22648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

incorporation by reference of the 

FRAQMD rules described in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble for 

more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 22, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 27, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220, is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(442)(i)(E) and 

(c)(457) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(442) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Feather River Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 3.14, ‘‘Surface Preparation 

and Clean-Up,’’ amended on August 1, 

2011. 

(2) Rule 3.20, ‘‘Wood Products 

Coating Operations,’’ amended on 

August 1, 2011. 

(3) Rule 3.21, ‘‘Industrial, 

Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, 

Steam Generators, and Process Heaters,’’ 

adopted on June 5, 2006. 

* * * * * 

(457) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on November 6, 2014 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Feather River Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 10.9, ‘‘Rice Straw Emission 

Reduction Credits and Banking,’’ 

amended on October 6, 2014. 

(2) Rule 3.22, ‘‘Stationary Internal 

Combustion Engines,’’ amended on 

October 6, 2014. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09409 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0355; FRL–9926–66] 

Bicyclopyrone; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of bicyclopyrone 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22649 

in or on field corn, forage; field corn, 

grain; field corn, stover; popcorn, grain; 

popcorn, stover; sweet corn, forage; 

sweet corn, ears; sweet corn, stover; 

sugarcane, stalks; cattle, liver; goat, meat 

byproducts; sheep, meat byproducts; 

horse, meat byproducts; and hog, meat 

byproducts. Syngenta requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

23, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 22, 2015, 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–2014–0355, 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: 

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–2014–0355 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 June 22, 2015. 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– 

2014–0355, 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.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 September 

5, 2014 (79 FR 53009) (FRL–9914–98), 

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 3F8225) by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. 

Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for residues of the herbicide 

bicyclopyrone, herbicide, in or on field 

corn, forage at 0.4 parts per million 

(ppm); field corn, grain at 0.02 ppm; 

field corn, stover at 0.5 ppm; popcorn, 

grain at 0.02 ppm; popcorn, stover at 0.5 

ppm; sweet corn, forage at 0.4 ppm; 

sweet corn, ears at 0.02 ppm; sweet 

corn, stover at 0.5 ppm; sugarcane, 

stalks at 0.01 ppm; and cattle, liver at 

0.06 ppm. That document referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., the 

registrant, which is available in the 

docket, http://www.regulations.gov. In 

the Federal Register of February 11, 

2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL–9921–94), EPA 

published a corrected notice of filing for 

the import tolerance on sugarcane 

petition. Comments were received for 

both items. EPA’s response to these 

comments is discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has revised 

the proposed tolerances to corn, field, 

forage at 0.30 ppm; corn, field, grain at 

0.02 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.40 

ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, 

pop, stover at 0.40 ppm; corn, sweet, 

forage at 0.40 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed at 0.03 

ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 0.70 ppm; 

sugarcane, cane at 0.02 ppm; cattle, 

meat byproducts at 1.5 ppm; goat, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; sheep, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; horse, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; and hog, meat 

byproducts at 0.15 ppm. The reasons 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 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
22650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 bicyclopyrone 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with bicyclopyrone 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 of bicyclopyrone are 

indicative of inhibition of 

4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase 

(HPPD). Plasma tyrosine levels were 

consistently elevated in rats, rabbits, 

and dogs (levels in mice were not 

tested). Consistent with these elevated 

tyrosine levels, ocular effects (corneal 

opacity, keratitis) were observed for 

subchronic and chronic durations 

through the oral and dermal routes in 

rats, which was the most sensitive 

species tested (minor instances in dogs). 

There were also increased incidences of 

thyroid follicular hyperplasia and a 

chronic progressive nephropathy. While 

minor instances of ocular effects were 

observed in dogs, different toxicological 

effects were generally observed. For 

subchronic oral exposure, clinical signs 

(moderate hypoactivity, slightly 

unsteady gait, increased heart rate, 

regurgitation, and vomiting) were 

observed, and clinical pathological 

indicators of toxicity occurred in the eye 

and the thymus. Following chronic 

exposure, there was a dose-dependent 

increase in chromatolysis and swelling 

of selected neurons in the dorsal root 

ganglia, and degeneration of nerve fibers 

in the spinal nerve roots in both sexes. 

In one female dog at the high dose, 

corneal opacity and light sensitivity 

were observed. 

Across the database, there were 

decreased absolute body weights (the 

only finding in mice for any duration) 

and food consumption. There were no 

signs of immunotoxicity or 

neurotoxicity in rodents. 

Bicyclopyrone treatment resulted in 

developmental toxicity in both rats and 

rabbits, and there was an increased 

quantitative fetal susceptibility in both 

species tested. In rats, maternal toxicity 

was not observed up to 1000 mg/kg/day. 

Fetal effects occurred at all doses (≥100 

mg/kg/day), and manifested as skeletal 

variations (increased incidences of full 

or rudimentary supernumerary ribs, 

pelvic girdle malpositioned caudal, 

costal cartilage 11 long). In New 

Zealand White rabbits, maternal effects 

consisted of mortality/moribundity in 

conjunction with minimal food 

consumption at 200 mg/kg/day. Fetal 

effects once again occurred at all doses 

tested (≥10 mg/kg/day). The sole fetal 

effect at the lowest dose tested was the 

appearance of the 27th presacral 

vertebrae. There were two studies in 

Himalayan rabbits. In both studies, 

maternal effects consisted of 

macroscopic findings in the stomach 

wall and an increased incidence of postimplantation loss at the 250 mg/kg/day 

dose level. In the first study, fetal effects 

occurred starting at 50 mg/kg/day and 

consisted of skeletal variations 

(increased incidence of the 27th 

prepelvic vertebra and malpositioned 

pelvic girdle). In the second study, the 

increased quantitative fetal 

susceptibility was not observed due to 

a change in the dose selection. Fetal 

effects occurred at 250 mg/kg/day and 

consisted of external, visceral, and 

skeletal abnormalities, and visceral 

variations, skeletal, bone and cartilage 

variations. In total, the effects in these 

studies are consistent with effects of 

other chemicals in this class. 

In the two-generation reproductive 

study in rats, ocular toxicity occurred in 

parents and offspring and there was no 

increased offspring susceptibility of any 

kind. Reproductive effects included 

changes in sperm parameters, and a 

decrease of precoital interval. 

To determine the mechanism for the 

thyroid hyperplasia observed in the 

chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats, 

two mode-of-action studies were 

performed. In the in vitro study, 

bicyclopyrone was negative for thyroid 

peroxidase inhibition. The results from 

the in vivo study suggested that the 

observed thyroid hyperplasia was the 

result of increased metabolism of 

thyroid hormones indicated by (1) 

decreased plasma T3 and T4 levels, (2) 

increased thyroid follicular cell 

hypertrophy, (3) increased liver weights 

associated, and (4) increased 

hepatocellular centrilobular 

hypertrophy and increased hepatic 

uridine diphosphate glucuronyl 

transferase (UDPGT) activities. 

Bicyclopyrone is categorized as 

having low acute lethality via all routes 

of administration (Categories III and IV). 

Bicyclopyrone produces minimal eye 

irritation and mild acute inhalation 

toxicity (Toxicity Category IV). 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by bicyclopyrone as well 

as the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies 

can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov in document titled 

‘‘Bicyclopyrone: Human Health Risk 

Assessment for the Section 3 

Registration Action on Corn and the 

Establishment of Permanent Tolerances 

for Residues in/on Corn and Imported 

Sugarcane’’ at pp. 30–37 in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0355. 

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 bicyclopyrone used for 

human risk assessment is shown in 

Table 1 of this unit. 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22651 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR BICYCLOPYRONE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT

Exposure/scenario 

Point of 

departure and 

uncertainty/ 

safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for 

risk assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Acute dietary (Females 13–49 

years of age).

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/

day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF/UFL = 10x 

Acute RfD = 0.01 

mg/kg/day.

aPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/

day 

Prenatal Developmental Study (New Zealand White Rabbits). 

Developmental LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on skeletal variations (the appearance of the 27th presacral vertebrae). 

Acute dietary (General population including infants and 

children).

No endpoint attributable to a single 

dose and appropriate for the U.S. 

general population 

was seen in the 

bicyclopyrone toxicological database; therefore, an 

acute dietary point 

of departure for 

the general U.S. 

population was not 

established.

Chronic dietary (All populations) LOAEL= 10 mg/kg/

day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF/UFL = 10x 

Chronic RfD = 

0.00028 mg/kg/day.

cPAD = 0.00028 mg/

kg/day 

Carcinogenicity Study (rat). 

LOAEL = 0.28/0.35 mg/kg/day (Male/Female) based on a dose 

dependent increase in the incidence of opaque eyes and corneal damage in both sexes compared to controls, an increased incidence of thyroid follicular hyperplasia in males, 

and an increased incidence of chronic progressive 

nephropathy in the kidneys of males. 

Dermal Short- (1–30 days) and 

Intermediate-Term (1–6 

months).

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/

day.

DAF = 20.44% 

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF/UFL = 10x 

LOC for MOE = 

1000.

Prenatal Developmental Study (New Zealand White Rabbits). 

Developmental LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on skeletal variations (the appearance of the 27th presacral vertebrae). 

Inhalation Short- (1–30 days) 

and Intermediate-Term (1–6 

months).

LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/

day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF/UFL = 10x 

LOC for MOE = 

1000.

Prenatal Developmental Study (New Zealand White Rabbits). 

Developmental LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on skeletal variations (the appearance of the 27th presacral vertebrae. 

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).Classification: ‘‘Suggestive evidence 

of cancer’’ based 

on the presence of 

rare ocular tumors 

in male rats. 

Quantification of 

bicyclopyrone’s 

carcinogenic potential is not required. A non-linear approach (i.e., 

RfD) will adequately account for 

all chronic toxicity, 

including carcinogenicity that could 

result from exposure to 

bicyclopyrone.

FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = 

milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). 

UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to bicyclopyrone, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed 

dietary exposures from bicyclopyrone in 

food as follows: 

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute 

dietary exposure and risk assessments 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
22652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 bicyclopyrone. In estimating acute 

dietary exposure, EPA used food 

consumption information from the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) 2003–2008 Nationwide 

Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by 

Individuals (CSFII). The acute dietary 

analysis was conducted for 

bicyclopyrone assuming tolerance level 

residues, default processing factors, and 

100% crop treated (CT) information. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the food consumption data 

from the USDA 2003–2008 CSFII. The 

chronic dietary exposure assessment 

was conducted for bicyclopyrone 

assuming average field trial residues for 

crops, tolerance-level residues for 

livestock commodities, default 

processing factors, and 100% CT 

information. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that bicyclopyrone should be 

classified as ‘‘suggestive evidence of 

cancer’’ based on the presence of rare 

ocular tumors in male rats. 

Quantification of bicyclopyrone’s 

carcinogenic potential is not required. A 

non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) will 

adequately account for all chronic 

toxicity, including carcinogenicity that 

could result from exposure to 

bicyclopyrone. Using EPA’s non-linear 

approach, the 1000X combined 

uncertainty factor used to calculate the 

cRfD/cPAD for the chronic dietary 

assessment, generates a dose which is 

100,000-fold lower than the dose at 

which the ocular tumors were observed 

and is thus protective of their potential 

formation. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for bicyclopyrone in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

bicyclopyrone. 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. 

The Surface Water Concentration 

Calculator (SWCC) computer model was 

used to generate surface water Estimated 

Drinking Water Concentrations 

(EDWCs), while the Pesticide Root Zone 

Model for Groundwater (PRZM–GW) 

and the Screening Concentration in 

Ground Water (SCI–GROW) models 

were used to generate groundwater 

EDWCs. 

The maximum acute and chronic 

surface water EDWCs associated with 

bicyclopyrone use on corn were 2.87 

and 0.857 mg/L, respectively. For 

groundwater sources of drinking water, 

the maximum acute and chronic EDWCs 

of bicyclopyrone in shallow 

groundwater from PRZM–GW were 3.76 

and 3.23 mg/L, respectively. EDWCs of 

0.00376 ppm and 0.00323 ppm were 

used in the acute and chronic analyses, 

respectively. 

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). 

Bicyclopyrone 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.’’ 

There are marked differences among 

species in the ocular toxicity associated 

with bicyclopyrone’s mechanism of 

toxicity, the inhibition of HPPD. Ocular 

effects following treatment with HPPD 

inhibitor herbicides are seen in the rat 

but not in the mouse. Monkeys also 

seem to be recalcitrant to the ocular 

toxicity induced by HPPD inhibition. 

One explanation for this species-specific 

response in ocular opacity may be 

related to species differences in the 

clearance of tyrosine. A metabolic 

pathway exists to remove tyrosine from 

the blood that involves the liver enzyme 

tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT). In 

contrast to rats where ocular toxicity is 

observed following exposure to HPPDinhibiting herbicides, mice and humans 

are unlikely to achieve the levels of 

plasma tyrosine necessary to produce 

ocular opacities because the activity of 

TAT in these species is much greater 

compared to rats. 

HPPD inhibitors (e.g., nitisinone) are 

used as an effective therapeutic agent to 

treat patients suffering from rare genetic 

diseases of tyrosine catabolism. 

Treatment starts in childhood but is 

often sustained throughout patient’s 

lifetime. The human experience 

indicates that a therapeutic dose (1 mg/ 

kg/day dose) of nitisinone has an 

excellent safety record in infants, 

children, and adults and that serious 

adverse health outcomes have not been 

observed in a population followed for 

approximately a decade. Rarely, ocular 

effects are seen in patients with high 

plasma tyrosine levels; however, these 

effects are transient and can be readily 

reversed upon adherence to a restricted 

protein diet. This observation indicates 

that an HPPD inhibitor in and of itself 

cannot easily overwhelm the tyrosineclearance mechanism in humans. 

Therefore, exposures to 

environmental residues of HPPDinhibiting herbicides are unlikely to 

result in the high blood levels of 

tyrosine and ocular toxicity in humans 

due to an efficient metabolic process to 

handle excess tyrosine. The EPA 

continues to study the complex 

relationships between elevated tyrosine 

levels and biological effects in various 

species. In the future, assessments of 

HPPD-inhibiting herbicides may 

consider more appropriate models and 

cross species extrapolation methods. 

EPA has not conducted cumulative risk 

assessment with other HPPD inhibitors. 

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. The FQPA SF is retained at 10X for 

all exposure scenarios based on use of 

a LOAEL for the points of departure. 

The toxicology database for 

bicyclopyrone is adequate for 

characterizing toxicity and 

quantification of risk for food and nonfood uses; however, a LOAEL from the 

New Zealand white rabbit 

developmental and chronic/

carcinogenicity rat toxicity studies has 

been used as the POD for several 

scenarios. 

There is no evidence of neurotoxicity 

in either of the neurotoxicity screening 

batteries, but there are effects in the 

chronic dog study. The level of concern 

is low, however, since the study and 

POD chosen for the chronic dietary 

exposure scenario is protective of these 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22653 

effects. There is evidence of increased 

quantitative fetal susceptibility 

following in utero exposure in both rats 

and rabbits; however, these effects are 

well characterized and the selected 

endpoints are protective of the observed 

fetal effects. Lastly, there are no residual 

uncertainties in the exposure database. 

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. 

Because there are no uses for 

bicyclopyrone that may result in 

residential exposures, the aggregate risk 

consists only of food and water. 

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure 

assumptions discussed in this unit for 

acute exposure, the acute dietary 

exposure from food and water to 

bicyclopyrone will occupy 2.9% of the 

aPAD for females 13–49 years 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 bicyclopyrone 

from food and water will utilize 91% of 

the cPAD for children 1–2 years old the 

population group receiving the greatest 

exposure. There are no residential uses 

for bicyclopyrone. 

3. Short-term risk. A short-term 

adverse effect was identified; however, 

bicyclopyrone is not registered for any 

use patterns that would result in shortterm residential exposure. Short-term 

risk is assessed based on short-term 

residential exposure plus chronic 

dietary exposure. Because there is no 

short-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-term risk), no further assessment 

of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA 

relies on the chronic dietary risk 

assessment for evaluating short-term 

risk for bicyclopyrone. 

4. Intermediate-term risk. An 

intermediate-term adverse effect was 

identified; however, bicyclopyrone is 

not registered for any use patterns that 

would result in intermediate-term 

residential exposure. Intermediate-term 

risk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic 

dietary exposure. Because there is no 

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 intermediate-term risk), no 

further assessment of intermediate-term 

risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the 

chronic dietary risk assessment for 

evaluating intermediate-term risk for 

bicyclopyrone. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. A non-linear approach (i.e., 

RfD) will adequately account for all 

chronic toxicity, including 

carcinogenicity that could result from 

exposure to bicyclopyrone. 

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 

bicyclopyrone residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

liquid chromatography-mass 

spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC– 

MS/MS) methods for tolerance 

enforcement have been developed and 

independently validated. For all 

matrices and analytes, the level of 

quantification (LOQ), defined as the 

lowest spiking level where acceptable 

precision and accuracy data were 

obtained, was determined to be 0.01 

ppm for each of the common moieties, 

SYN503780 and CSCD686480, for a 

combined LOQ of 0.02 ppm 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 bicyclopyrone. 

C. Response to Comments 

Seven comments were received in 

response to the September 5, 2014 

notice of filing. Three of the comments 

were relevant to bicyclopyrone, the 

other four comments were relevant to 

other actions that were batched together 

with bicyclopryone in the same Federal 

Register document. The commenters 

noted that pesticides and bicyclopyrone 

pose a risk to pollinators. The agency 

has determined that bicyclopyrone is 

moderately to practically non-toxic to 

young adult honey bees (Apis mellifera) 

on an acute exposure basis. 

One comment was received in 

response to the February 11, 2015 

corrected notice of filing for the import 

tolerance on sugarcane petition. This 

comment was associated with an action 

that was batched together with 

bicyclopyrone in the same Federal 

Register document and was not relevant 

to bicyclopyrone. 

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The proposed tolerance levels for 

most corn (field, pop, and sweet) raw 

agricultural commodities (RAC) differ 

slightly from those being set by the EPA. 

Although both the registrant and EPA 

have used the OECD (Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and 

Development) calculation procedures to 

obtain tolerance levels, EPA only 

included data from trials conducted 

according to the proposed label 

directions. The registrant proposed a 

tolerance level for sugarcane, cane 

below the method LOQ (0.01 ppm); the 

appropriate level is at the LOQ (0.02 

ppm). EPA’s tolerance levels for 

livestock meat byproducts were based 

on the highest tissue-to-feed ratio 

calculated from the dose closest to 

maximum dietary burdens. As residues 

are expected in both liver and kidney, 

the appropriate RAC is ‘‘meat 

byproducts.’’ Per EPA policy, tolerances 

are set for all ruminants, not just cattle. 

EPA made numerous changes in the 

commodity definitions and revisions to 

the tolerance expression in order to 

conform to current Agency policy. 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
22654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of the herbicide 

bicyclopyrone in or on corn, field, 

forage at 0.30 ppm; corn, field, grain at 

0.02 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.40 

ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.02 ppm; corn, 

pop, stover at 0.40 ppm; corn, sweet, 

forage at 0.40 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel 

plus cob with husks removed at 0.03 

ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 0.70 ppm; 

sugarcane, cane at 0.02 ppm; cattle, 

meat byproducts at 1.5 ppm; goat, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; sheep, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; horse, meat 

byproducts at 1.5 ppm; and hog, meat 

byproducts at 0.15 ppm 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action 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 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 17, 2015. 

William Jordan, 

Acting Director, 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. Add § 180.682 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 180.682 Bicyclopyrone; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are 

established for residues of the herbicide 

bicyclopyrone (4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2- 

methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6- 

(trifluoromethyl)-3- 

pyridinyl]carbonyl]bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3- 

en-2-one), including its metabolites and 

degradates, in or on the commodities in 

the table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of the common moieties SYN503780 (2- 

[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6- 

(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic 

acid) and CSCD686480 (2-[(2- 

hydroxyethoxy)methyl]-6- 

(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic 

acid), calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of bicyclopyrone, in or on 

the commodities. 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Corn, field, forage ......................... 0 .30 

Corn, field, grain ........................... 0 .02 

Corn, field, stover ......................... 0 .40 

Corn, pop, grain ............................ 0 .02 

Corn, pop, stover .......................... 0 .40 

Corn, sweet, forage ...................... 0 .40 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with 

husks removed .......................... 0 .03 

Corn, sweet, stover ...................... 0 .70 

Sugarcane, cane 1 ........................ 0 .02 

Cattle, meat byproducts ............... 1 .5 

Goat, meat byproducts ................. 1 .5 

Sheep, meat byproducts .............. 1 .5 

Horse, meat byproducts ............... 1 .5 

Hog, meat byproducts .................. 0 .15 

1There are no U.S. Registrations on Sugarcane as of March 13, 2015. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(b) [Reserved]. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09482 Filed 4–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 435 

Eligibility in the States, District of 

Columbia, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and American Samoa 

CFR Correction 

In Title 42 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 430 to 481, revised as 

of October 1, 2014, on page 198, in 

§ 435.912, revise paragraphs (a) and (b); 

redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) 

as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g), 

respectively; and add new paragraphs 

(c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 435.912 Timely determination of 

eligibility. [Corrected] 

(a) For purposes of this section— 

(1) ‘‘Timeliness standards’’ refer to the 

maximum period of time in which every 

applicant is entitled to a determination 


rljohnson on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES