[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67090-67098]
[DOCID:fr18de09-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730; FRL-8804-8]

Endothall; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for indirect or
inadvertent combined residues of endothall in or on multiple
commodities identified and discussed elsewhere in this document. The
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) in cooperation with the
registrant, United Phosphorus, Inc., requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 18, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 16, 2010,
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-2008-0730. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide 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 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 cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test
Methods & Guidelines'' on the left-side navigation menu.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2008-0730 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or before February 16,
2010.
    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 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 this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73644) (FRL-
8386-9), 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
8E7419) by the IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.293 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of
the herbicide endothall, mono (N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt of
endothall, and the dipotassium salt of endothall, in or on Vegetable
Root, and Tuber Group 1 at 2 ppm (parts per million); Vegetable, Leaves
of Root and Tuber, Group 2 at 3.5 ppm; Vegetable, Bulb, Group 3-07 at 2
ppm; Vegetable, Leafy, except Brassica, Group 4 at 3.5 ppm; Vegetable,
Brassica, Leafy, Group 5 at 0.1 ppm; Turnip, greens at 0.1 ppm;
Vegetable, Legume, Group 6 at 3 ppm; Vegetable, Fruiting, Group 8 at
0.05 ppm; Okra at 0.05 ppm; Vegetable, Cucurbit, Group 9 at 1.1 ppm;
Fruit, Citrus, Group 10 at 0.05 ppm; Fruit, Pome, Group 11 at 0.05 ppm;
Fruit, Stone, Group 12 at 0.25 ppm; Berry and Small Fruit Group 13-07
at 0.6 ppm; Nut, Tree, Group 14, at 0.05 ppm; Pistachio at 0.05 ppm;
Almond, hulls at 10 ppm; Grain, Cereal, Group 15 at 2.5 ppm; Grain,
Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, forage at 3.5 ppm, Grain,
Cereal, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, hay at 5 ppm, Grain, Cereal,
Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, stover at 11 ppm, Grain, Cereal,
Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 16, straw at 6 ppm, Grain, aspirated
fractions at 24 ppm; Grass, Forage, Fodder, and Hay, Group 17, forage
at 3 ppm, Grass, Forage, Fodder and Hay, hay at 19 ppm; Nongrass Animal
Feed, Group 18 forage at 3.5 ppm, Nongrass Animal Feed, Group 18 hay at
8 ppm; Grape at 0.9 ppm, Peppermint, tops at 7 ppm, Spearmint, tops at
7 ppm; and Rice, grain at 1.7 ppm and Rice, straw at 4.5 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by United
Phosphorus, Inc., the registrant, on behalf of IR-4 which is available
to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. This petition
for tolerances was filed in conjunction with an application under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA'') for use
of endothall in irrigation water and thus the broad request for
tolerances. There were no comments received in response to the notice
of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition as well as
the proposed use to irrigation canals, EPA has determined that
virtually all crops as well as most food and feed commodities could
potentially be exposed to residues in endothall-laden irrigation water
with EPA approval of this use. In consideration of these factors, the
Agency is revising the proposed tolerances to include inadvertent
endothall residues on any food commodities not otherwise listed at 5.0
ppm and any feed commodities not otherwise listed at 10.0 ppm.
Additionally, based on the residue data submitted, EPA has revised
proposed tolerance levels for certain food and feed commodities.
Finally, EPA is not establishing certain petitioned-for tolerances
after determining they are not needed. The reasons for these changes
are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in 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 for including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with endothall follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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.
    Endothall is a caustic chemical with toxicity being the result of a
direct degenerative effect on tissue. By acute dermal application and
inhalation exposure, it has mild toxicity. Dermally, it destroys the
stratum corneum and then the underlying viable epidermis. Endothall is
a skin sensitizer. Endothall is an extreme irritant by the acute oral,
and ocular routes of administration. Orally, endothall attacks the
digestive tract. In the eye irritation study, endothall was shown to be
extremely irritating to the eye and was also lethal to 4 of 6 rabbits
tested.
    In the 21-day dermal rat study, systemic toxicity (hematology and
clinical chemistry alterations) were noted at a dose level that was one
order of magnitude greater than that causing dermal irritation.
Available studies clearly demonstrate that local irritation (portal of
entry effect) is the most sensitive and initial effect, occurring at

dose levels lower than those associated with systemic toxicity. In
dogs, gastric irritation developed at a dose level that was one order
of magnitude lower than doses associated with clinical signs of
toxicity (subdued behavior, poor condition, thin appearance and
distended abdomen). In the rat, gastric irritation was noted at a dose
level that was 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower than doses resulting in
kidney lesions. Besides gastric irritant effects, decreased body weight
was also a sensitive effect following endothall administration. The
decreased body weights were most likely attributable to the constant
and direct irritation of the gastric lining. In a developmental rat
study, pregnant rats exhibited decreased body weight and decreased body
weight was noted in a 90-day dietary study in the rat. Body weight loss
occurred in dogs following a 13 week oral treatment with endothall.
    Endothall does not cause prenatal toxicity following in utero
exposure to rats nor prenatal or postnatal toxicity following exposures
to rats for 2-generations. In the developmental mouse study, there was
severe maternal toxicity (i.e., greater than 30% mortality) at the
highest dose tested; at this dose level, a slight increase in vertebral
and rib malformations was observed in the offspring indicating that
these effects were most likely secondary to severe maternal toxicity.
    Available studies showed no evidence of neurotoxicity and do not
indicate potential immunotoxicity. Endothall does not belong to the
class of compounds (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated
aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be toxic to the immune
system. Endothall is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in mice or rats.
It has no mutagenic potential.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by endothall as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Endothall: Revised Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Action to Support a New Use
of Endothall in Irrigation Canals with No Required Holding Period
before that Water Can Be Used on Crops,'' dated 11/09/2009, page 16 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730-0004.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account 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. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the level of
concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that 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 endothall used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document entitled; ``Endothall: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Section 3 Registration Action to Support a New Use of Endothall
in Irrigation Canals with No Required Holding Period before that Water
Can Be Used on Crops,'' dated 11/09/2009, page 21 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730-0004.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to endothall, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing endothall tolerances in 40 CFR
180.293. EPA assessed dietary exposures from endothall in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No systemic toxicity resulting from a single exposure was
identified. An acute Reference Dose (RfD) was not established for any
population subgroup because an appropriate endpoint attributable to a
single endothall dose was not available from any study, including the
prenatal developmental toxicity study in the rat or the mouse.
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\), Version 2.03 which
incorporates consumption data from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII).
    Analyses were performed to support the use of endothall in
irrigation canals with no holding period before the water may be used
on crops. The resulting chronic exposure assessment for food is
refined, using average residues from the field trials, and estimating
residues in meat, milk, poultry and eggs (MMPE), and using average
residues in the livestock feeds. The exposure estimate also includes an
adjustment for the percent of the harvested crop that has been
irrigated for some crops. Despite this refinement, the results remain
very conservative for several reasons. First, the field residue trials
were performed under highly conservative conditions. Second, the manner
of taking percent of the crop irrigated into consideration was very
conservative. For most commodities EPA assumed 100% of the crop would
be irrigated. For the remaining crops, EPA used two different methods
to estimate the percent of the crop that was irrigated. Where EPA had
reliable data on the percent of a crop that is irrigated, EPA assumed
that percentage of that crop is irrigated with endothall-treated water
(i.e., assuming that 100% of irrigation water is treated

with endothall). Where EPA did not have adequate data on the percent of
a crop that is irrigated, EPA assumed that all crops grown in the
western U.S. are irrigated with endothall-treated water. Endothall is
unlikely to be used in treatment of irrigation water outside of the
western U.S. This is a very conservative assumption because all of the
crops grown in the western U.S. are not irrigated.
    The average residue values used in the dietary exposure assessment
were taken from 18 sets of field trials submitted by IR-4. Processing
factors were taken from the appropriate processing studies submitted
with these field trials. Because this assessment needed to cover all
possible crops that might be irrigated in the U.S., the appropriate
crop residues and processing studies were translated within each extant
crop group, and in addition appropriate residue values were translated
to other orphan crops outside of those crop groups as needed. For
similar reasons appropriate processing factors were sometimes
translated to similarly processed commodities. DEEM default
concentration factors were used for any applicable processed
commodities where no applicable processing factors could reasonably be
translated, but default factors did exist. For certain crops no formal
default values have been established, so the processing factors for
these crops were left at 1.0, to be consistent with other contemporary
assessments.
    iii. Cancer. Endothall is considered ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans'' based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
in mice and rat studies. Endothall showed no mutagenic potential based
on results from in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assay in Chinese
hamster ovary (CHO) cells and bacterial gene mutation assay (Salmonella
typhimurium). Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose
of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows:
    Apple, fresh market 78%, apple, processing 44%, apple, juice 49%,
apple, canned 14%, barley 36%, corn 19%, dry edible beans 32%, grape,
fresh market 99%, grape, processing 94%, green peas 11%, oats 7%,
peanuts 42%, sorghum 15%, soybeans 9%, sugarbeets 37%, sugarcane 54%,
strawberry, fresh market 89% and wheat 14%, and watermelon 39%.
    EPA is establishing tolerances on multiple commodities to support
the application of the aquatic herbicide endothall to be used in
irrigation canals without a holding period. For a new agricultural
pesticide use, EPA typically estimates PCT by comparison with the
amount of use of other pesticides for the same crop or site. That
approach is inappropriate for the new use for endothall, because the
use is on irrigation canals rather than crops and EPA does not have
data on the frequency of use of aquatic herbicides on irrigation
canals.
    Instead, EPA has estimated PCT for endothall by estimating the
percent crop irrigated which serves as an upperbound for crops that may
be exposed to endothall in irrigation water. EPA used two methods to
estimate percent crop irrigated. The preferred method, used where
reliable data on irrigated production are available, is an estimate of
the share of total production that is irrigated. Estimates from this
method are provided for barley, corn, dry edible beans, oats, peanuts,
rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarbeets, sugarcane, and wheat. Where data
on irrigated production are not available, EPA estimated the percent
crop irrigated by determining the percentage of U.S. production of a
crop that is grown in 17 western states where endothall may be used.
The 17 western states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho ,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. These
states are the states where large scale water projects predominate, and
where other chemicals are used in canals for weed control. These types
of irrigation projects are relatively rare in other parts of the
country.
    Use of these estimates in the exposure assessment is conservative,
because it is the equivalent of assuming 100% of irrigated crops have
irrigated with water from endothall-treated canals. In fact, even in
areas with surface water delivery systems, all irrigation canals may
not be treated with endothall. Additionally, some crops, even in the
heavily irrigated areas of the West, are not irrigated, such as dryland
grain production.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which endothall may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The maximum potential
exposure of endothall in drinking water sources is expected to result
from the direct application of endothall to drinking water reservoirs
to control aquatic

weeds. EPA assumed that the entire reservoir would be treated at the
maximum rates, with no more than 10% of the reservoir treated at one
time as stated on the label, so that 10 treatments were applied 7 days
apart to treat the entire reservoir. Since the label specified that the
community water system (CWS) could not supply treated drinking water
unless the endothall residues were below 0.1 ppm (100 [micro]g/L), EPA
assumed 100 [micro]g/L (0.1 ppm) as the acute (peak) exposure and the
constant exposure during the treatment period and then modeled residue
decline by degradation after the final treatment. This resulted in a
chronic (annual average) concentration of 31 [micro]g/L (0.031 ppm) for
endothall. This represents the likely high-end chronic exposure from
endothall from the use expected to generate the highest exposures
(treatment of a reservoir).
    Additional information on the drinking water exposure assessment
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document entitled;
``Drinking Water Assessment for the IR-4 Tolerance Petition for the Use
of Endothall-treated Irrigation Water on a Variety of Crops,'' dated 9/
09/2009 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0730.
    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).
    Endothall is currently registered for the following uses that could
result in residential exposures. There is a potential for exposure from
registered uses in residential for homeowners who apply endothall
products to control aquatic weeds and algae in ponds and garden pools.
There is also a potential for exposure to adults and children from
contacting water treated with endothall through swimming, wading, water
skiing, etc. The Agency conducted risk assessments for both residential
handler and post-application scenarios.
    For residential handlers, exposure scenarios are only considered to
be short-term in nature due to the episodic uses associated with
homeowner products. In ponds and garden pools use patterns and under
current product labeling, two likely residential exposure scenarios
exist including; 1) loading/applying granules with a bellygrinder and
2) applying granules by hand. The quantitative exposure/risk assessment
developed for residential handlers is based on these two scenarios.
    In residential post-application scenarios, exposures to adults and
children may be expected following applications of endothall to ponds
and lakes. Only short-term exposures are expected since these scenarios
are expected to be only episodic.
    Of the possible post-application exposures, swimming in treated
water is considered by EPA to be worse-case and is used as a surrogate
for all other possible post-application exposures, such as wading,
water skiing, etc. The Agency considered residential post-application
exposure for different segments of the population using the Swimmer
Exposure Assessment Model (SWIMODEL). Details on the SWIMODEL used in
this assessment may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/
swimodel.htm.
    Risks were calculated using the MOE approach, where a MOE of >100
is considered a level that does not pose a concern.
    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 endothall to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and endothall does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that endothall 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 website 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 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. There is no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following prenatal
exposure to rats in the developmental toxicity study. Endothall does
not cause prenatal toxicity following in utero exposure to rats nor
prenatal or postnatal toxicity following exposures to rats for 2-
generations reproduction studies. Due to high mortality observed in a
range finding study in rabbits even at low doses, a developmental
toxicity study in this species was not conducted (i.e., acute direct
irritative effects of the chemical could interfere with developmental
toxicity in this susceptible species). A developmental toxicity study
in mice showed no evidence for enhanced susceptibility in this species.
    EPA concluded that there is not a concern for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity resulting from exposure to endothall in rats. In the
developmental mouse study, there was severe maternal toxicity (i.e.,
greater than 30% mortality) at the highest dose tested; at this dose
level, a slight increase in vertebral and rib malformations was
observed in the offspring indicating that these effects were likely
secondary to severe maternal toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. For chronic and intermediate-term risk assessments,
EPA is retaining an additional safety factor for the protection of
infants and children because it is relying on a LOAEL in the 2-
generation reproduction study in assessing the risk of endothall. For
short-term risk assessments, EPA has determined that reliable data show
that the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected
if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. Based on the following factors, EPA
has determined that an additional factor of 3X will be safe for infants
and children for chronic and intermediate-term risk assessments and
that a 1X factor will be safe for short-term risk assessments:
    i. Despite the fact that a NOAEL was not identified in the 2-
generation reproduction study for chronic and intermediate-term effects
and EPA is relying on a LOAEL from that study, a 3X factor (as opposed
to a 10X) was determined to be adequate because: The gastric lesions
(most sensitive effect) are due to the direct irritant properties of
endothall (i.e., portal effects) and not as a result of frank systemic
toxicity;the severity of the lesions were minimal to mild; and there
was no apparent dose-response for this effect.

    Therefore, EPA is confident that the POD for chronic dietary and
intermediate inhalation exposure risks will not underestimate risks
following exposure to endothall. A NOAEL for short-term effects was
identified in the 2-generation reproduction study and is being used as
the POD for assessing short-term risks of endothall.
    ii. The toxicity database for endothall is complete except for
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and immunotoxicity testing.
Recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 make these studies (OPPTS Guideline
870.7800) required for pesticide registration; however, the available
data for endothall do not show potential for neurotoxicity or
immunotoxicity. Although neurotoxicity studies have not yet been
submitted, there are no concerns for neurotoxicity. The EPA does not
expect that these studies will demonstrate a potential neurotoxic
effect that is more sensitive than direct local irritation (the most
sensitive effect identified in the data base). The available acute
subchronic and chronic studies showed no evidence of neurotoxicity.
However, irritation was identified as the initial and most sensitive
effect. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has
evaluated the available endothall toxicity database to determine
whether an additional database uncertainty factor is needed to account
for potential immunotoxicity. The available studies do not indicate
potential immunotoxicity, and endothall does not belong to the class of
compounds (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic
hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be toxic to the immune system.
Based on the available data, the required immunotoxicity study is not
expected to provide a POD lower than that currently used (i.e., direct
local irritation - the most sensitive effect) for overall risk
assessments. Consequently, the EPA believes the existing data are
sufficient for endpoint selection for exposure/risk assessment
scenarios and for evaluation of the requirements under the FQPA, and an
additional database uncertainty factor does not need to be applied.
    iii. There is no indication that endothall is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iv. There is no evidence that endothall results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or mice in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. While the chronic dietary exposure estimates are refined
(average field trial residues and adjustment of the percent of the
harvested crop that has been irrigated) the results are very
conservative because the field trials were performed under highly
conservative conditions, and it was assumed that 100% of all irrigation
canals in the U.S. are treated at the maximum rate for endothall.
Further, it was assumed that this maximally treated water is applied to
the crops on the day of harvest, and all consumers are chronically
exposed to simultaneous inadvertent residues of endothall through all
possible food and water sources. For most commodities EPA assumed 100%
of the crop would be irrigated. For the remaining crops, EPA used two
different methods to estimate the percent of the crop that was
irrigated which were very conservative estimates. Therefore, the
estimated dietary exposure (food and drinking water) will not
underestimate the potential risks for infants and children. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to endothall in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by endothall.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
endothall is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
endothall from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for children
1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
The general U.S. population subgroup was exposed at a maximum of 32% of
the cPAD.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Endothall is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to endothall.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs. For
adults, estimated dietary exposures via food and drinking water were
combined with inhalation exposures during application to a pond or lake
and potential post-application exposures during swimming. For children,
estimated dietary exposures via food and drinking water were combined
with potential post-application exposures during swimming. The short
term aggregate risk estimate (MOE) for adults is 290, and for children,
it is 240. The LOC for short-term exposures is for MOEs < 100.
Therefore, there are no short term aggregate (food + drinking water +
residential) risk concerns for endothall.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Endothall is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term 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
endothall.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Endothall is
considered not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. EPA does not expect
endothall to pose a cancer risk.
    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 endothall residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC) with
microcoulometric nitrogen detection) is listed as Method I in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM, Volume II) for the determination of
endothall residues (total common moiety) in plant commodities, with a
limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.1 ppm. A second liquid chromatography/
mass spectrometry(LC/MS) method (Method No. KP218R0) is also available
for determining residues of endothall and its monomethyl ester in fish
and in plant commodities. The LOQ is 0.05 ppm for fish, and range from
0.01-0.10 ppm for plant commodities.

B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican
maximum residue limits for endothall on plant or animal commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency revised the proposed tolerance levels for the following
commodities: Almond, hulls from 10 to 15 ppm; animal feed, nongrass,
group 18, forage from 3.5 to 4.0 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
hay from 8.0 to 10.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 from 0.25 to 0.3 ppm;
grain, aspirated fractions from 24.0 to 35.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group
15, except corn from 1.9 to 4.0 ppm; grape from 0.9 to 1.0 ppm; grass,
forage, fodder, and hay group 17, forage from 3.0 to 3.5 ppm; grass,
forage, fodder, and hay group 17, hay from 19.0 to 18.0 ppm;
peppermint, tops from 7.0 to 5.0 ppm; spearmint, tops from 7.0 to 5.0
ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 2.0 to bulb, group 3-07 at 0.5 ppm;
vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 from 1.1 to 1.5 ppm; vegetable, leafy,
except brassica, group 4 from 3.5 to 2.0 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root
and tuber, group 2 from 3.5 to 3.0 ppm; and vegetable, root and tuber,
group 1 from 2.0 to 1.0 ppm. For proposed tolerances for cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16, stover at 11.0 ppm; and cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except stover at 6.0 ppm, the
Agency established a single tolerance for both as ``grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16'' at 10 ppm.
    The Agency revised the tolerance levels based on available data on
maximum endothall residues in subject crop and/or representative crop
including analysis of the residue field trial data using the Agency's
Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for
Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data.
    Using the same resources and procedures, the Agency established
tolerances for the following additional commodities: Apple, wet pomace
at 0.15 ppm; beet, sugar, molasses at1.5 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm;
cattle, kidney at 0.20 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.1; cattle, meat at 0.03
ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.07 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.07 ppm; egg
at 0.05 ppm; feed commodities not otherwise listed at 10.0 ppm; food
commodities not otherwise listed at 5.0 ppm; goat, fat at 0.005; goat,
kidney at 0.15 ppm; goat, fat at 0.015 ppm; goat, liver at 0.05 ppm;
goat meat at 0.015 ppm; grape, raisin at 5.0 ppm; herb and spice, group
19 at 5.0 ppm; hog, fat at 0.005; hog, liver at 0.05; hog, kidney at
0.10; hog, meat at .01 ppm; milk at 0.03 ppm; pea and bean, succulent
shelled , subgroup 6B; pea and bean , dried shelled , subgroup, 6C at
0.2 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.015 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.05 ppm;
poultry, meat byproducts at 0.20 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.015 ppm; rice,
hull at 8.0 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.005 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.15 ppm;
sheep, liver 0.05; sheep, meat 0.015 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.5 ppm;
soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm; tomato, paste at 0.1 ppm; tomato, puree at
0.1 ppm; brassica, head and stem subgroup 5A at 0.1 ppm; brassica,
leafy, group 5B at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume group 7 at 4.0
ppm; vegetable, legume, edible, podded, subgroup 6A; and wheat, milled
byproducts at 5.0 ppm. Some of these tolerances are being added because
processing data indicated that residues in the processed food may
exceed the raw commodity tolerance (grape, raisin; wheat, milled
byproducts). The other tolerances are being added because use of an
aquatic herbicide such as endothall in irrigation water may
theoretically result in residues in these crops. The available data
support these tolerances.
    EPA has also determined that individual tolerances are not
necessary for certain petitioned-for commodities. Proposed tolerances
for cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, hay; cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16, straw; and cereal, forage, fodder and
straw, group 16, forage are combined into forage, hay and straw and,
therefore individual tolerances are not required. Proposed tolerances
for rice, grain and rice, straw are not needed as these commodities are
covered by the tolerances for cereal grains and cereal grain straw. The
Agency rejected a proposed tolerance for vegetable, legume group 6 and
established separate tolerances for soybeans and the various legume
subgroups including vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroups 6A; pea
and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B; and pea and bean, dried
shelled, subgroup 6C. Likewise, tolerances were established for
brassica, head and stem subgroup 5A and brassica, leafy, group 5B in
place of a proposed tolerance for vegetable, brassica, group 5.
    The Agency established a tolerance for cattle, fat; cattle meat;
cattle liver and cattle kidney based upon calculations for dairy cattle
using metabolism data even though no tolerance was proposed by IR-4 for
cattle meat products. Tolerances were also established for cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16.
    No tolerance was petitioned for on corn, field, grain or corn, pop,
grain. However, a 0.7 ppm tolerance is established for each based on
tolerance spreadsheet for corn grain. Also, a tolerance is established
for corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.3 ppm based on
maximum residues in sweet corn K+CWHR of 0.17 ppm based on available
data.
    Additionally, the Agency has determined that the tolerances should
be established in Sec.  180.293(d) for direct and inadvertant residues
and the tolerance expression should read: Tolerances are established
for the indirect or inadvertant combined residues of the herbicide,
endothall (7 -oxabicyclo[2.2.1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid) in
potable water from use of its potassium, sodium, di-N, N -
dimethylalkylamine, and mono-N-N, -dimethylalkylamine salts.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for the indirect or
inadvertent combined residues of endothall (7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]
heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid) in water, potable from use of its
potassium, sodium, di-N,N-dimethylalkylamine, and mono- N-N, -
dimethylalkylamine salts as algacides or herbicides to control aquatic
plants in canals, lakes, ponds, and other potable water sources that
may lead to endothall residues in or on almond, hulls at 15.0 ppm;
animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 4.0 ppm;

animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 10 ppm; apple, wet pomace at
0.15 ppm; beet, sugar at 1.5 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.6 ppm;
caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.6 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle,
kidney at 0.20 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.10 ppm; cattle, meat at 0. 03
ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 10.0 ppm;
corn, field, grain at 0.07 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.07 ppm; corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.3 ppm; citrus, dried
pulp at 0.1 ppm; egg at 0.05 ppm; feed commodities not otherwise listed
at 10.0 ppm; food commodities not otherwise listed at 5.0 ppm; fruit,
citrus group 10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 0. 05 ppm; fruit,
stone, group 12 at 0.3 ppm; goat, fat at 0.005 ppm; goat, kidney at
0.15 ppm; goat, liver at 0.05 ppm; goat, meat at 0.015 ppm; grain,
aspirated fractions at 35.0 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15, except corn
at 35.0 ppm; grape at 1.0 ppm; grape, raisin at 5.0 ppm; grass, forage,
fodder, and hay group 17, forage at 3.5 ppm; grass, forage, fodder, and
hay group 17, hay at 18.0 ppm; herb and spice, group 19 at 5.0 ppm;
hog, fat at 0.005 ppm; hog, liver at 0.05 ppm; hog, kidney at 0.10 ppm;
hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.03 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05
ppm; okra at 0.05 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at
2.0 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, subgroup 6C at 0.2 ppm;
peppermint, tops at 5.0 ppm; pistachio at 0. 05 ppm; poultry, fat at
0.015 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.28
ppm; poultry, meat at 0.15 ppm; rice, hull at 8.0 ppm; sheep, fat at
0.005 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.15 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.05 ppm; sheep,
meat at 0.015 ppm; soybean hulls at 0.5 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm;
tomato, paste at 0.1 ppm; tomato, puree at 0.1 ppm; brassica, head and
stem subgroup 5A at 0.1 ppm; brassica, leafy, group 5B at 2.0 ppm;
vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at
1.5 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7 at 4.0 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8 at 0. 05 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica,
group 4 at 2.0 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 3.0
ppm; vegetable, legume, edible, podded, subgroup 6A at 2.0 ppm;
vegetable, root and tuber, group 1 at 1.0 ppm; and wheat, milled
byproduct at 5.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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 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 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.
    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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the 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 11, 2009.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
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 180.293 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.293  Endothall; Tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for the indirect or inadvertent combined residues of the herbicide,
endothall (7 - oxabicyclo[2.2.1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid) in
potable water from use of its potassium, sodium, di-N, N -
dimethylalkylamine, and mono- N-N, -dimethylalkylamine salts as
algicides or herbicides to control aquatic plants in canals, lakes,
ponds, and other potable water sources that may lead to endothall
residues in or on the following commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls........................................               15.0
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage..............                4.0
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay.................                 10
Apple, wet pomace....................................               0.15

Beet, sugar, molasses................................                1.5
Brassica, head and stem subgroup 5A..................                0.1
Brassica, leafy, subgroup 5B.........................                2.0
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B............................                0.6
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A............................                0.6
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.01
Cattle, kidney.......................................               0.20
Cattle, liver........................................               0.10
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.03
Corn, field, grain...................................               0.07
Corn, pop, grain.....................................               0.07
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed......                0.3
Citrus, dried pulp...................................                0.1
Egg..................................................               0.05
Feed commodities not otherwise listed................               10.0
Food commodities not otherwise listed................                5.0
Fruit, citrus group 10...............................               0.05
Fruit, pome, group 11................................               0.05
Fruit, stone, group 12...............................                0.3
Goat, fat............................................              0.005
Goat, kidney.........................................               0.15
Goat, liver..........................................               0.05
Goat, meat...........................................              0.015
Grain, aspirated fractions...........................               35.0
Grain cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16.....               10.0
Grain, cereal, group 15, except corn.................                4.0
Grape................................................                1.0
Grape, raisin........................................                5.0
Grass, forage, fodder, and hay group 17, forage......                3.5
Grass, forage, fodder, and hay group 17, hay.........               18.0
Herb and spice, group 19.............................                5.0
Hog, fat.............................................              0.005
Hog, liver...........................................               0.05
Hog, kidney..........................................               0.10
Hog, meat............................................               0.01
Milk.................................................               0.03
Nut, tree, group 14..................................               0.05
Okra.................................................               0.05
Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B.........                2.0
Pea and bean, dried shelled, subgroup 6C.............                0.2
Peppermint, tops.....................................                5.0
Pistachio............................................               0.05
Poultry, fat.........................................              0.015
Poultry, liver.......................................               0.05
Poultry, meat byproducts.............................               0.20
Poultry, meat........................................              0.015
Rice, hulls..........................................                8.0
Sheep, fat...........................................              0.005
Sheep, kidney........................................               0.15
Sheep, liver.........................................               0.05
Sheep, meat..........................................              0.015
Soybean, hulls.......................................                0.5
Soybean, seed........................................                0.2
Spearmint, tops......................................                5.0
Tomato, paste........................................                0.1
Tomato, puree........................................                0.1
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07..........................                0.5
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9.........................                1.5
Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7................                4.0
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8.........................               0.05
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4...........                2.0
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2.........                3.0
Vegetable, legume, edible, podded, subgroup 6A.......                2.0
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1...................                1.0
Wheat, milled byproducts.............................                5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-30150 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: August 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 51834]
[DOCID:fr23au10-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1916-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1916-DR), dated May 14, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-212, FEMA is
amending the cost-sharing arrangement concerning Federal funds provided
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5140b, 5172, and 5123 for the major
disaster declared on May 14, 2010, for the State of Mississippi due to
the damage resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding. The
Mississippi major disaster declaration is amended as follows:

    Federal funds for all categories of Public Assistance
(Categories A-G) provided under this declaration are authorized at
90 percent of total eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
 Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-20766 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53506-53507]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-195-000,
    Applicants: RET Modesto Solar LLC,
    Description: Application of RET Modesto Solar, LLC for
Authorization Under Section 203 and Request for Expedited Consideration
and Confidential Treatment.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15,
    Accession Number: 20150827-5337,
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15,

    Docket Numbers: EC15-196-000.
    Applicants: Breckinridge Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Breckinridge Wind
Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150827-5353.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2547-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Revisions to FKEC Rate
Schedule FERC No. 322 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150827-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2548-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA
No. 3677, Queue No. V4-025 to be effective 8/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150827-5300.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2549-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of
Original Service Agreement No. 3676, Queue No. V4-025 to be effective
8/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150827-5302.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2550-000.
    Applicants: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility.
    Description: Petition of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility for
Limited Waiver of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation's Tariff Provisions.
    Filed Date: 8/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150827-5317.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2551-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits Average System Cost Filing
for Sales of Electric Power to the Bonneville Power Administration, FY
2016-2017.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2552-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2794 ATC-
City of Gladstone CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2553-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2797 ATC-
Lake Mills Light and Water CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.

    Accession Number: 20150828-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2554-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2798 ATC-
City of Menasha CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2555-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2799 ATC-
City of New London CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2556-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2801 ATC-
City of Sturgeon Bay CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2557-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-28_SA 2804 ATC-
City of Richland Center CFA to be effective 10/27/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2558-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: FPL Revisions to LCEC Rate
Schedule FERC No. 317 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2559-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 217
Exhibit B Revisions to be effective 10/28/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/28/15.
    Accession Number: 20150828-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21981 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P