

revising our description of how we 

develop and implement recovery plans, 

adding additional discussion about 

which recovery criteria were met, 

inserting an updated description of our 

regulatory and analytical frameworks, 

updating our description of how we 

determine species status throughout all 

or a portion of the species’ range, and 

making minor textual updates to our 

assessment of Bradshaw’s lomatium’s 

status throughout a portion of its range. 

I. Final Delisting Determination 

Background 

Status Assessment for Bradshaw’s 

Lomatium 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of Bradshaw’s 

lomatium is presented in the document 

‘‘Species Status Assessment Report for 

Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium 

bradshawii (Rose ex. Math.) Mathias & 

Constance) Version 1.0’’ (SSA report) 

(Service 2018), which is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov in Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2019–0013, under 

Supporting Documents. The SSA report 

documents the results of our 

comprehensive biological status review 

for Bradshaw’s lomatium, and has 

undergone peer review. The SSA report 

does not represent any decision by the 

Service regarding the status of 

Bradshaw’s lomatium under the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). It does, however, 

provide the scientific basis that 

informed our most recent 5-year status 

review, which resulted in a 

recommendation that the species should 

be removed from the List. The SSA 

report also served as one of the bases for 

this final rule and our regulatory 

decision, which involves the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 

In this final rule, we present only a 

summary of the key results and 

conclusions from the SSA report; the 

full report is available at http://

www.regulations.gov, as referenced 

above. 

Summary of the Biology of the Species 

Bradshaw’s lomatium is a perennial 

herb in the carrot or parsley family 

(Apiaceae) that is endemic to wet prairie 

habitats in western Oregon’s Willamette 

Valley and adjacent southwestern 

Washington. These seasonally wet 

habitats may be flooded in the spring, or 

have soils saturated at or near the 

surface due to factors such as heavy 

precipitation in winter and spring, 

flooding, and poor drainage. A high 

light environment is important for 

Bradshaw’s lomatium to complete its 

life cycle and reproduce, as reduced 

sunlight is associated with lower flower 

and seed production (Alverson 1993, 

unpublished data). This species is often 

associated with tufted hairgrass 

(Deschampsia cespitosa), and frequently 

occurs on and around the small mounds 

created by senescent tufted hairgrass 

plants. In wetter areas, Bradshaw’s 

lomatium occurs on the edges of tufted 

hairgrass or sedges in patches of bare or 

open soil. In drier areas, it is found in 

low areas, such as small depressions, 

trails, or seasonal channels, with open, 

exposed soils. Self-fertilization is rare in 

Bradshaw’s lomatium (Kaye and 

Kirkland 1994, p. 8), indicating that 

pollinator-mediated outcrossing is 

required for reproduction. Over 30 

species of solitary bees, flies, wasps, and 

beetles have been observed visiting the 

flowers (Kaye 1992, p. 3; Kaye and 

Kirkland 1994, p. 9; Jackson 1996, pp. 

72–76). Bradshaw’s lomatium does not 

reproduce asexually and depends 

exclusively on seeds for reproduction 

(Kaye 1992, p. 2), but does not maintain 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES