46274 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule. In addition, this 

final rule does not impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (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 of 1995 

(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: July 25, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 180.207: 

■ a. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraph (a). 

■ b. Remove the commodities cotton 

undelinted seed; flax, seed; mustard, 

seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; 

and sunflower, seed in the table in 

paragraph (a). 

■ c. Add alphabetically the following 

commodity to the table in paragraph (a). 

The amendment read as follows: 

§ 180.207 Trifluralin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of trifluralin, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the following table. Compliance with 

the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table is to be determined by 

only trifluralin a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6- 

dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine, in or 

on the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Oilseed, crop group 20 ............... 0.05 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–18420 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0439 and EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2012–0514; FRL–9393–6] 

Pyroxasulfone; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of pyroxasulfone 

in or on multiple commodities which 

are identified and discussed later in this 

document. K–I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. 

requested these tolerances under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

31, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 30, 2013, 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–2012–0439 and 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0514, 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), EPA West 

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: Lois 

Rossi, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; 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 Printing Office’s e-CFR 

site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

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–2012–0439 and EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0514 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 30, 2013. Addresses 

for mail and hand delivery of objections 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46275 

1EPA’s July 25, 2012 notification of the requested 

tolerance contained an error. It stated that 

petitioners requested a tolerance of the parent 

pyroxasulfone and the M–1 and M–25 metabolites 

on ‘‘wheat, grain at 0.6 ppm’’ instead of ‘‘wheat, 

straw at 0.6 ppm’’ as the petitioners requested. To 

address the error and provide notice of requested 

tolerance, EPA issued a correction. See 77 FR 

59577; FRL–9364–3 (Sept. 28, 2012). 

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– 

2012–0439 and EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0514, 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 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

contacts.htm. 

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 July 25, 

2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL–9353–6), 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 2F8026) by K–I Chemical 

U.S.A., Inc. The petition requested that 

40 CFR 180.659 be amended by 

establishing tolerances for residues of 

the herbicide, pyroxasulfone (3-[(5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole), in or on wheat, 

grain at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); 

pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)- 

1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its 

metabolites M–1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1- 

methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4- 

ylmethanesulfonic acid) and M–25 (5- 

difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1 Hpyrazol-4-yl)methanesulfonic acid) 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of pyroxasulfone, in or on 

wheat, straw at 0.6 ppm; 1 and 

pyroxasulfone (3-[(5-(difluoromethoxy)- 

1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its 

metabolites M–1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1- 

methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4- 

ylmethanesulfonic acid), M–3 (5- 

difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3- 

trifluoromethyl-1 H-pyrazol-4- 

carboxylic acid), and M–25 (5- 

difluoromethoxy-3-trifluoromethyl-1 Hpyrazol-4-yl) methanesulfonic acid) 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of pyroxasulfone in or on 

wheat, forage at 6.0 ppm and wheat, hay 

at 1.0 ppm. 

Also, in the Federal Register of 

August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50661) (FRL– 

9358–9), 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 2F8042) by 

K–I Chemical U.S.A., Inc. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.659 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the pyroxasulfone, (3-[(5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolite 

M–3 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3- 

trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- 

carboxylic acid), in or on cotton seed at 

0.01 ppm and pyroxasulfone (3-[(5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl) pyrazole-4- 

ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethyl-1,2-oxazole) and its metabolite 

M–1 (5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-3- 

trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazol-4- 

ylmethanesulfonic acid calculated as 

the stoichiometric equivalent of 

pyroxasulfone in or on cotton, gin 

byproducts at 0.2 ppm. 

These documents referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

K.I. Chemical U.S.A., Inc. the registrant, 

c/o Landis International, Inc., which is 

available in the associated dockets, 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

either of these notices of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

increased the proposed tolerances for 

wheat, grain and cotton, undelinted 

seed and established a tolerance for 

milk. The reason for these changes are 

explained in Unit IV.C. 

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 pyroxasulfone 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with pyroxasulfone 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. Pyroxasulfone 

acute toxicity to mammals is low by all 

routes of exposure. Subchronic and 

chronic oral toxicity testing of 

pyroxasulfone in mice, rats, and dogs 

produced a variety of adverse effects in 

several target organs. Effects seen in 

animal studies included cardiac toxicity 

(increased cardiomyopathy in mice and 

rats), liver toxicity (centrilobular 

hepatocellular hypertrophy, 

histopathological, and/or clinical 

pathological indicators), neurotoxicity 

characterized by axonal/myelin 

degeneration in the sciatic nerve (dog, 

mouse, and rat) and spinal cord sections 

(dog), skeletal muscle myopathy, kidney 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46276 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

toxicity (increased incidence of chronic 

progressive nephropathy in dogs and 

retrograde nephropathy in mice), 

urinary bladder mucosal hyperplasia, 

inflammation, and urinary bladder 

transitional cell papillomas (rats). 

Decreased body weight and enzyme 

changes were noted in some studies. 

Immunotoxicity studies in rats and mice 

showed no evidence of immunotoxic 

effects from pyroxasulfone. 

Pyroxasulfone was moderately toxic to 

rats following a 4-week dermal exposure 

producing local inflammation and 

systemic effects of minimal to mild 

cardiac myofiber degeneration at the 

limit dose. No adverse effects were 

noted in a 28-day inhalation study at the 

highest-dose tested. Pyroxasulfone did 

not exhibit developmental toxicity in 

the rat and exhibited only slight 

developmental toxicity in rabbits 

(reduced fetal weight and resorptions) at 

the limit dose. However, developmental 

effects were noted in post-natal day 

(PND) 21 offspring in the rat 

developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) 

study characterized as decreased brain 

weight and morphometric changes. 

Developmental effects in the rabbit 

developmental study and DNT study 

occurred in the absence of maternal 

toxicity, indicating potential increased 

quantitative susceptibility of offspring. 

In a reproductive toxicity in rats 

reduced pup weight and body weight 

gains during lactation occurred at 

similar or higher doses causing 

pronounced maternal toxicity (reduced 

body weight, body weight gain, and 

food consumption and increased kidney 

weight, cardiomyopathy, and urinary 

bladder mucosal hyperplasia with 

inflammation). In cancer studies in mice 

and rats, renal tubular adenomas were 

observed in male mice and urinary 

bladder transitional cell papillomas 

were observed in male rats. The kidney 

adenomas in male mice were 

determined to be spontaneous and not 

treatment-related based on the following 

considerations: 

1. Absence of any cytotoxicity 

(degeneration or individual cell 

necrosis) in studies ranging from 14 

days to 18 months at doses up to 15,000 

ppm. 

2. Absence of cell regeneration 

leading to precursor lesions such as 

atypical tubular hyperplasia at all time 

points and doses up to 15,000 ppm. 

3. Lack of exacerbation of chronic 

progressive nephropathy, a spontaneous 

disease in rodents that results in cell 

regeneration which can result in renal 

tubule tumors in chronic studies. 

4. Lack of a clear dose response in the 

distribution of tumors between test 

substance treated groups. 

The urinary bladder tumors seen in 

male rats were determined to be a 

threshold effect. Pyroxasulfone 

exposure causes the growth of crystals 

in the urinary tract with subsequent 

calculi formation resulting in cellular 

damage. Crystal formation in the 

absence of calculi is not associated with 

hyperplasia or urinary bladder tumors; 

therefore, the formation of urinary 

bladder calculi is the prerequisite for 

subsequent hyperplasia and neoplasia. 

In other words, urinary bladder tumors 

do not develop at doses too low to 

produce calculi. There is also a clear 

threshold of 1,000 ppm (42.55 

milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) 

for development of calculi and 

tumorigenesis. The point of departure 

(POD) of 50 ppm (2.0 mg/kg/day) 

selected for chronic risk assessment is 

not expected to result in urinary bladder 

calculi formation, which is a 

prerequisite for subsequent hyperplasia 

and neoplasia. Therefore, the Agency 

has determined that the quantification 

of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., 

Reference dose (RfD)) will adequately 

account for all chronic toxicity, 

including carcinogenicity, that could 

result from exposure to pyroxasulfone. 

There is no concern for mutagenicity. 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by pyroxasulfone as well 

as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level 

(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in document 

‘‘Pyroxasulfone Human Health Risk 

Assessment for Use of Pyroxasulfone on 

Wheat and Cotton,’’ p. 36 in docket ID 

numbers EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0439 and 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0514. 

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:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ 

riskassess.htm. 

A summary of the toxicological 

endpoints for pyroxasulfone used for 

human risk assessment is discussed in 

Unit III.B. of the final rule published in 

the Federal Register of February 29, 

2012 (77 FR 12207) (FRL–9334–2). 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to pyroxasulfone, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing pyroxasulfone tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.659. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from pyroxasulfone 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. Such effects were identified 

for pyroxasulfone. In estimating acute 

dietary exposure, EPA used food 

consumption information from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s National 

Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey, What We Eat in America, 

(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels 

in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop 

treated (PCT) at tolerance-level residues 

adjusted upward to account for 

metabolites which are not in the 

tolerance expression from specific use 

patterns. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s NHANES/WWEIA. As to 

residue levels in food, EPA made the 

same assumptions (adjusted tolerancelevel residues and 100 PCT) as in the 

acute dietary exposure assessment. 

iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether 

quantitative cancer exposure and risk 

assessments are appropriate for a fooduse pesticide based on the weight of the 

evidence from cancer studies and other 

relevant data. Cancer risk is quantified 

using a linear or nonlinear approach. If 

sufficient information on the 

carcinogenic mode of action is available, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46277 

a threshold or nonlinear approach is 

used and a cancer RfD is calculated 

based on an earlier noncancer key event. 

If carcinogenic mode of action data are 

not available, or if the mode of action 

data determines a mutagenic mode of 

action, a default linear cancer slope 

factor approach is utilized. Based on the 

data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that a nonlinear RfD 

approach is appropriate for assessing 

cancer risk to pyroxasulfone. Cancer 

risk was assessed using the same 

exposure estimates as discussed in Unit 

III.C.1.ii. 

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT 

information. EPA did not use 

anticipated residue and/or PCT 

information in the dietary assessment 

for pyroxasulfone. Adjusted tolerance 

level residues and/or 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 pyroxasulfone in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

pyroxasulfone. Further information 

regarding EPA drinking water models 

used in pesticide exposure assessment 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. 

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone 

Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 

System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide 

Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM 

GW), the estimated drinking water 

concentrations (EDWCs) of 

pyroxasulfone for acute exposures are 

estimated to be 17 parts per billion 

(ppb) for surface water and 210 ppb for 

ground water. EDWCs of pyroxasulfone 

for chronic exposures for non-cancer 

assessments are estimated to be 3.2 ppb 

for surface water and 174 ppb for 

ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

acute dietary risk assessment, the water 

concentration value of 210 ppb was 

used to assess the contribution to 

drinking water. For chronic dietary risk 

assessment, the water concentration of 

value 174 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 nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Pyroxasulfone 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 pyroxasulfone to share a common 

mechanism of toxicity with any other 

substances, and pyroxasulfone does not 

appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has assumed that 

pyroxasulfone 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:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

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 

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. 

The pre-natal and post-natal toxicity 

database for pyroxasulfone includes 

developmental toxicity studies in rats 

and rabbits, a DNT study in rats, and a 

2-generation reproduction toxicity study 

in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., 

evidence of increased susceptibility of 

fetuses and offspring was seen in the 

DNT study and developmental toxicity 

study in rabbits following in utero or 

post-natal exposure to pyroxasulfone. 

No increased susceptibility was seen in 

the rat developmental or reproduction 

toxicity studies. In rabbits, 

developmental toxicity was only seen at 

the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day as 

reduced fetal weight and increased fetal 

resorptions with a NOAEL of 500 mg/ 

kg/day for these effects, compared to no 

maternal toxicity at these doses. In a 

DNT study in rats, offspring toxicity 

(decreased brain weight and 

morphometric changes on PND 21) was 

seen at 300 mg/kg/day compared to no 

maternal toxicity at 900 mg/kg/day. The 

degree of concern for the increased 

susceptibility seen in these studies is 

low and there are no residual 

uncertainties based on the following 

considerations: 

i. The increased susceptibility is 

occurring at high doses. 

ii. NOAELs and LOAELs have been 

identified for all effects of concern, and 

thus a clear dose response has been well 

defined. 

iii. The PODs selected for risk 

assessment are protective of the fetal/ 

offspring effects. 

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: 

i. The toxicity database for 

pyroxasulfone is complete. 

ii. Pyroxasulfone is a neurotoxic 

chemical and there is evidence of 

increased susceptibility of offspring 

with regard to neurotoxic effects in the 

rat DNT study. There is also evidence of 

increased susceptibility of fetuses/ 

offspring with regard to non-neurotoxic 

effects in the rabbit developmental 

toxicity study. However, the concern for 

the increased susceptibility is low for 

the reasons stated in Unit III.D.2.; 

therefore, EPA determined that a 10X 

FQPA safety factor is not necessary to 

protect infants and children. 

iii. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100 PCT and 

adjusted tolerance-level residues. EPA 

made conservative (protective) 

assumptions in the ground and surface 

water modeling used to assess exposure 

to pyroxasulfone in drinking water. 

These assessments will not 

underestimate the exposure and risks 

posed by pyroxasulfone. 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46278 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE 

exists. 

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions discussed in this unit for 

acute exposure, the acute dietary 

exposure from food and water to 

pyroxasulfone will occupy 3.6% of the 

aPAD for all infants (< 1-year-old), the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. 

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions described in this unit for 

chronic exposure, EPA has concluded 

that chronic exposure to pyroxasulfone 

from food and water will utilize 48% of 

the cPAD for all infants (< 1-year-old) 

the population group receiving the 

greatest exposure. There are no 

residential uses for pyroxasulfone. 

3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. 

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate 

exposure takes into account short- and 

intermediate-term residential exposure 

plus chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Short- and 

intermediate-term adverse effects were 

identified; however, pyroxasulfone is 

not registered for any use patterns that 

would result in short- or intermediateterm residential 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- and 

intermediate-term risk), no further 

assessment of short- or intermediateterm risk is necessary, and EPA relies on 

the chronic dietary risk assessment for 

evaluating short- and intermediate-term 

risk for pyroxasulfone. 

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. As explained in Unit III.A., 

the Agency has determined that the 

quantification of risk using a non-linear 

(i.e., RfD) approach will adequately 

account for all chronic toxicity, 

including carcinogenicity, that could 

result from exposure to pyroxasulfone. 

Therefore, based on the results of the 

chronic risk assessment discussed in 

Unit III.E.2., pyroxasulfone is not 

expected to pose a cancer risk to 

humans. 

6. Determination of safety. Based on 

these risk assessments, EPA concludes 

that there is a reasonable certainty that 

no harm will result to the general 

population or to infants and children 

from aggregate exposure to 

pyroxasulfone residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(a liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry/mass spectrometry 

(LC/MS/MS) method) is available to 

enforce the tolerance expression. The 

method 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: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

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 pyroxasulfone. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

EPA has increased the proposed 

tolerance levels for wheat, grain from 

0.01 ppm to 0.03 ppm and cotton, 

undelinted seed from 0.01 ppm to 0.04 

ppm. The increase in these two 

tolerance levels are due to the use of the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation 

and Development tolerance calculation 

procedures, inclusion of different 

metabolites of concern, significant 

figures, and use of all residue field 

trials. The proposed commodity term, 

‘‘cotton, seed’’ is being revised to 

‘‘cotton, undelinted seed.’’ 

Additionally, EPA is establishing a 

tolerance for pyroxasulfone in milk as a 

result of the increased livestock burden 

from use of pyroxasulfone on wheat and 

cotton commodities. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of pyroxasulfone, 3-[[[5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4- 

yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5- 

dimethylisoxazole, including its 

metabolites and degradates, as set forth 

in the regulatory text. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

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 final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 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.), 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 final rule 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 final rule. In addition, this 

final rule does not impose any 

enforceable duty or contain any 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 46279 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (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 of 1995 

(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: July 25, 2013. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 180.659 is amend by: 

■ i. Adding alphabetically the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a)(1); 

■ ii. Adding alphabetically the 

following commodities to the table in 

paragraph (a)(2); and 

■ iii. Adding paragraph (a)(4). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 180.659 Pyroxasulfone; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Cotton, undelinted seed ............. 0.04 

Wheat, grain ............................... 0.03 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 0 .20 

* * * * * 

Wheat, forage ........................... 6 .0 

Wheat, hay ............................... 1 .0 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0 .60 

* * * * * 

(4) Tolerances are established for 

residues of the herbicide pyroxasulfone, 

including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the following table. Compliance with 

the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table is to be determined by 

measuring only the sum of 

pyroxasulfone [3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)- 

1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1Hpyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5- 

dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole] and its 

metabolites [5-(difluoromethoxy)-1- 

methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol4-yl]methanesulfonic acid (M–1) and 5- 

(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3- 

(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4- 

carboxylic acid (M–3), calculated as the 

stoichiometric equivalent of 

pyroxasulfone, in or on the commodity. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Milk ............................................. 0.003 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–18412 Filed 7–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0010; FRL–9391–9] 

Forchlorfenuron; Temporary Pesticide 

Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

temporary tolerances for residues of 

forchlorfenuron in or on multiple 

commodities which are identified and 

discussed later in this document. KIM– 

C1, LLC requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for uses 

associated with an experimental use 

permit. The tolerances expire on 

December 31, 2015. 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

31, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 30, 2013, 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–2013–0010, 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), EPA West 

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: 

Marcel Howard, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–6784; email address: 

howard.marcel@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 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES