€璧粺涓辩汗棣嗗幉鑺閭€閬楀鎮ㄥぇ澶缁樿鐏伴鑽 涓囧煄ｅ僵叡璧氱墿潃鍗浠ｉ骞翠鍥炲鍥界忓笣攼浠愬攼锋ⅵ櫠缃村崈箣绾戝嵎帍閲

70鍚嶅鐢熺┛... 2023-09-28闃呰鍏ㄦ枃 >> 鈥滃垢绂忓反澹€滫鈥滀笉鍔℃涓氣€濈殑澶ц儐鍒涙柊 璁╂洿澶氫汉浣撻獙鍒板埆鏍风殑骞哥 11宀佸コ瀛╃帺缃戞父璐拱瑁呭 鐖风埛寰俊閲?閭€000浣欏厓琚姳鍏 2023涓浗鏀€宀╄嚜鐒跺博澹佺郴鍒楄禌锛堥檿瑗挎腑鍗楀崕灞辩珯锛夊紑骞 瀹夊悍甯傛眽婊ㄥ尯寮€灞曞簡绁?023骞翠腑鍥藉啘姘戜赴鏀惰妭閲戠娑堣垂瀛ｆ椿鍔 鈥滅泭璧疯繃涓鈥濅箣浣涘潽鐜板満锛?0鍚嶅鐢熺┛涓婃柊鏍℃湇70鍚嶅瀛愯儗涓婃柊涔﹀寘 婵€鍔卞瀛愭垚闀跨殑鍞愭鏍 瑙佽瘉浜嗗巻鍙插彉杩侊紝闄即鐫€涓€浠ｅ張涓€浠ｅ瀛愰暱澶ф垚鎵 姹変腑甯傚崥鐗╅灞曞嚭鐨勭煶闂ㄥ崄涓夊搧 Because there are no proposed or registered residential uses of sedaxane, an intermediate-term risk assessment was not performed 鑰屼互鍏朵粬姘存灉涓哄師鏂欙紝閫氳繃鍚屾牱鐨勬柟娉曞埗鎴愮殑閰掞紝甯稿湪鐧藉叞鍦伴厭鍓嶉潰鍔犱笂姘存灉鍘熸枡鐨勫悕绉颁互鍖哄埆鍏剁绫 绗笁鍗佸叚鏉 鍦ㄦ湰甯傚彂甯冨啘鑽箍鍛婏紝搴斿綋鎸夌収鍥藉鏈夊叧瑙勫畾鍚戝競鍐滀笟琛屾斂涓荤閮ㄩ棬鎻愬嚭鐢宠锛屽競鍐滀笟琛屾斂涓荤閮ㄩ棬搴斿綋渚濇硶杩涜瀹℃牳鎵瑰噯

閭€鎮ㄥ叡璧村崈骞翠箣绾 涓€璧锋ⅵ鍥炲ぇ澶忓笣鍥界粺涓囧煄閬楀潃鍗氱墿棣嗗攼浠ｅ僵缁樿幉鑺辩汗鐏伴櫠缃愬攼浠ｉ帍閲戝嵎鑽夌汗鍏摚閾滃嫼鍞愪唬鑰€宸炵獞榛戦噳鐡滄１鎵у６杈戒唬缁块噳璐磋姳鐠庣彏绾圭洏鍙ｇ┛甯︾摱鈥滀笌鍙や负鏂帮紝涓€鍥旱瑙堝崈骞 鏌块ゼ 鍙堝悕钂彍銆侀┈韫勮彍銆佹箹鑿滅瓑锛屽骞寸敓瀹挎牴姘寸敓鑽夋湰妞嶇墿 SUMMARY:This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pydiflumetofen in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).DATES:This regulation is effective August 12, 2019. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 2019 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in40 CFR part 178(see also Unit I.C. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).ADDRESSES:The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0688, is available athttp://www.regulations.govor at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:[email protected] INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: Crop production (NAICS code 111). Animal production (NAICS code 112). Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311). Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?You may access a frequently updat d electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at40 CFR part 180through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site athttp://www.ecfr.gov/?cgi-bin/?text-idx?? ?c=?ecfr ?tpl=?/?ecfrbrowse/?Title40/?40tab_?02.tpl.C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?Under FFDCA section 408(g),21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0688 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 11, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in40 CFR 178.25(b).In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to40 CFR part 2may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0688, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Mail:OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Hand Delivery:To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets/?contacts.html.Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets.II. Summary of Petitioned-For ToleranceIn theFederal Registerof April 19, 2019 (84 FR 16430) (FRL-9991-14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.Start Printed Page 39762346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8F8696) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that40 CFR part 180be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide, pydiflumetofen, in or on root vegetable crop subgroup 1A at 0.30 parts per million (ppm); bulb vegetable crop subgroup 3-07A at 0.20 ppm; bulb vegetable crop subgroup 3-07B at 2 ppm;brassicaleafy greens subgroup 4-16B at 50 ppm;brassicahead and stem crop group 5-16 at 3 ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables, crop group 2 at 15.0 ppm; edible-podded legume vegetables subgroup 6A at 1.0 ppm; succulent shelled pea and bean subgroup 6B at 0.09 ppm; citrus fruit crop group 10-10 at 0.90 ppm; citrus oil at 15 ppm; pome fruit crop group 11-10 at 0.20 ppm; apple, wet pomace at 1.0 ppm; stone fruit, cherry subgroup 12-12A at 2.0 ppm; stone fruit, peach subgroup 12-12B at 1.0 ppm; stone fruit, plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.6 ppm; plum, prune at 1.5 ppm; bushberry crop subgroup 13-07B at 5 ppm; berries, low growing crop subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry and blueberry, at 1 ppm; tree nuts crop group 14-12, nutmeat at 0.05 ppm; almond hull at 9.0 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C, cotton undelinted seed at 0.4 ppm; cotton gin by-products at 7.0 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.60 ppm; sorghum grain at 3.0 ppm; sorghum forage at 1.5 ppm; and sorghum stover at 10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket,http://www.regulations.gov.There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which some of the commodities are being set as well as some of the commodity definitions. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of SafetySection 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is safe. Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines safe to mean that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . . Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for pydiflumetofen including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with pydiflumetofen follows.A. Toxicological ProfileEPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.The liver was a common target across species tested, likely in part due to the extensive first pass metabolism of absorbed pydiflumetofen. Liver effects were either concurrent with body weight depression and other target organ toxicity as in rats, or the first symptoms of treatment-related toxicity as in mice and dogs. Liver toxicity commonly manifested as increased liver weight concordant with hepatocyte hypertrophy in all species and was accompanied by increased cholesterol and triglyceride serum levels and a higher incidence of liver masses and eosinophilic foci of cellular alteration in mice and increased serum levels of liver enzymes and triglycerides in dogs. Male mice further exhibited a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas (accounted for separately and combined) and in the frequency of individual mice exhibiting multiple liver adenomas following chronic exposure. Treatment-related liver tumors were not observed in female mice nor in rats of either sex.Body weight effects were also observed in rodents in response to treatment. Adult rats experienced depressed body weight following both subchronic (concurrent with liver toxicity) and chronic oral exposure (in isolation) and mice exhibited body weight depression following chronic exposure concurrent with symptoms of liver toxicity. A dose-dependent increase in the incidence and severity of thyroid gland follicular cell hypertrophy was also noted in rats following subchronic dietary exposure at doses greater than or equal to 587 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). The isolated thyroid findings occurred at a dose level over an order of magnitude above the subchronic and chronic point of departures (PODs) selec ed for risk assessment. In general, short and intermediate duration repeat dose oral exposures were well tolerated by adult rodents and dogs. Rodents were, however, considerably less tolerant of long-term exposure. Liver and body weight effects manifested at doses 25 and 12 times lower in chronic studies as compared to subchronic studies in mice and rats, respectively. A similar progression of toxicity was not evident in dogs.The database does not support a conclusion that the pesticide is a neurotoxicant. Although a dose-dependent decrease in two locomotor activity parameters, number of rears and total distance traveled, was observed in female adult rats only within 6 hours of exposure following acute gavage oral exposure to doses greater than or equal to 300 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) in the acute neurotoxicity study, there were no neuropathology lesions or consistent evidence of other behavioral changes accompanying the depressed locomotor activity up to acute doses of 2,000 mg/kg. Detailed functional observations of rats and dogs following repeat dose dietary exposure did not identify similar changes in locomotor activity or any other behavioral changes indicative of neurotoxicity.Body weight toxicity was not a unique observation in adults; it was also observed in rat offspring. In the two-generation reproduction study, rat pups exhibited significantly reduced weight during lactation that persisted through weaning and into adulthood. The pup body weight decrements were observed in the absence of parental toxicity indicating post-natal susceptibility to pydiflumetofen exposure. There was no evidence of enhanced fetal susceptibility following gestational exposure to pregnant rats or rabbits in the developmental studies.Although there is some evidence of carcinogenicity in the database (i.e.,hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in male mice), the AgencyStart Printed Page 39763has concluded that pydiflumetofen is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not induce a proliferative response in the liver. This conclusion is based on the limited nature of tumors seen in the available data (liver tumors found only in male mice), the fact that pydiflumetofen is not a mutagenic concernin vivo,and available mode of action data. The available mode of action data supports the Agency's conclusion that liver tumors are likely induced via activation of the constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) and subsequent stimulation of hepatocellular proliferation, and that hepatocellular proliferation is not likely to occur at the doses at which EPA is regulating exposure to pydiflumetofen. As a result, a non-linear approach using the chronic reference dose would adequately account for chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity.Pydiflumetofen exhibited low acute toxicity via the dermal and inhalation route. Acute dermal exposure to dermal doses of 5000 mg/kg elicited reduced activity in rats similar to observations following acute oral exposure, but it did not incur mortality. Acute exposure did not irritate the skin nor did it elicit dermal sensitization. No dermal or systemic toxicity was observed following repeat-dose dermal exposures up to 1000 mg/kg/day. Acute lethality from inhalation exposure was limited to high inhalation concentrations and it was a mild acute eye irritant. The requirement for the subchronic inhalation toxicity study was waived for the pydiflumetofen risk assessment based on a weight of evidence (WoE) approach that considered all of the available hazard and exposure information for pydiflumetofen, including: (1) the physical-chemical properties of pydiflumetofen indicated low volatility (vapor pressure is 3.98 10-9mm Hg at 25 (2) the use pattern and exposure scenarios; (3) the margins of exposure for the worst case scenarios are 13,000 using an oral point of departure and assuming inhalation and oral absorption are equivalent; (4) pydiflumetofen exhibits low acute inhalation toxicity (Category IV); and (5) the current endpoints selec ed for risk assessment, liver toxicity and pup body weight decrements, were the most sensitive effects identified in the database and an inhalation study is not likely to identify a lower POD or more sensitive endpoint for risk assessment.The toxicity of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol a pydiflumetofen metabolite and residue of concern in livestock commodities was evaluated based on studies from the open literature that were provided by the registrant, identified in a previous EPA review of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (https://www.epa.gov/?sites/?production/?files/?2016-09/?documents/?2-4-6-trichlorophenol.pdf) and the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) review of chlorophenols (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/?toxprofiles/?tp107.pdf), or retrieved in a search of the literature conducted for this risk assessment. based on available information, the absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME) for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is similar to the ADME profile for pydiflumetofen: Near complete absorption and extensive metabolism followed by rapid excretion without appreciable tissue accumulation. Oral exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol elicited effects in the liver, kidneys, and hematopoietic system as well as body weight depression. Subchronic oral exposure in rats elicited an increase in liver, kidney (males only), and spleen weight, an increase in total protein and albumin serum levels, a moderate to marked increase in splenic hematopoiesis, and an increased incidence of hepatocyte vacuolation.Following chronic dietary exposure, male rats exhibited an increased incidence of leukemias, lymphomas, and nephropathy, and both sexes exhibited an increased incidence of bone marrow hyperplasia, leukocytosis, fatty metamorphosis in the liver, and chronic inflammation of the kidney. Tissue specific toxicity in mice was limited to the liver and manifest as an increased incidence of liver adenomas and carcinomas following chronic exposure. Adult body weight depression was observed in both rodent species. Mortality also occurred with greater frequency in both species at or above the limit dose. The few studies that examined developmental and offspring effects presented equivocal evidence of offspring toxicity following exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Prenatal subchronic drinking water exposure in female rats led to a reduction in litter size and perinatal drinking water exposure in rats elicited changes in offspring spleen and liver weight; however, the health of the dams and its potential contribution to the manifestation of the offspring effects was not discussed in this study so it is unclear whether the offspring toxicity is a direct result of exposure or secondary to maternal toxicity. In a separate study, pup body weight decrements were observed in the presence and absence of parental toxicity following subchronic exposure, but the body weight effect was considered a consequence of the larger litter size rather than treatment. In any event, the effects seen in these studies occurred at doses above the endpoints selec ed for regulation of pydiflumetofen exposure.These studies illustrate a spectrum of responses to increasing oral 2,4,6-trichlorophenol exposure: Isolated organ weight changes and a reduction in litter size were observed at doses as low as 30 mg/kg/day with adverse effects in the target tissues and significant body weight depression in adult animals manifesting when the oral dose exceeded 200 mg/kg/day. However, the 2,4,6-trichlorophenol doses that elicited the subchronic and chronic toxicity described above were not below the empirical no-observed-adverse-effect-levels (NOAELs) established in comparable pydiflumetofen guideline studies (after converting both to millimoles/kg/day) suggesting that direct exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is not more toxic than direct exposure to pydiflumetofen. Direct exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is anticipated from dietary exposures only. The PODs selec ed for pydiflumetofen are protective of the adverse effects reported in the 2,4,6-trichlorophenol literature and, therefore, are adequate for assessing direct dietary exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.The carcinogenic potential of 2,4,6-tricholorophenol was assessed in 1990 by EPA and classified as a B2-probable human carcinogen in accordance with the 1986 cancer classification guidance based on an increased incidence of combined lymphomas and leukemias in male F344 rats and hepatocellular adenomas or carcinomas in male and female mice. Since that evaluation of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, new literature has been published on the human relevance of leukemias in the F344 rat. The EPA re-evaluated the 2,4,6-trichlorophenol carcinogenicity literature and the broader scientific literature on rodent leukemia to determine if the data supported conducting a separate cancer assessment for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. The rodent leukemia literature indicated that the leukemia finding in male F344 rats is common for this strain of rat, is highly variable, and lacks a direct human correlate. Although treatment-related, the EPA concluded the leukemia incidence in rats did not support a linear approach to cancer quantification given its questionable relevance to human health risk assessment. Furthermore, the incidence of lymphomas was not remarkable when examined independently from the leukemias and thus not evidence of carcinogenicity in isolation. The liverStart Printed Page 39764tumors observed in male and female mice were considered treatment-related; however, the tumors could not be solely attributed to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol exposure because the investigators did not account for known carcinogenic contaminants of commercial 2,4,6-trichlorophenol solutions that may have contributed to the induction of the liver tumors. These carcinogenic contaminants would not be present when 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is formed through metabolism; therefore, these data were not considered strong evidence of carcinogenicity and did not support a linear approach to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol cancer quantification for exposure resulting from pydiflumetofen use. The literature also did not suggest 2,4,6-trichlorophenol was a mutagenic concernin vivo.based on the limited evidence of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for the metabolite, the EPA concluded that using the reference dose (RfD) approach with the chronic dietary POD selec ed for the pydiflumetofen dietary assessment would be adequate for assessing direct dietary exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol from the proposed pydiflumetofen uses. Because the chronic POD selec ed for pydiflumetofen is 66 and 165x lower than the 2,4,6-trichlorophenol dose (on a molar basis) that elicited tumors in rats and mice, respectively, this approach will be protective of potential carcinogenicity from exposure to the metabolite. Consequently, a separate cancer dietary assessment for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is not warranted at this time.Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by pydiflumetofen as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found athttp://www.regulations.govin the document titled, Pydiflumetofen. Human Health Risk Assessment for New Foliar Uses on Berries, Low Growing, Crop Subgroup 13-07G; Brassica Head and Stem Crop Group 5-16; Brassica Leafy Greens Subgroup 4-16B; Bulb Vegetable Crop Subgroup 3-07A; Green onion Crop Subgroup 3-07B; Bushberry Crop Subgroup 13-07B; Citrus Fruit Crop Group 10-10; Cottonseed Subgroup 20C; Edible-podded Legume Vegetables Subgroup 6A; Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean Subgroup 6B; Pome Fruit Crop Group 11-10; Root Vegetable Crop Subgroup 1A; Sorghum; Stone Fruit Crop Subgroups 12-12A, 12-12B, and 12-12C; Sunflower Subgroup 20B; Tree Nut Crop Group 14-12; Leaves of Root and Tuber Vegetable Crop Group 2; and New Seed Treatment Uses on Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20A and Soybean; and Registration of a New Seed Treatment End-Use Product on pages 56-69 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0688.B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concernonce a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, seehttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?assessing-human-health-risk-pesticide.A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pydiflumetofen used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in theFederal Registerof May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24036) (FRL-9976-66). Because the available data indicate that exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol is not more toxic than direct exposure to pydiflumetofen and that there is insufficient information to warrant a separate cancer assessment of the metabolite at this time, EPA concludes that the endpoints for pydiflumetofen will be protective of effects from exposure to the metabolite 2,4,6-triclorophenol.C. Exposure Assessment1.Dietary exposure from food and feed uses.In evaluating dietary exposure to pydiflumetofen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing pydiflumetofen tolerances in40 CFR 180.699. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pydiflumetofen in food as follows:i.Acute exposure.Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.Such effects were identified for pydiflumetofen. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).ii.Chronic exposure.In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT.iii.Cancer.As discussed in Unit III.A., the Agency has determined that a separate cancer assessment is not necessary for assessing exposure to pydiflumetofen. Because the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is below 10 mg/kg/day,i.e.,the lowest dose known to induce hepatocellular proliferation based on available MOA data, the chronic assessment will be protective for assessing direct dietary exposure to pydiflumetofen. Also discussed in Unit II.A. is the Agency's conclusion that a separate cancer assessment is not required for assessing exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (free and conjugated) and the cRfD will be protective of potential carcinogenic effects.iv.Anticipated residue and PCT information.EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for pydiflumetofen. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.2.Dietary exposure from drinking water.The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pydiflumetofen and its degradate SYN545547 in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pydiflumetofen. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.based on the Pesticides in Water Calculator (PWC) the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) ofStart Printed Page 39765pydiflumetofen for acute exposures are estimated to be 10.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 113.3 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 3.37 ppb for surface water and 101 ppb for ground water.Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 113.3 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 101 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).Pydiflumetofen is registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Golf course turf; and ornamentals grown in greenhouses, nurseries, and fields for residential planting. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are not expected since the turf and ornamental use labels indicate that the product is intended for use by professional applicators, while the crop use labels include the statement Not for residential use. As a result, residential handler exposures are not expected. There is the potential for residential short-term post-application exposure for individuals exposed as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with pydiflumetofen.The quantitative exposure/risk assessment for residential post-application exposures is based on the short-term dermal exposure from contact with residues on treated golf course turf while golfing for adults, children 6 to less than 11 years old, and children 11 to less than 16 years old, and short-term dermal exposure from post-application activities with treated ornamental plants for adults and for children ages 6 to less than 11. Intermediate-term exposures are not expected.Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.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 pydiflumetofen to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pydiflumetofen does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pydiflumetofen 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 athttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children1.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 Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (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 was no evidence of fetal sensitivity or toxicity in rat and rabbit developmental studies; however, quantitative offspring sensitivity was noted in the 2-generation reproduction study. Pup body-weight depression starting on day 4 of lactation and persisting into adulthood was observed at doses that did not elicit an adverse response in the parental rats. Although body weight was depressed in these animals after maturity and during the mating and post-mating period (specifically in males), it was considered evidence of offspring susceptibility because the lower body weight was a result of impaired growth in the pups. Reduced pup weight, reduced litter size, and increased liver and spleen weight in offspring was also noted following prenatal and perinatal exposure to the pydiflumetofen metabolite, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. PODs were selec ed for each exposure scenario to be protective of the parent and metabolite offspring toxicity and offspring susceptibility in the risk evaluation.3.Conclusion.EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:i. The toxicity database for pydiflumetofen is complete.ii. Regarding neurotoxicity, evidence of behavioral changes in the pydiflumetofen toxicity database was limited to adult rats in the acute neurotoxicity study (ACN). Female rats exhibited depressed locomotor activity in the form of fewer number of rears and less distance traveled following acute exposure to doses of pydiflumetofen 300 mg/kg (3x to 30x higher than the PODs selected for risk assessment). Male rats did not exhibit any symptoms of neurotoxicity following acute exposure up to 2,000 mg/kg/day. No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the subchronic rat and dog dietary studies that included additional detailed functional observations to identify neurological impairment nor in the routine clinical observations of the chronic studies and the guideline requirement for a subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study was waived. The concern for neurotoxicity in sensitive populations is low because the behavioral effects observed in the acute neurotoxicity studies have well-defined NOAEL/LOAELs, the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the acute behavioral change observed in females, there were no corresponding neuropathology changes in females exhibiting decreased locomotor activity, and there was no evidence of neurotoxicity following repeat-dose exposure.iii. There was evidence of quantitative offspring sensitivity in the 2-generation reproduction study; however, as noted in Section D.2., PODs were selected for each exposure scenario to be protective of the offspring susceptibility in the risk evaluation.iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to pydiflumetofen in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptionsStart Printed Page 39766to assess residential post-application exposure. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by pydiflumetofen.E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of SafetyEPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.1.Acute risk.Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to pydiflumetofen will occupy 9.5% of the aPAD for children 3 to 5 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.2.Chronic risk.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pydiflumetofen from food and water will utilize 29% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pydiflumetofen is not expected.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).Pydiflumetofen 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 pydiflumetofen.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 400 for adults, 560 for children 6 to less than 11 years old, and 2400 for children 11 to less than 16 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for pydiflumetofen is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.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).An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, pydiflumetofen 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 pydiflumetofen.5.Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.As discussed in Unit III., the Agency has concluded that regulating on the chronic reference dose will be protective of potential carcinogenicity from exposure to pydiflumetofen. Because the chronic risk assessment did not exceed the Agency's level of concern, the Agency concludes there is not an aggregate cancer risk from exposure to pydiflumetofen.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 pydiflumetofen residues.IV. Other ConsiderationsA. Analytical Enforcement MethodologyAnalytical multi-residue method QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, and Safe) as described in Eurofins validation study S14-05402 was independently validated in the following crop matrices: Lettuce (high water content), wheat grain (high starch content), oil seed rape (high oil content) and coffee bean (difficult commodity).The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:[email protected]. International Residue LimitsIn making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.The Codex has not established any MRLs for pydiflumetofen at this time.C. Revisions to Petitioned-for TolerancesEPA has modified several of the commodity definitions to be consistent with Agency nomenclature as well as the numerical expression of many of the proposed tolerance values to conform to current EPA policy on trailing zeroes.For the tolerance in or on berries, low growing crop subgroup 13-07G, the proposed exceptions to the tolerance for lowbush blueberry and for cranberry are not appropriate, since use on both lowbush blueberry and cranberry are included on the proposed label 100-1601 and listed under directions for use on strawberry and low growing berry crop subgroup 13-07G.EPA has modified several of the petitioned-for tolerances for the following reasons. For the tolerances in/on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A; nut, tree, group 14-12; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B; and fruit, citrus, group 10-10, the petitioner combined the individual commodities together in one calculator analysis when it is Agency practice to separate commodities. For the tolerances in/on vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 and sunflower subgroup 20B, the petitioner used U.S. residue data only wher the Agency used both U.S. and Canadian residue data for harmonization purposes. For the tolerance in prune, the petitioner used the highest residue (HR) value from the field trials while the Agency's practice is to use the highest average field trial (HAFT) value from the field trials. For the tolerance in citrus oil, the Agency's practice is to use the HAFT and median concentration factor, and based on these data, the appropriate tolerance in citrus oil is 30 ppm; hence, the petitioned-for tolerance (15 ppm), the basis for which was not explained in the petition, is too low. As a result, several of the tolerance levels being established are different than those proposed by the petitioner.Start Printed Page 39767V. ConclusionTherefore, tolerances are established for residues of pydiflumetofen including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only pydiflumetofen (3-(difluoromethyl)-N-methoxy-1-methyl-N-[1-methyl-2-(2,4,6-trichlorophenyl)ethyl]-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide) in or on the commodity: Almond, hulls at 9 ppm; apple, wet pomace at 1 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 1 ppm;brassica,leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 50 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 2 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 7 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.4 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 1 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil at 30 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.2 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.07 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.2 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 2 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.1 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 1 ppm; plum, prune, dried at 1 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.6 ppm; sorghum, grain, forage at 1.5 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 3 ppm; sorghum, grain, stover at 10 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.5 ppm; vegetable,brassica,head and stem, group 5-16 at 3 ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 10 ppm; vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 1 ppm; and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A at 0.5 ppm.VI. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsThis action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject toExecutive Order 13211,entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) orExecutive Order 13045,entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action underExecutive Order 13771,entitled Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations underExecutive Order 12898,entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.), do not apply.This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined thatExecutive Order 13132,entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) andExecutive Order 13175,entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et seq.).This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272note).VII. Congressional Review ActPursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by5 U.S.C. 804(2).List of Subjects in40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection Administrative practice and procedure Agricultural commodities Pesticides and pests Reporting and recordkeeping requirementsDaniel Rosenblatt,Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:PART 180 [AMENDED]1.The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:Authority:21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.2.In 180.699, add alphabetically the commodities almond, hulls; apple, wet pomace; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G;Brassica,leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; bushberry subgroup 13-07B; cherry subgroup 12-12A; cotton, gin byproducts; cottonseed subgroup 20C; fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, citrus, group 10-10, oil; fruit, pome, group 11-10; nut, tree, group 14-12; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B; peach subgroup 12-12B; plum, prune, dried; plum subgroup 12-12C; sorghum, grain, forage; sorghum, grain, grain; sorghum, grain, stover; sunflower subgroup 20B; vegetable,Brassica,head and stem, group 5-16; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2; vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A; and vegetable, root, subgroup 1A to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: 180.699Pydiflumetofen; tolerances for residues.(a) [FR Doc.2019-17144Filed 8-9-19; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-P GB 5084 绗崄涓冩潯 鍐滆嵂缁忚惀鑰呭繀椤诲缓绔嬪啘鑽?鍗敓鏉€铏墏闄ゅ)缁忚惀鍙板笎

瑗垮捀鏂囨梾闆嗗洟鐩稿叧璐熻矗浜鸿〃绀猴紝闄曡タ鏂囨梾鎯犳皯骞冲彴鏈夋晥缁熺杈栧尯鏂囧寲婕斿嚭鍜屾梾娓歌祫婧愶紝璁╃兢浼楄蛋杩涘墽鍦猴紝璧板叆鏅尯锛屾椿璺冩柊鍖烘枃鏃呭競鍦猴紝鍙戝睍鏂囨梾浜т笟锛屼笉鏂帹杩涢潪閬椾繚鎶や紶鎵匡紝鎺ㄥ姩鍏ㄥ尯鏂囧寲鍜屾梾娓镐簨涓氱殑鍏ㄩ潰绻佽崳鍙戝睍锛屾槸闄曡タ鐪佸垱鏂板疄鏂芥枃鏃呮儬姘戝伐绋嬬殑閲嶈涓炬帾 妫€鍑洪檺锛圠OD锛?%锛堣川閲忓垎鏁帮級 绗笁鏉 鑽敤閲庣敓妞嶇墿璧勬簮瀹炶淇濇姢浼樺厛銆佸悎鐞嗗埄鐢ㄧ殑鍘熷垯

杩囧幓锛屽ぇ瀹朵竴鑸彧鍦ㄦ俯搴﹁緝浣庛€佺┖姘旀箍搴﹁緝灏忕殑鏄ャ€佺銆佸啲涓夊鐢熶骇锛屼互瀹炵幇鎸傞潰鐨勬參閱掑彂鍜屽共鐕 绗竴鎵瑰畨鎺掗珮涓夊勾绾у鐢熷紑瀛︼紝瀹炶鐪佸煙鍐呭悓姝ヨ繑鏍★紱鍏朵綑4涓壒娆″垎鍒畨鎺掑垵涓夊勾绾у疄琛屽悓涓€甯傚煙鍚屾杩旀牎锛岄珮涓€楂樹簩骞寸骇銆佷腑绛夎亴涓氬鏍★紙鍚妧宸ラ櫌鏍★級浠ュ強涔夊姟鏁欒偛闃舵鍏朵粬骞寸骇瀹炶鍚屼竴甯傚煙閿欐椂杩旀牎锛岄珮绛夊鏍″紑瀛︼紝鐤儏寰楀埌鍏ㄩ潰鎺у埗鍚庡畨鎺掑辜鍎垮洯寮€瀛?/p>

T/YNFS 0011 鐞嗗寲鎬ц川 鍘熻嵂澶栬涓烘贰榛勮壊绮樼桓娑蹭綋锛屾哺鐐癸紙13.3Pa)180鈩冿紝钂告苯鍘嬶紙20鈩冿級0.133mPa锛屾姌鍏夌巼1.5468锛屾瘮閲嶏紙20鈩冿級1.27g/cm3

鈥滄垜浠閬楀潃鐨勪繚鎶ゅ睍绀虹幇鐘剁瓑杩涜鍥惧儚銆佹枃瀛楀拰鏁板瓧鍖栬褰曪紝涓轰粖鍚庢嫨鍦板紑灞曡法鍥借仈鍚堜繚鎶ゅ睍绀哄伐绋嬫敹闆嗕簡杈冧负鍏ㄩ潰鍜岀郴缁熺殑鍩虹鏁版嵁鍜岃璇佹潗鏂 NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:RDFRNotices@epa 321(q), 346a and 371

杩欎簺绮惧阀鍒嚧銆佽壊褰╄壋涓界殑鐨奖浣滃搧閮藉嚭鑷崕鍘跨毊褰辨垙鍥藉绾т紶鎵夸汉銆佷腑鍥藉伐鑹虹編鏈ぇ甯堟豹澶╃ǔ锛屼互鍙婁粬鐨勫コ鍎裤€侀檿瑗跨渷涓€绾у伐鑹虹編鏈ぇ甯堟豹娴风嚂涔嬫墜 鐬х潃瀛︾敓浠叴鑷村媰鍕冨湴瑙傝祻闈為仐琛ㄦ紨锛岄┈娌诲浗涓嶇鎰熸叏锛氣€滄矇娴稿紡鍙傚锛岃骞磋交浜烘洿娣卞叆鍦颁簡瑙ｉ潪閬楃殑鍐呮兜涓庨瓍鍔 鈥?014骞寸瀛ｅ紑瀛﹀悗锛岀涓€鎵瑰▋濞冭榧撻槦闃熷憳鎸戦€夊埌浣 The term residential exposure is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level 鏉忎粊

鏄棤鍒烘灒鏍戠殑涓€涓櫄鐔熼矞椋熶紭鑹搧绉 绗簲鏉 璁″垝銆佸煄寤恒€佽鍒掋€佽储鏀裤€佸璁°€佺幆淇濈瓑鏈夊叧琛屾斂閮ㄩ棬渚濈収鍚勮嚜鐨勮亴璐ｏ紝鍋氬ソ鍩烘湰鑿滅敯鐨勫缓璁俱€佷繚鎶ゅ拰绠＄悊鐨勭浉鍏冲伐浣淈/p>

鑴嗙敓鐢熺殑鈥滅Е鑴嗏€濄€佺敎婊嬫粙鐨勨€滅Е铚溾€濄€侀粍婢勬緞鐨勨€滅憺闆€濈浉缁у湪榛勫湡楂樺潯钀藉湴鐢熸牴锛屾繁鍙楀競鍦鸿拷鎹 琛屼笟鏍囧噯 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庣豢鑹查鍝佺憺瀹夎姳妞拌彍鐨勭敓浜?/p>

浼氳鍥寸粫5G鐗╄仈缃戙€丷FID銆佹棤婧愮墿鑱?.. 2023-11-26闃呰鍏ㄦ枃 >> 闄曡タ姘存灉鐨勯鍊间笌鎷呭綋 鎵撻€犱骇涓氶摼鎻愬崌鐭ュ悕搴 鎬讳功璁?022骞?0鏈堝湪闄曡タ寤跺畨鑰冨療鏃舵寚鍑猴紝闄曞寳鐨勬皵鍊欍€佸厜鐓с€佺含搴︺€佹捣鎷旂瓑闈炲父閫傚疁鍙戝睍鑻规灉绉嶆锛屽姞涓婃淮鐏屾妧鏈€佺煯鍖栫妞嶆妧鏈€侀€夋灉鐢熶骇绾跨瓑涓嶆柇鍙戝睍锛屽氨鍦板崠鍑猴紝閿€璺笉鎰侊紝澶у姏鍙戝睍鑻规灉绉嶆涓氬彲璋撳ぉ鏃跺湴鍒╀汉鍜?.. 2023-11-26闃呰鍏ㄦ枃 >> 澶у攼涓嶅鍩庡叆閫夊叏鍥介鎵光€?G+鏅烘収鏃呮父鈥濆簲鐢ㄨ瘯鐐归」鐩 杩戞棩锛屾枃鏃呴儴缃戠珯鍙戝竷銆婃枃鍖栧拰鏃呮父閮ㄥ姙鍏巺 宸ヤ笟鍜屼俊鎭寲閮ㄥ姙鍏巺鍏充簬鍏竷绗竴鎵光€?G+鏅烘収鏃呮父鈥濆簲鐢ㄨ瘯鐐归」鐩殑閫氱煡銆嬶紝鍏ㄥ浗鍏?0涓」鐩幏閫 鈥濇竻鍒濓紝鍗庡窞浜哄垬閬囧浣溿€婂彜妲愯浜嬭銆嬭姝ゆ锛氣€滃崕宸炲叕缃叉湁鍙ゆ涓€鏍紝鐩镐紶鍑犵櫨骞达紝鑿佷笡鑼傚瘑锛屽奖骞插﹩濞戯紝鍏惰崼鐩栫珶浜╀簯 鐗涜挕 鏈枃浠惰瀹氫簡绉戝皵娌佹矙鍦伴ゲ鐢ㄧ嚂楹︿笌楗茬敤璞岃眴娣锋挱鏍藉煿鎶€鏈紝鍖呮嫭鏈鍜屽畾涔夈€佹挱鍓嶅噯澶囥€佹挱绉嶃€佺敯闂寸鐞嗐€佹敹鑾风瓑鎶€鏈唴瀹 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庡啘浜у搧浜屾哀鍖栭挍鐨勬祴瀹 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庣敇鑲冪渷澶у彾闈掕彍鐢熶骇 鍐滀骇鍝佽川閲忓畨鍏ㄨ鑼冪鐞嗕紒涓氳瘎浠锋寚鍗楋紙缂栧埗璇存槑锛夋繁鍦冲競甯傚満鐩戠潱绠＄悊灞€浜?022 骞? 鏈?7 鏃ュ彂甯冧簡 鍏充簬寮€灞?022 骞存繁鍦冲競鍦版柟鏍囧噯鍒朵慨璁㈣鍒掗」鐩緛闆嗗伐浣滅殑閫氱煡

鏈娲诲姩涔熸槸鈥滈檿鑰€路缃戠粶鍏泭鎴戣鍔ㄢ€?023闄曡タ鐪佺綉缁滃叕鐩婂伐绋嬬郴鍒楁椿鍔ㄤ箣涓€ 涓€閬撻亾灞卞箔鏄寳缇婂北楂樺ぇ鐨勮韩韬紝涓€搴у骇灞卞嘲鏄寳缇婂北楂橀珮闅嗚捣鐨勮剨姊侊紝杩炵坏璧蜂紡鐨勫北宀缈╃咯璧疯垶鐨勪粰濂筹紝鍏€绔嬬殑灞卞嘲濡傞《澶╃珛鍦扮殑澹眽锛岀粰浜哄甫鏉ョ绉樺拰绁炲 宀愬北绌哄績鎸傞潰鍒朵綔鐨勬瘡涓€涓楠わ紝濂归兘鐑傜啛浜庡績 闄曡タ鐪佸叡鏈?6鎵€楂樻牎254涓绉戜笂姒滐紝12涓绉戣璇勪负鈥滀腑鍥介《灏栧绉戔€濓紝鍏朵腑5涓绉戜綅鍒楀叏鍥界涓€ 钁¤悇閰掋€佹灉閰掓劅瀹樺搧璇勫鍒欙紙寰佹眰鎰忚绋匡級 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庝互绾噣姘翠负姘存簮锛岀粡鍑€鍖栥€佺矖婊ゃ€佸弽娓楅€忕瓑澶勭悊锛岄鍝佽憽钀勭硸涓轰富瑕佸師鏂欙紝澶氱椋熷搧娣诲姞鍓備负杈呮枡锛岀粡璋冮厤銆佹潃鑿屽悗鐏岃鑰屾垚鐨勮憽钀勭硸楗枡

鈥濅綅浜庨檿瑗夸笢閮ㄣ€侀粍娌宠タ宀哥殑闊╁煄甯傦紝鏄彜浠ｅ叺瀹跺繀浜変箣鍦 瑗垮畨鍟嗚锤鏈嶅姟鍨嬪浗瀹剁墿娴佹灑绾界揣閭婚檰娓瀷鍜岀敓浜ф湇鍔″瀷鍥藉鐗╂祦鏋㈢航锛屼互閾佽矾涓撶嚎杩炴帴涓鐝垪瑗垮畨闆嗙粨涓績锛屽彲閫氳繃鍏搧鑱旇繍閫氳揪鍏ㄥ浗甯傚満 Summary of Petitioned-For ToleranceIn theFederal Registerof February 6, 2019 (84 FR 2115) (FRL-9987-08), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),21 U 鐩稿叧鍏憡锛氳川妫€鎬诲眬鍏充簬鍙戝竷2014骞寸浜屾壒128椤瑰嚭鍏ュ妫€楠屾鐤涓氭爣鍑嗙殑閫氱煡 鏈爣鍑嗘潵鑷綉鍙嬪垎浜紝鍙綔涓洪鍝佹妧鏈悓琛岀殑浜ゆ祦瀛︿範涔嬬敤锛岃鍦ㄤ笅杞藉悗24灏忔椂鍐呭垹闄わ紝鍕夸綔浠栫敤 渚嬭鐩戞祴銆佺洃鐫ｆ娊鏌ユ椂闂翠负鍚勭被鍐滀骇鍝佺殑涓婂競鏃惰妭,杈惧埌姣忔湀鍧囨湁瀹夋帓鎶芥 瀹夎禌铚滀腑鏂囧悕绉版湁涔欓叞纾鸿兒閰搁捑锛涘畨璧涜湝锛?-鐢插熀-1,2,3-姘ф伓鍡?4-(3H)-閰?2,2-浜屾哀閽剧洂锛?-鐢插熀-2,2-浜屾哀浠?1,2,3-姘х～姘潅锛?-鐢插熀-1,2,3-姘ф伓鍡?4-(3H)-閰?2,2-浜屾哀閽剧洂绛夌瓑

2021骞达紝椴嶆鏂囨姇璧勫缓鎴愰泦灞曠ず銆佸煿璁拰鏃呮父浜庝竴浣撶殑鈥滅互寰蜂紶缁熺煶闆曞簞鍥€濓紝鍏呭垎灞曠ず绮炬箾鐭抽洉鎶€鑹 鍔犲揩寤鸿鍥介檯缇庨涔嬮兘 鑸屽皷涓婄殑瑗垮畨娆㈣繋鎮ㄦ彁璧疯タ瀹夛紝涓嶈兘涓嶆彁缇庨 姝ゅ,鏍规嵁銆婂浗鍔￠櫌鍔炲叕鍘呭叧浜庡嵃鍙戝浗姘戣惀鍏昏鍒?2017 2030骞?鐨勯€氱煡銆?鍥藉姙鍙戙€?017銆?0鍙?鍏充簬 鍙戝睍椋熺墿钀ュ吇鍋ュ悍浜т笟 鐩稿叧瑕佹眰,榧撳姳鏈夋潯浠剁殑鍗曚綅缁撳悎瀹為檯,瀵归噸鐐逛骇鍝佸鍔犺惀鍏诲搧璐ㄧ浉鍏虫寚鏍 娌冲鍦板尯楹﹀悗澶嶇楗茬敤鐕曢害涓庣绛堣睂璞嗘贩鎾珮浜ф牻鍩规妧鏈绋嬶紙寰佹眰鎰忚绋匡級鏈枃浠惰瀹氫簡楹﹀悗澶嶇楗茬敤鐕曢害涓庣绛堣睂璞嗘贩鎾牻鍩规妧鏈紝鍖呮嫭鏈鍜屽畾涔夈€佷骇鍦扮幆澧冦€佺瀛愬噯澶囥€佹暣鍦版挱绉嶃€佺敯闂寸鐞嗐€佹敹鑾峰埄鐢ㄧ瓑

鍗氱墿棣嗗悇鍗曞厓浜偣绾峰憟锛岀簿褰╃殑灞曢檲璁╂父瀹㈢洰涓嶆殗鎺ワ紝涓€鎵圭粺涓囧煄閬楀潃鍑哄湡鐨勭弽璐垫枃鐗╅娆′寒鐩革紝缁熶竾鍩庡鍘熸ā鍨嬭娓稿鍙戝嚭闃甸樀鎰熷徆锛?D鎶曞奖銆乂R浜掑姩銆佸浜哄悓灞忔父鎴忋€佸濯掍綋鏁板瓧褰卞巺銆佺粺涓囧煄涓婚灞曠瓑浜掑姩浣撻獙椤圭洰涓板瘜澶氬僵锛岄鍐呰繕鏈夌湡浜篘PC娌夋蹈娓搞€佹崲瑁呮墦鍗＄瓑浣撻獙锛岃浜轰豢浣涚┛瓒婂崈骞存ⅵ鍥炵粺涓囷紝鍛堢幇鍑轰竴搴ф父鍘嗘劅鏋佷匠鐨勬儏澧冧綋楠屸€滆€冨彜鈥濋仐鍧€鍗氱墿棣嗭紝杩庢帴鐫€涓€鎵规壒鐮斿娓稿瓙鍜屽巻鍙叉枃鍖栫埍濂借€ 01 parts per million (ppm) and to remove the existing tolerances for soybean, seed at 0 EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sedaxane in drinking water 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庢牳妗冩牻鍩瑰尯鏍告鏈夊鐢熺墿鐨勯槻娌狐/p>

鍧氬畾澶у鐢熺悊鎯充俊蹇 鏂板啝鑲虹値鐤儏涔嬫墍浠ヨ兘澶熷強鏃跺緱鍒版帶鍒讹紝杩欏緱鐩婁簬鍏氫腑澶潥寮烘湁鍔涚殑棰嗗 鏈爣鍑嗛€傜敤浜庨€熷喕鑺嬩粩銆侀€熷喕鐢樿柉銆侀€熷喕鐗涜挕銆侀€熷喕鍦熻眴銆侀€熷喕澶у銆侀€熷喕鑾茶棔銆侀€熷喕钀濆崪銆侀€熷喕鐧借悵鍗溿€侀€熷喕闈掕悵鍗溿€侀€熷喕榄旇妺銆侀€熷喕钂滅背

瀵逛簬鑺傜害姘磋祫婧愭彁楂樻按璧勬簮鐨勫埄鐢ㄧ巼鍏锋湁闈炲父閲嶈鐨勬剰涔 鏆戞湡鍒版潵锛岄檿瑗垮悇鍦扮浉缁ф帹鍑哄鍏冨寲鐨勬梾娓哥嚎璺紝涓板瘜娓稿鏆戞湡鍑烘父鏂颁綋楠岄殢鐫€鏆戞湡鏃呮父鏃哄鐨勫埌鏉ワ紝闄曡タ鍚勫湴鐩哥户鎺ㄥ嚭浜у搧宸紓鍖栥€佹湇鍔＄簿缁嗗寲銆佷富棰樺鍏冨寲鐨勬梾娓哥嚎璺紝澶氱淮搴﹀涓氭€佷赴瀵屾父瀹㈡殤鏈熷嚭娓告柊浣撻獙 鍙戝竷銆婅タ瀹夊浗闄呯編椋熶箣閮藉缓璁捐鍔ㄦ柟妗堛€嬶紝鍑哄彴銆婃敮鎸侀楗笟澶嶈嫃宸ヤ綔鎺柦銆嬶紝鎸佺画鎺ㄨ繘瑗垮畨鍥介檯缇庨涔嬮兘寤鸿锛屽彂鎸ヨタ瀹夐楗枃鍖栧拰浜т笟浼樺娍锛屽閫犺タ瀹夐楗悕鍚冦€佸悕搴楋紝寮€灞曠郴鍒楀浼犳帹骞挎椿鍔紝鍔╁姏椁愰ギ甯傚満蹇€熸仮澶嶅闀 璁拌€呬簡瑙ｅ埌锛屼负鏂逛究楂樻牎瀛︾敓寮€瀛?.. 2023-08-25闃呰鍏ㄦ枃 >> 绗竷灞娾€滃啹濡傝埅绌虹鎶€绮捐嫳濂栤€濊瘎閫夌粨鏋滄寮忔彮鏅 瑗垮寳宸ヤ笟澶у寮犲畾鍗庢暀鎺堣幏濂 缁埅鏃堕棿瓒呰繃3灏忔椂锛佽タ宸ュぇ鈥滀俊楦解€濈獊鐮翠笘鐣岀邯褰 璁╁ぇ瀛︽柊鐢熷杩欏骇鍩庡競鈥滀竴瑙佸€惧績鈥 2023骞粹€滆タ瀹夊洜浣犺€岀編鈥濆ぇ瀛︾敓鍩庡競绀肩墿娲诲姩涓捐 瑗垮畨浜ら€氬ぇ瀛?238鍚嶆湰绉戞柊鐢熷紑瀛 鐪嬫牎闀跨帇鏍戝浗鍙堣浜嗗暐 瑗垮畨鍏氦鍏ㄥ姏鈥滄姢瀛︹€ 灏嗗紑閫?5鏉″畾鍒剁嚎璺 鍙鐩?0浣欐墍楂樻牎 鍙堟槸涓€骞村紑瀛﹀ 鐪嬬湅鍑嗗ぇ瀛︾敓浠殑閽遍兘鑺卞湪鍝簡锛 All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 28, 2019 SN/T 0626.2-1997 鍑哄彛閫熷喕钄彍妫€楠岃绋 鑺辨ぐ鑿滅被鏈爣鍑嗚瀹氫簡杩涘嚭鍙ｉ€熷喕鑺辨ぐ鑿滅被钄彍鐨勬楠屾柟娉旤/p>

很赞哦!（9）