

[Federal Register: December 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 244)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 76185-76190]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de06-17]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145; FRL-8107-8]

 
Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-
2-yl) in or on leafy greens subgroup 4A, except head and leaf lettuce, 
and leafy petioles subgroup 4B. Interregional Research Project No. 4 
(IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 
1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 20, 2006. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 20, 2007, 
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:  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, 

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in 
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone 
number is (703) 305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 305-6463; e-mail address: madden.barbara@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. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; 
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and 
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural 
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; 
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural 
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and 
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal 
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a 

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the 
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
 To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines 

referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm
.


C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any 
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may 
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural 
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for 
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 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-2005-0145 in the 
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be 
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or 
before February 20, 2007.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the

[[Page 76186]]

public docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked 
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA 
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0145, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South 
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The 
Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of June 14, 2006 (71 FR 34342-34344) (FRL-
8070-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
3E6791) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide boscalid, 3-
pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl), in or 
on the raw agricultural commodities as follows: leafy greens subgroup 
4A, expect head and leaf lettuce at 60 parts per million (ppm) and leaf 
petioles subgroup 4B at 45 ppm. That notice included a summary of the 
petition prepared by BASF, the registrant. Comments on the notice of 
filing were received from one private citizen. EPA's response to these 
comments is discussed in Unit IV. C.
    EPA is also deleting several established tolerances in 
180.589(a)(1) that are no longer needed as a result of this action. The 
revisions to 180.589(a)(1) are as follows:
    1. Delete celery at 45 ppm, and replaced with leaf petioles, 
subgroup, 4B, at 45 ppm.
    2. Delete spinach at 60 ppm, and replaced with leafy greens, 
subgroup 4A, except head and leaf lettuce, at 60 ppm.
    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....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the 
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm and http://

://


III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for tolerances for residues of boscalid, 3-
pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl), in or 
on the raw agricultural commodities as follows: leafy greens subgroup 
4A, expect head and leaf lettuce at 60 ppm and leaf petioles subgroup 
4B at 45 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with 
establishing these tolerances 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature 
of the toxic effects caused by boscalid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44640) (FRL-
7319-6) (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2003/July/Day-30/p19357.htm
).


B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the dose at which no adverse effects are observed 
(the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use 
in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of 
concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of 
concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk 
assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. 
An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent 
in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the 
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well 
as other unknowns.
    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method 
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as 
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead 
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the 
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information 
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk 
characterization at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.

     A summary of the toxicological endpoints for boscalid used for 
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule 
published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44640) (FRL-
7319-6).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been 
established 40 CFR 180.589 (a)(1) for the residues of boscalid, 3-
pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl) in or 
on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Tolerances have been 
established under 40 CFR 180.589(a)(2) for the combined residues of the 
fungicide boscalid, 3-pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-
biphenyl]-2-yl) and metabolites 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro-5-hydroxy-
biphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide and glucuronic acid conjugate of 2-chloro-N-
(4'-chloro-5-hydroxy-biphenyl-2-yl)nicotinamide in or on egg; milk;

[[Page 76187]]

and fat, meat and meat byproducts of cattle, goat, hog, horse, poultry, 
and sheep. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary 
exposures from boscalid 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 one-day or single exposure. No such effects were 
identified in the toxicological studies for boscalid, 3-
pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl); 
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is 
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with 
the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), which incorporates 
food consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals 
(CSFII), and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. 
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure 
assessments: An unrefined, chronic dietary exposure assessment using 
tolerance-level residues, default processing factors, and assuming 100% 
crop treated (CT) for all registered and proposed commodities was 
conducted for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups.
    iii. Cancer. A quantitative cancer exposure assessment is not 
necessary because EPA concluded that boscalid is unlikely to pose a 
carcinogenic risk to humans. This conclusion was based on the following 
weight of evidence considerations. First, in male Wistar rats, there 
was a significant trend (but not pairwise comparison) for the combined 
thyroid adenomas and carcinomas. This trend was driven by the increase 
in adenomas. Second, in the female rats, there was only a borderline 
significant trend for thyroid adenomas (there were no carcinomas). 
Third, the mouse study was negative as were all of the mutagenic tests. 
Based on this weak evidence of carcinogenic effects, the Agency 
concluded that boscalid is not expected to pose a carcinogenic risk.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks 
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary 
exposure analysis and risk assessment for boscalid in drinking water. 
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, 
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on 
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical 
characteristics of boscalid. 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 FIRST and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental 
concentrations (EECs) of boscalid for acute exposures are estimated to 
be 87.53 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.63 ppb for 
ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 25.77 
ppb for surface water and 0.63 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model (DEEM-FCID\TM\, Version 2.03). 
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the annual average concentration 
of 25.77 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Boscalid is currently registered for use on turf. However, the 
boscalid registration for turf specifies that this product is intended 
for golf course use only, and not for use on residential turfgrass or 
turfgrass being grown for sale or other commercial use such as sod 
production. Although the registration does not indicate that the 
product is applied by licensed or commercial applicators, homeowners 
will not be applying the product to golf courses. Therefore, a risk 
assessment for residential handler exposure is not required. Boscalid 
is also registered for use on various fruit crops including U-pick 
operations. Based on these registrations the EPA determined there are 
two recreational scenarios associated with boscalid that could lead to 
non-dietary exposures for adults and children:Adults and youth golfing, 
and adults and children picking their own fruit.
    Because U-pick is a one-time event (duration < 1 day) and the Agency 
found that the oral studies indicated there were no endpoints 
appropriate to quantitate acute risk, the U-pick exposure was not 
calculated. Therefore, only non-dietary exposure was estimated for the 
golfing scenario. The risk assessment was conducted using the following 
residential exposure assumptions: post-application exposures to 
individuals that occur as a result of being in an environment that has 
been previously treated with a pesticide. Due to residential 
application practices and the half-lives observed in the turf 
transferable residue study, intermediate- and long-term post-
application exposures are not expected. Only short-term post 
application exposures are anticipated for golfers. The scenarios likely 
to result in dermal short-term exposures are as follows: Adult golfer 
dermal exposure from contacting treated turf, and adolescent golfer 
dermal exposure from contacting treated turf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative 
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made 
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to boscalid and any other 
substances and boscalid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite 
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance 
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that boscalid has a common 
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding 
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of 
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see 
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs 
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for 
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on 
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.


D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply 
an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the 
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal 
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure 
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of 
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are 
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a 
margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) 
factors in calculating a dose level that

[[Page 76188]]

poses no appreciable risk to humans. In applying this provision, EPA 
either retains the default value of 10X when reliable data do not 
support the choice of a different factor, or, if reliable data are 
available, EPA uses a different additional safety factor value based on 
the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or special FQPA safety 
factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of 
increased susceptibility in the developmental rat study as no 
developmental toxicity was seen at the highest dose tested (Limit 
Dose). There was evidence of qualitative (not quantitative) increased 
susceptibility in the developmental rabbit study as characterized by an 
increased incidence of abortions or early delivery at the highest dose 
tested (1,000 millogram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). It could not be 
ascertained if the abortions were the result of a treatment-related 
effect on either the dams, the fetuses or both. There was quantitative 
evidence of increased susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction 
study in rats, where decreases in body weights and body weight gains in 
male offspring were seen in the F2 generation at a dose that was lower 
than the dose that induced parental/systemic toxicity. The offspring 
NOAEL was 10.1/106.8 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively, and 
the parental/systemic NOAEL was 101.2/1062.0 mg/kg/day in males and 
females, respectively. There was quantitative evidence of increased 
susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, where 
decreases in pup body weights (PND 4) and body weight gains (PND 1-4) 
were seen in the absence of any maternal toxicity. The offspring 
toxicity NOAEL was 14 mg/kg/day and the maternal NOAEL was 1,442 mg/kg/
day.
    The degree of concern is low for the qualitative evidence of 
susceptibility seen in the rabbit developmental study as the increased 
abortions or early delivery was seen only at the Limit Dose and not at 
the lower levels (i.e. a high-dose effect) and the abortions may have 
been due to maternal stress. The degree of concern is also low for the 
quantitative evidence of susceptibility seen in the 2-generation 
reproduction study in rats because the decreases in body weight and 
body weight gains were seen primarily in the F2 generation. These may 
have been due to exposure of the parental animals to high doses (above 
the Limit Dose). The dose selected for chronic dietary and non-dietary 
exposure risk assessments would address the concern for the body weight 
effects. Finally, the degree of concern is low for the quantitative 
evidence of susceptibility seen in the developmental neurotoxicity 
study because the decreases in pup body weights seen onpostnatal days 1 
through 4 (and not at any other time periods) were most likely due to 
maternal toxicity (the maternal animals were exposed to a very high 
dose exceeding the limit dose, i.e., 1,442 mg/kg/day); and no 
treatment-related effects on body weight, body weight gain or any other 
parameter were noted at postnatal day 21.
    EPA has concluded that there are no residual uncertainties for pre- 
and postnatal toxicity as the degree of concern is low for the 
susceptibility seen in the above studies, and the dose and endpoints 
selected for the overall risk assessments will address the concerns for 
the body weight effects seen in the offspring. Although the dose 
selected for overall risk assessments (21.8 mg/kg/day) is higher than 
the NOAELs in the 2-generation reproduction study (10.1 mg/kg/day) and 
the developmental neurotoxicity study (14 mg/kg/day), these differences 
are considered to be an artifact of the dose selection process in these 
studies. For example, there is a 10-fold difference between the LOAEL 
(106.8 mg/kg/day) and the NOAEL (10.1 mg/kg/day) in the two generation 
reproduction study. A similar pattern was seen with regard to the 
developmental neurotoxicity study, where there is also a 10-fold 
difference between the LOAEL (147 mg/kg/day) and the NOAEL (14 mg/kg/
day). There is only a 2-3 fold difference between the LOAEL (57 mg/kg/
day) and the NOAEL (21.8 mg/kg/day) in the critical study used for risk 
assessment. Because the gap between the NOAEL and LOAEL in the 2-
generation reproduction and developmental neurotoxicity studies was 
large and the effects at the LOAELs were minimal, the true no-observed-
adverse-effect-level was probably considerably higher. Therefore, the 
selection of the NOAEL of 21.8 mg/kg/day from the 1-year dog study is 
conservative and appropriate for the overall risk assessments. In 
addition, the endpoints for risk assessment are based on thyroid 
effects seen in multiple species (mice, rats and dogs) and after 
various exposure durations (subchronic and chronic exposures) which 
were not observed at the LOAELs in either the two-generation 
reproduction or the developmental neurotoxicity studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it 
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor 
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings: The toxicity 
database for boscalid is complete and for the reasons explained above, 
there is low concern for pre- and postnatal toxicity.
    There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground and 
surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly conservative 
residential SOPs were used to assess post-application exposure to 
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These 
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by 
boscalid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. As there were no toxic effects attributable to a 
single dose, an endpoint of concern was not identified to quantitate 
acute-dietary risk to the general population or to the subpopulation 
females 13-50 years old. No acute risk is expected from exposure to 
boscalid.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to boscalid 
from food and water will utilize 11% of the chronic population adjusted 
dose (cPAD) for the U.S. population, 24% of the cPAD for all infants 
less than 1 year old, and 38% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, 
the most highly exposed population subgroup. There are no residential 
uses for boscalid that result in chronic residential exposure to 
boscalid. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to 
exceed 100% of the cPAD.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into 
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level). Using the exposure 
assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has 
concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated result 
in an aggregate margin of exposure (MOE) of 1,400 for the general U.S. 
population. This MOE is considered to be representative of young 
golfers as well since young golfers and adults possess similar body 
surface area to weight ratios and because the dietary exposure for 
youth (13-19 years old) is less than that of the general U.S. 
population. Therefore the short-term aggregate risk and exposure is not 
of concern to the Agency.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food 
and water (considered to be a background

[[Page 76189]]

exposure level). Because no intermediate term, non-occupational 
exposures are anticipated from the use of boscalid, boscalid is not 
expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the weight 
of evidence evaluation described previously herein, EPA concluded that 
boscalid is not expected to pose a carcinogenic 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, and to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to boscalid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, method D0008, gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) for plants and Method DFG S19, gas 
chromatography/electron-capture detection electron-capture detection 
(GC/ECD) for animals 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; e-mail address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.


B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no International or Codex maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) for boscalid.

C. Response to Comments

    Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to 
IR-4 proposing to increase the use of this pesticide and establishment 
of tolerances. The Agency has received these same comments from this 
commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to Federal Register 70 
FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), 69 FR 63096-
63098 (October 29, 2004) for the Agency's response to these objections.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of boscalid, 3-
pyridinecarboxamide, 2-chloro-N-(4'-chloro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl), 
regulated chemical, in or on leafy greens subgroup 4A, except head and 
leaf lettuce at 60 ppm and leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 45 ppm. IR-4 is 
requesting the establishment of tolerances for leafy greens subgroup 
4A, except head and leaf lettuce, and leaf petioles subgroup 4B. The 
Agency has approved celery and spinach residue data (previously 
submitted) and established tolerances for those commodities. These data 
satisfy the residue data requirements for the requested subgroups, and 
are accepted as surrogate data for the use of establishing tolerances. 
Therefore, leafy green subgroup 4A, except head and leaf lettuce, and 
leafy petioles subgroup 4B will replace the existing tolerances for 
celery and spinach, respectively.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of 
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of 
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does 
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose 
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive 
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive 
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does 
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since 
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a 
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food 
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action 
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has 
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as 
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable 
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' 
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive 
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on 
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' 
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    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

[[Page 76190]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 8, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.589 is amended in the table to paragraph (a)(1) by 
removing the commodities ``celery'' and ``spinach'' and by adding 
alphabetically new commodities to read as follows:


Sec.  180.589   Boscalid; tolerances for residues.

    (a)* * *
    (1)* * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Leafy greens, subgroup 4A, except head and leaf lettuce....           60
Leafy petioles, subgroup 4B................................           45
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-21491 Filed 12-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
