Lambda-Cyhalothrin; Pesticide Tolerance, 45656-45663 [E7-16050]
Download as PDF
45656
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance
exemption under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order
12866, this rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) 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 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, This 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).
V. 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: August 3, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.920, is amended by
adding alphabetically the inert
ingredient to read as follows:
I
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
*
*
*
*
Inert ingredients
Limits
*
*
*
*
*
*
Cis-isomer of 1-(3-chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-1-azoniaadamantane chloride (CAS Reg. No.
51229–78–8)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Maximum of 0.14% by
weight of formulation
*
[FR Doc. E7–16055 Filed 8–14–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0545; FRL–8143–1]
Lambda-Cyhalothrin; Pesticide
Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for the combined residues of
lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
its epimer expressed as epimer of
lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of
(S)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
Uses
Preservative
(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or
on cucurbit vegetables (Group 9),
tuberous and corm vegetables (Subgroup
1C), grass (forage, fodder, and hay)
(Group 17), barley, buckwheat, oat, rye,
wild rice, and pistachios. Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc. and the Interregional
Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
This regulation is effective
August 15, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before October 15, 2007, and must
be filed in accordance with the
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0545. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
the docket ID number where indicated
and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or
access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available in
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
https://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:
Bonaventure Akinlosotu, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 605–0653; e-mail address:
akinlosotu.bonaventure@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
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),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather 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 Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing an electronic
copy of this Federal Register document
through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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–2005–0545 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 October 15, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
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–2005–0545, by one of the
following methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45657
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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’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
(703) 305–5805.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 14,
2006 (71 FR 19509) (FRL–7771–7), 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 5F6994) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 410
Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27409 and
IR–4, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902–3390. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for
combined residues of the insecticide
lambda-cyhalothrin, (S)-a-cyano-3phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
the epimer of lambda-cyhalothrin, (S)-acyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S)-3(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or
on food commodity crop groupings:
Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) at
0.05 parts per million (ppm); grass,
forage, fodder, hay (Crop Group 17) at
9.0 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables
(Crop Subgroup 1-C) at 0.01 ppm;
barley, buckwheat, oat, rye, grain at 0.05
ppm; barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; oat, rye,
forage at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat, hay at 2.0
ppm; barley, oat, rye, straw at 2.0ppm;
and wild rice, grain at 1.0 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. No
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
45658
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
comments were received on the notice
of filing.
The April 14, 2006 notice announcing
the pesticide petition from Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc. and IR–4
inadvertently left out the PP number for
the IR–4 petition though the
commodities IR–4 requested were
proposed. There are actually two
petitions (PP 3E6593 and PP 5F6994).
PP 3E6593 submitted by IR–4 requested
that 40 CFR 180.438 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for combined
residues of the insecticide lambdacyhalothrin and its epimer in or on food
commodities: Barley, buckwheat, oat,
rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; barley, bran at
0.2 ppm; oat, rye, forage at 2.0 ppm;
barley, oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat,
rye, straw at 2.0 ppm; and wild rice,
grain at 1.0 ppm. PP 5F6994 submitted
by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.,
requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for
combined residues of the insecticide
lambda-cyhalothrin and its epimer in or
on food commodity crop groupings:
Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) at
0.05 ppm; grass, forage, fodder, hay
(Crop Group 17) at 9.0 ppm; tuberous
and corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C) at 0.01 ppm.
In the Federal Register of October 11,
2006 (71 FR 59780) (FRL–8097–5), 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 6E7077) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419–8300.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.438 be amended by establishing a
tolerance for the combined residues of
the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin in or
on pistachio at 0.05 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection,
Inc., the registrant, which is available to
the public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
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....’’ These provisions
were added to FFDCA by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
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 the petitioned-for
tolerance for the combined residues of
lambda-cyhalothrin in or on cucurbit
vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.05 ppm;
grass, forage, fodder and hay (Crop
Group 17) at 7.0 ppm; tuberous and
corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C) at
0.02 ppm; barley, grain at 0.05 ppm;
buckwheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; oat, grain
at 0.05 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05 ppm;
barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; rye, bran at 0.2
ppm; oat, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, forage
at 2.0 ppm; barley, hay at 2.0 ppm; oat,
hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, straw at 2.0
ppm; oat, straw at 2.0 ppm; rye, straw
at 2.0 ppm; rice, wild, grain at 1.0 ppm;
pistachio at 0.05 ppm; hog, fat at 0.2
ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meatbyproducts at 0.02 ppm; and milk, fat at
10.0 ppm (reflecting 0.4 ppm in whole
milk). EPA’s assessment of exposures
and risks associated with establishing
the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by lambda-cyhalothrin as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
are discussed in the final rule published
in the Federal Register of April 8, 2004
(69 FR 18480) (FRL–7353–4).
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC) is derived from 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) is sometimes
used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/
safety factors (UF) are used in
conjunction with the LOC 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 risks by comparing
aggregate 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 LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-,
and long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the
LOC to ensure that the margin of
exposure (MOE) called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk and
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of occurrence of additional adverse
cases. Generally, cancer risks are
considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for lambda-cyhalothrin used
for human risk assessment is discussed
in Unit III.B. of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of April 8, 2004
(69 FR 18480) (FRL–7353–4).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to lambda-cyhalothrin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing lambda-cyhalothrin tolerances
in (40 CFR 180.438). EPA assessed
dietary exposures from lambdacyhalothrin 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. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used the Dietary
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMFCID(TM), Version 2.03) which uses food
consumption information from the
United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) 1994–1996 and
1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). A
refined acute probabilistic dietary
exposure assessment was performed for
lambda-cyhalothrin which included all
existing and proposed food uses and
drinking water. The acute dietary
exposure assessment incorporated
processing factors and percent crop
treated (PCT) estimates. Acute
anticipated residues were derived from
USDA’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data, field trial studies, and
a market basket survey for beef-fat.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used DEEM-FCID(TM),
Version 2.03 which uses food
consumption information from the
USDA’s 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII. As
to residue levels in food, EPA
conducted a refined chronic dietary
exposure assessment for lambdacyhalothrin to support all existing and
proposed food uses, utilizing a singlepoint estimate of anticipated residues
for food and drinking water. The
chronic dietary exposure assessment
incorporated processing factors and PCT
estimates. Chronic anticipated residues
were derived from PDP monitoring data,
field trial studies, and a market basket
survey for beef-fat.
iii.Cancer. Lambda-cyhalothrin is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.’’ Therefore,
there is no cancer risk associated with
existing or proposed uses.
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 pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(f)(1) require 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 this tolerance.
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 such
pesticide residue.
b. The exposure estimate does not
underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
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 section 408(b)(2)(F)
of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants
to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
PCT estimates of agricultural uses for
lambda-cyhalothrin were obtained in
the form of a screening-level usage
assessment (SLUA), based on data years
1999–2004. Average and maximum
values for percent crop treated data
were used in the chronic and acute
analyses, respectively, for the following
commodities with established
tolerances: Almonds (5 chronic, 5
acute), Apples (5 chronic, 10 acute),
Beans, Green (10 chronic, 20 acute),
Broccoli (10 chronic, 20 acute), Cabbage
(30 chronic, 45 acute), Canola/Rapeseed
(1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Cauliflower (20
chronic, 30 acute), Cherries (5 chronic,
15 acute), Corn (1 chronic, 2.5 acute),
Cotton (10 chronic, 10 acute), Dry
Beans/Peas (1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Garlic
(10 chronic, 30 acute), Lettuce (30
chronic, 45 acute), Onions (50 chronic,
55 acute), Peaches (5 chronic, 10 acute),
Peanuts (5 chronic, 10 acute), Pears (15
chronic, 30 acute), Peas, Green (1
chronic, 2.5 acute), Pecans (1 chronic, 5
acute), Peppers (5 chronic, 15 acute),
Prunes and Plums (5 chronic, 5 acute),
Rice (15 chronic, 30 acute), Sorghum (1
chronic, 2.5 acute), Soybeans (5 chronic,
10 acute), Sugarcane (5 chronic, 10
acute), Sunflowers (10 chronic, 20
acute), Sweet Corn (45 chronic, 60
acute), Tomatoes (20 chronic, 20 acute),
and Wheat (1 chronic, 2.5 acute). For all
other commodities and for new uses,
100% PCT was assumed. Tolerance
level values were used for the following
commodities: Okra, eggplant, poultry,
tree nuts group (crop group 14) except
almonds and pecans, and tuberous and
corm vegetables subgroup (crop
subgroup 1C) except potatoes.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic
dietary risk analysis. The average PCT
figure for each existing use is derived by
combining available Federal, State, and
private market survey data for that use,
averaging by year, averaging across all
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45659
years, and rounding up to the nearest
multiple of 5% except for those
situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases <1% is
used as the average and <2.5% is used
as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the single
maximum value reported overall from
available Federal, State, and private
market survey data on the existing use,
across all years, and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5%. In most cases,
EPA uses available data from United
States Department of Agriculture/
National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market
Surveys, and the National Center for
Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP)
for the most recent 6 years.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions listed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have
been met. With respect to Condition 1,
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 2 and 3, 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 information on the
regional consumption of food to which
lambda-cyhalothrin may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for lambdacyhalothrin in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have
comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates
are made by reliance on simulation or
modeling taking into account data on
the environmental fate characteristics of
lambda-cyhalothrin. Further
information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
45660
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening
Concentrations in Groundwater (SCIGROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
lambda-cyhalothrin for acute exposures
are estimated to be 5.35 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.00336 ppb
for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 0.130 ppb
for surface water and 0.00336 ppb for
ground water. The EDWCs for lambdacyhalothrin were calculated based on a
maximum application rate of 0.5
pounds active ingredient per acre per
season (lb a.i./A/season) for orchards
(ground application) for surface and
groundwater concentrations. A default
percent crop area (PCA) factor of 0.87
(87%) was applied to the orchards
scenario. The orchards scenario using
the FIRST model produced the highest
concentrations.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 5.35 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 0.130 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Lambda-cyhalothrin is currently
registered for the following residential
non-dietary sites: Ornamental gardens,
lawns, landscapes, turf, golf courses,
and general insect control (spot
treatments, and crack and crevice
treatments) in, around, and on
buildings, structures, and immediate
surroundings. All registered products,
except for one aerosol can product, are
limited to use only by certified
applicators. As such, this assessment
ADDRESSES the single-residential
handler scenario for aerosol can users,
and post-application scenarios
associated with any use in a residential
environment. Both short-term and
intermediate-term exposures are
possible.
For the residential assessment,
existing uses on turf, in gardens, on golf
courses, and for structural pest control
were considered, but a quantitative
calculation was only completed for
post-application exposure on treated
turf. The Agency used a conservative
screening-level approach to address the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
risks associated with the use of the
aerosol can product of lambdacyhalothrin that can be purchased and
used by homeowners.
A screening-level quantitative
calculation was completed for postapplication exposure on treated turf
only because this scenario is expected to
have the highest associated exposures of
all residential exposures. EPA believes
that the selected post-application
assessment on lawns for children is
protective for all residential exposures
(even the aerosol can handler scenario)
because the dose levels for children
playing on treated lawns are thought to
exceed those expected for all other
scenarios (lawn exposures for children
represents the worst-case scenario). This
approach is based on the following
conservative considerations:
i. EPA assumed that children
contacted lawns immediately after
application of lawn product and thus
there was no dissipation of residues
from the treated lawn.
ii. EPA estimated dermal exposure
based on a high duration of exposure on
the lawn and an intensity of activity that
results in a high degree of contact with
the treated lawn.
iii. EPA assumed that the pesticide
was applied at the maximum
application rate.
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.’’
Lambda-cyhalothrin is a member of
the pyrethroid class of pesticides.
Although all pyrethroids alter nerve
function by modifying the normal
biochemistry and physiology of nerve
membrane sodium channels, EPA is not
currently following a cumulative risk
approach (based on a common
mechanism of toxicity) for the
pyrethroids. Although pyrethroids
interact with sodium channels, there are
multiple types of sodium channels, and
it is currently unknown whether
pyrethroids have similar effects on all
channels. Nor is there a clear
understanding of effects on key
downstream neuronal function (nerve
excitability), nor do we understand how
these key events interact to produce
their compound specific patterns of
neurotoxicity. There is ongoing research
by the EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (and pyrethroid
registrants) to evaluate the differential
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
biochemical and physiological actions
of pyrethroids in mammals. When
available, the Agency will consider this
research, and make a determination of
common mechanism as a basis for
assessing cumulative risk. 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 https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional (‘‘10X’’) tenfold margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA safety factor. In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X when reliable data do not
support the choice of a different factor,
or, if reliable data are available, EPA
uses a different additional FQPA safety
factor value based on the use of
traditional UFs and/or special FQPA
safety factors, as appropriate.
2. The completeness of the database.
The toxicology database is considered
complete for the purposes of an FQPA
risk assessment. Based on the
developmental studies in rats and
rabbits, and the 3–generation and
neurodevelopmental studies in rats,
there is no evidence of increased
susceptibility. The neurotoxicity
observed in adult animal studies raised
a concern for potential
neurodevelopmental effects. A rat
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study is available. In this study, the
lowest dose showing neurotoxicity in
the offspring (effects on mortality, body
weights, body weight gains, learning,
learning and memory, and brain
morphometry) is 10 milligram/kilogram
body weight/day (mg/kg bw/day), with
a NOAEL of 4 mg/kg bw/day. Effects in
offspring and adult animals are found at
a similar dose based on body weight
decreases. It should be noted that some
of the parameters evaluated in this DNT
study were regarded as acceptable but
several others were not, leading to a
study classification of ‘‘unacceptable.’’
The study deficiencies which, taken
together, led to the unacceptable
classification include:
i. Statistical analyses that adjusted for
body weights after treatment had begun.
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ii. An inadequate assessment of motor
activity.
iii. An inadequate assessment of
auditory startle in postnal day (PND) 61
females.
iv. Missing low- and mid-dose
morphometry data.
However, it is not likely that these
limitations will impact the risk
assessment for the following reasons.
The slight changes in brain
morphometry were seen at the highest
dose tested. Because these changes were
slight, it is uncertain whether
toxicologically significant differences
would be seen at the mid dose, and it
is unlikely that significant changes
would be seen at the lowest dose tested.
The auditory startle response is
considered adequate for assessment in
PND 23 males/females and PND 61
males where no treatment-related effects
were seen in auditory startle response.
Only the auditory response data for PND
61 females is inadequate. Motor activity
was examined and there did not appear
to be any differences between treated
and control animals other than
decreases for multiple subsessions in
PND 18 males/females at the high dose
only, but due to the high variability and
the lack of habituation, these data are
considered equivocal. There was no
published literature found that would
indicate a neurodevelopmental concern
for lambda-cyhalothrin.
The exposure assessments are based
on reliable data and reasonable worstcase assumptions, and are not likely to
underestimate exposure. Reliable data
on anticipated dietary residues was
relied upon including crop field trial
studies and monitoring data.
Conservative ground and surface water
modeling estimates were used.
Similarly, conservative Residential
Standard Operating Procedures were
used to assess post-application exposure
to children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by lambda-cyhalothrin.
3. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
No quantitative or qualitative evidence
of increased susceptibility of rat or
rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure in the
developmental studies was observed.
No developmental toxicity was observed
in either of these studies. No
quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility was observed in
the 3–generation reproduction study in
rats. Offspring toxicity (decreased pup
weight and pup weight gain) was
observed in the reproduction study at
the same dose level as parental toxicity
(decreased body weight and body
weight gain). These effects are not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
considered to be more severe than the
effects in the parents.
EPA has received a DNT for lambdacyhalothrin (Master Record
Identification Number 46449102),
which was classified as unacceptable/
guideline due to inadequacies in some
of the developmental parameters tested.
Nonetheless, for the reasons noted in
Unit VII.D.2., EPA does not believe that
correction of the deficiencies in this
study would meaningfully change its
evaluation of the risk posed by lambdacyhalothrin and is not requiring that the
study be repeated. In any event, if a 10fold factor is applied to this study’s
NOAEL, (i.e., 4 mg/kg bw/day) to
account for the scientific limitations of
the study, the resulting value is 0.4 mg/
kg bw/day. This estimate of 0.4 mg/kg/
day is similar to the doses from the
chronic dog study used for risk
assessment (i.e., 0.5 mg/kg/day for acute
dietary exposure scenarios and 0.1 mg/
kg/day for chronic dietary exposure
scenarios). Therefore, EPA concludes
that using the NOAELs from the dog
study would not underestimate risks to
infants and children from exposure to
lambda-cyhalothrin, and consequently,
a repeat rat DNT study is not required.
4. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show that it would be
safe for infants and children to reduce
the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That
decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for lambdacyhalothrin is considered complete for
the purpose of an FQPA assessment.
ii. All doses and endpoints for risk
assessment are based on neurotoxic
effects seen in the dog, widely known as
the most sensitive test species for
pyrethroids.
iii. There is no evidence that lambdacyhalothrin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2–generation
reproduction study. The acceptable
parameters of the developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats do not
indicate increased susceptibility to pups
exposed in utero.
iv. The exposure assessments are
based on reliable data and reasonable
worst-case assumptions, and are not
likely to underestimate exposure.
Based on all of the considerations in
Unit III.D.3., there is not a need to retain
the additional 10X safety factor for
children. Application of the 10X
intraspecies uncertainty factor (which
accounts for the possibility that a
subpopulation may be 10 times more
sensitive than the average individual)
and a 10X interspecies factor (which
accounts for the possibility that humans
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45661
may be 10 times more sensitive than
animals) to the dog NOAEL (i.e., the
most sensitive species) should assure
protection of human health including
children. Therefore, EPA has
determined that reliable data show that
it would be safe for infants and children
to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and
chronic risks by comparing aggregate
exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD
and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks,
EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given aggregate
exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and
long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the
LOC to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
lambda-cyhalothrin will occupy 46% of
the aPAD for the general U.S.
population, and 61% of the aPAD for all
infants (<1 year old), the most highly
exposed population subgroup.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that exposure to lambda-cyhalothrin
from food and water will utilize 17% of
the cPAD for the general U.S.
population, and 50% of the cPAD for
children (1–2 years old), the most highly
exposed population subgroup. Based on
the use pattern, chronic residential
exposure to residues of lambdacyhalothrin is not expected.
3. Short-term and intermediate-term
risk. Short-term and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Lambda-cyhalothrin is currently
registered for use that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term
residential exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic food and water and
short-term exposures for lambdacyhalothrin.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term and
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has
concluded that food, water, and
residential exposures aggregated result
in aggregate MOEs of 140 to 490. The
residential MOEs were aggregated
together because, regardless of the
exposure route (dermal, inhalation, or
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
45662
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
oral), lambda-cyhalothrin has similar
adverse effects (neurotoxicity). This
aggregate risk assessment incorporates
lawn post-application exposure (the
scenario with the highest potential for
exposure), and is a day-0 screening-level
assessment. The resulting aggregate
MOEs were greater than the Agency
target MOE of 100 (ranging from 140 to
490), and there were thus no concerns
for aggregate exposure.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Lambda-cyhalothrin is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.’’ Therefore,
there is no aggregate cancer risk
associated with the existing or proposed
uses.
5. 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 lambdacyhalothrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography/electron capture
detector (GC/ECD) methods are
available for enforcing tolerances for
lambda-cyhalothrin residues in plant
and animal commodities. The method
may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
The Codex Alimentarius Commission,
Mexico, and Canada have all established
maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
residues of lambda-cyhalothrin in or on
a variety of raw agricultural
commodities. These regulatory bodies
express residues in terms of only
cyhalothrin (Codex) or of lambdacyhalothrin (Canada, Mexico); none of
these tolerances include the epimer
R157836 found in the U.S. tolerance
expression. EPA includes the epimer
due to it being considered as toxic as the
active ingredient and its presence at
quantifiable levels in many crops. For
the crop uses currently under
consideration, only potatoes have
existing international tolerances.
Although the recommended 0.02 ppm
U.S. tolerance agrees numerically with
the Codex and Mexican MRLs, strictly
speaking they are not in harmony due
to the different residue definitions.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received from
a private citizen objecting to IR–4
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
petitioning for tolerances, pesticide
residues on food and the establishment
of these tolerances. The Agency has
received similar comments from this
commenter on numerous previous
occasions. Refer to the Federal Registers
of June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL–
7718–3), January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1354)
(FRL–7691–4), and October 29, 2004 (69
FR 63096–63098) (FRL–7681–9) for the
Agency’s response to these objections.
In addition, the commenter noted
several adverse effects seen in animal
toxicology studies with lambdacyhalothrin and claims because of these
effects no tolerance should be approved.
EPA has found, however, that there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm to
humans after considering these
toxicological studies and the exposure
levels of humans to lambda-cyhalothrin.
The commenter also identified potential
effects on the environment. This
comment is considered irrelevant
because the safety standard for
approving tolerances under section 408
of FFDCA focuses on potential harms to
human health and does not permit
consideration of effects on the
environment. Effects on the
environment were considered by EPA in
the registration process for lambdacyhalothrin under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
its epimer expressed as epimer of
lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of
(S)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop1-enyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or
on cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) at
0.05 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay
(Crop Group 17) at 7.0 ppm; tuberous
and corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup
1C) at 0.02 ppm; barley, grain at 0.05
ppm; buckwheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; oat,
grain at 0.05 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05
ppm; barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; rye, bran
at 0.2 ppm; oat, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye,
forage at 2.0 ppm; barley, hay at 2.0
ppm; oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, straw
at 2.0 ppm; oat, straw at 2.0 ppm; rye,
straw at 2.0 ppm; rice, wild, grain at 1.0
ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; hog, fat at
0.2 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog,
meat-byproducts at 0.02 ppm; and milk,
fat at 10.0 ppm (reflecting 0.4 ppm in
whole milk).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance
under section 408(d) of FFDCA in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
V. Conclusion
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Modifications to the pesticide
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
petitions included in this final rule
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has
include: Grass, (forage, fodder, hay)
from 9.0 ppm to 7.0 ppm because a crop been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
group tolerance is appropriate—grass
subject to Executive Order 13211,
forage, fodder, and hay (Group 17); rye,
Actions Concerning Regulations That
bran at 0.2 ppm based on the existing
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
residue data and tolerances in similar
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
wheat commodities; hog, fat from 3.0
22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
ppm to 0.2 ppm, hog, meat from 0.2
entitled Protection of Children from
ppm to 0.01 ppm, hog, and meatEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety
byproducts from 0.2 ppm to 0.02 ppm
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
based on a Theoretical Dietary Burden
This final rule does not contain any
(TDB) of 0.9 ppm for swine, the
information collections subject to OMB
maximum expected residues are 0.16
approval under the Paperwork
ppm in hog fat, 0.006 ppm in hog meat,
and 0.011 ppm in hog meat-byproducts; Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special
and milk, fat from 5.0 ppm to 10.0 ppm
considerations under Executive Order
based on a TDB of 10.4 ppm for dairy
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
cattle, the maximum expected residues
Address Environmental Justice in
in milk are 0.35 ppm, equivalent to 8.8
Minority Populations and Low-Income
ppm in milk fat.
Therefore, the tolerances are
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
established for the combined residues of 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3- are established on the basis of a petition
(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2- under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
(R)-a-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)the requirements of the Regulatory
(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropFlexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
1-enyl)-2,2seq.) do not apply.
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 15, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, this 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).
ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 3, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
[FRL–8455–5]
PART 180—[AMENDED]
Arkansas: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
AGENCY:
40 CFR Part 271
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.438 is amended by:
i. Revising the entries ‘‘hog, fat;’’
‘‘hog, meat;’’ ‘‘hog, meat byproducts;’’
and ‘‘milk, fat (reflecting 0.4 ppm in
whole milk)’’ in the table in paragraph
(a) (1).
ii. Adding alphabetically the
following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
I
§180.438 Lambda-cyhalothrin and an
isomer gamma-cyhalothrin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
bran ..............................
grain .............................
hay ................................
straw .............................
*
*
*
*
Buckwheat, grain ......................
*
*
*
*
Grass, forage, fodder and hay,
group 17 ................................
Hog, fat .....................................
Hog, meat .................................
Hog, meat byproducts ..............
*
*
*
*
Milk, fat (reflecting 0.4 ppm in
whole milk) ............................
*
*
*
*
Oat, grain ..................................
Oat, forage ................................
Oat, hay ....................................
Oat, straw .................................
*
*
*
*
Pistachio ...................................
*
*
*
*
Rice, wild, grain ........................
Rye, bran ..................................
Rye, grain .................................
Rye, forage ...............................
Rye, straw .................................
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ....
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C .........................
*
*
*
*
*
Barley,
Barley,
Barley,
Barley,
0.2
0.05
2.0
2.0
*
0.05
*
7.0
0.2
0.01
0.02
*
10.0
*
0.05
2.0
2.0
2.0
*
0.05
*
1.0
0.2
0.05
2.0
2.0
*
0.05
*
0.02
*
[FR Doc. E7–16050 Filed 8–14–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:56 Aug 14, 2007
Jkt 211001
45663
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
SUMMARY: Arkansas has applied to the
EPA for Final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for Final
authorization, and is authorizing the
State’s changes through this immediate
final action. The EPA is publishing this
rule to authorize the changes without a
prior proposal because we believe this
action is not controversial and do not
expect comments that oppose it. Unless
we receive written comments which
oppose this authorization during the
comment period, the decision to
authorize Arkansas’ changes to its
hazardous waste program will take
effect. If we receive comments that
oppose this action, we will publish a
document in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule before it takes
effect, and a separate document in the
proposed rules section of this Federal
Register will serve as a proposal to
authorize the changes.
DATES: This final authorization will
become effective on October 15, 2007
unless the EPA receives adverse written
comment by September 14, 2007. If the
EPA receives such comment, it will
publish a timely withdrawal of this
immediate final rule in the Federal
Register and inform the public that this
authorization will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: patterson.alima@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6,
Regional Authorization Coordinator,
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to Alima Patterson,
Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight
Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning
E:\FR\FM\15AUR1.SGM
15AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 15, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45656-45663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0545; FRL-8143-1]
Lambda-Cyhalothrin; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for the combined
residues of lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its epimer expressed as epimer of
lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on cucurbit vegetables (Group 9),
tuberous and corm vegetables (Subgroup 1C), grass (forage, fodder, and
hay) (Group 17), barley, buckwheat, oat, rye, wild rice, and
pistachios. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and the Interregional
Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective August 15, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 15, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the
[[Page 45657]]
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0545. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in 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 https://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: Bonaventure Akinlosotu, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 605-0653; e-mail address:
akinlosotu.bonaventure@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document?
In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2005-0545 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 October 15, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the 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-2005-0545, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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'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 (703) 305-5805.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of April 14, 2006 (71 FR 19509) (FRL-7771-
7), 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
5F6994) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., 410 Swing Rd., Greensboro,
NC 27409 and IR-4, 681 U.S. Highway 1 South, North Brunswick,
NJ 08902-3390. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide
lambda-cyhalothrin, (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-
chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate
and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and the
epimer of lambda-cyhalothrin, (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-
(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on food commodity crop groupings:
Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.05 parts per million (ppm);
grass, forage, fodder, hay (Crop Group 17) at 9.0 ppm; tuberous and
corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1-C) at 0.01 ppm; barley, buckwheat,
oat, rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; oat, rye, forage
at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat, rye, straw at
2.0ppm; and wild rice, grain at 1.0 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. No
[[Page 45658]]
comments were received on the notice of filing.
The April 14, 2006 notice announcing the pesticide petition from
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and IR-4 inadvertently left out the PP
number for the IR-4 petition though the commodities IR-4 requested were
proposed. There are actually two petitions (PP 3E6593 and PP 5F6994).
PP 3E6593 submitted by IR-4 requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide
lambda-cyhalothrin and its epimer in or on food commodities: Barley,
buckwheat, oat, rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; oat,
rye, forage at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, oat, rye,
straw at 2.0 ppm; and wild rice, grain at 1.0 ppm. PP 5F6994 submitted
by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the
insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin and its epimer in or on food commodity
crop groupings: Cucurbit vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.05 ppm; grass,
forage, fodder, hay (Crop Group 17) at 9.0 ppm; tuberous and corm
vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1-C) at 0.01 ppm.
In the Federal Register of October 11, 2006 (71 FR 59780) (FRL-
8097-5), 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
6E7077) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.438 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for the combined residues of the insecticide
lambda-cyhalothrin in or on pistachio at 0.05 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
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....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
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 the petitioned-for tolerance
for the combined residues of lambda-cyhalothrin in or on cucurbit
vegetables (Crop Group 9) at 0.05 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay
(Crop Group 17) at 7.0 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup
1C) at 0.02 ppm; barley, grain at 0.05 ppm; buckwheat, grain at 0.05
ppm; oat, grain at 0.05 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; barley, bran at
0.2 ppm; rye, bran at 0.2 ppm; oat, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, forage at
2.0 ppm; barley, hay at 2.0 ppm; oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, straw at
2.0 ppm; oat, straw at 2.0 ppm; rye, straw at 2.0 ppm; rice, wild,
grain at 1.0 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; hog, fat at 0.2 ppm; hog, meat
at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat-byproducts at 0.02 ppm; and milk, fat at 10.0
ppm (reflecting 0.4 ppm in whole milk). EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by lambda-cyhalothrin as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the
final rule published in the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69 FR
18480) (FRL-7353-4).
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from 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) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are
used in conjunction with the LOC 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
risks by comparing aggregate 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 LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for lambda-cyhalothrin
used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final
rule published in the Federal Register of April 8, 2004 (69 FR 18480)
(FRL-7353-4).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to lambda-cyhalothrin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing lambda-cyhalothrin
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.438). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
lambda-cyhalothrin 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. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used the Dietary
[[Page 45659]]
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID\(TM)\, Version 2.03) which uses
food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). A refined acute probabilistic
dietary exposure assessment was performed for lambda-cyhalothrin which
included all existing and proposed food uses and drinking water. The
acute dietary exposure assessment incorporated processing factors and
percent crop treated (PCT) estimates. Acute anticipated residues were
derived from USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data, field
trial studies, and a market basket survey for beef-fat.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used DEEM-FCID\(TM)\, Version 2.03 which uses food
consumption information from the USDA's 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted a refined chronic dietary
exposure assessment for lambda-cyhalothrin to support all existing and
proposed food uses, utilizing a single-point estimate of anticipated
residues for food and drinking water. The chronic dietary exposure
assessment incorporated processing factors and PCT estimates. Chronic
anticipated residues were derived from PDP monitoring data, field trial
studies, and a market basket survey for beef-fat.
iii.Cancer. Lambda-cyhalothrin is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore, there is no cancer risk associated
with existing or proposed uses.
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 pursuant
to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) require 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 this tolerance.
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:
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
such pesticide residue.
b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
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 section 408(b)(2)(F)
of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
PCT estimates of agricultural uses for lambda-cyhalothrin were
obtained in the form of a screening-level usage assessment (SLUA),
based on data years 1999-2004. Average and maximum values for percent
crop treated data were used in the chronic and acute analyses,
respectively, for the following commodities with established
tolerances: Almonds (5 chronic, 5 acute), Apples (5 chronic, 10 acute),
Beans, Green (10 chronic, 20 acute), Broccoli (10 chronic, 20 acute),
Cabbage (30 chronic, 45 acute), Canola/Rapeseed (1 chronic, 2.5 acute),
Cauliflower (20 chronic, 30 acute), Cherries (5 chronic, 15 acute),
Corn (1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Cotton (10 chronic, 10 acute), Dry Beans/
Peas (1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Garlic (10 chronic, 30 acute), Lettuce (30
chronic, 45 acute), Onions (50 chronic, 55 acute), Peaches (5 chronic,
10 acute), Peanuts (5 chronic, 10 acute), Pears (15 chronic, 30 acute),
Peas, Green (1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Pecans (1 chronic, 5 acute),
Peppers (5 chronic, 15 acute), Prunes and Plums (5 chronic, 5 acute),
Rice (15 chronic, 30 acute), Sorghum (1 chronic, 2.5 acute), Soybeans
(5 chronic, 10 acute), Sugarcane (5 chronic, 10 acute), Sunflowers (10
chronic, 20 acute), Sweet Corn (45 chronic, 60 acute), Tomatoes (20
chronic, 20 acute), and Wheat (1 chronic, 2.5 acute). For all other
commodities and for new uses, 100% PCT was assumed. Tolerance level
values were used for the following commodities: Okra, eggplant,
poultry, tree nuts group (crop group 14) except almonds and pecans, and
tuberous and corm vegetables subgroup (crop subgroup 1C) except
potatoes.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available Federal, State, and private market survey data for that use,
averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the
nearest multiple of 5% except for those situations in which the average
PCT is less than one. In those cases <1% is used as the average and
<2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum value
reported overall from available Federal, State, and private market
survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%. In most cases, EPA uses available data from
United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market Surveys, and the
National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most
recent 6 years.
The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition 1, 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 2 and 3, 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 information on the regional consumption of food to
which lambda-cyhalothrin may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for lambda-cyhalothrin in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of lambda-cyhalothrin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at
[[Page 45660]]
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of lambda-cyhalothrin
for acute exposures are estimated to be 5.35 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 0.00336 ppb for ground water. The EECs for
chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.130 ppb for surface water and
0.00336 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for lambda-cyhalothrin were
calculated based on a maximum application rate of 0.5 pounds active
ingredient per acre per season (lb a.i./A/season) for orchards (ground
application) for surface and groundwater concentrations. A default
percent crop area (PCA) factor of 0.87 (87%) was applied to the
orchards scenario. The orchards scenario using the FIRST model produced
the highest concentrations.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 5.35 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.130 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).
Lambda-cyhalothrin is currently registered for the following
residential non-dietary sites: Ornamental gardens, lawns, landscapes,
turf, golf courses, and general insect control (spot treatments, and
crack and crevice treatments) in, around, and on buildings, structures,
and immediate surroundings. All registered products, except for one
aerosol can product, are limited to use only by certified applicators.
As such, this assessment ADDRESSES the single-residential handler
scenario for aerosol can users, and post-application scenarios
associated with any use in a residential environment. Both short-term
and intermediate-term exposures are possible.
For the residential assessment, existing uses on turf, in gardens,
on golf courses, and for structural pest control were considered, but a
quantitative calculation was only completed for post-application
exposure on treated turf. The Agency used a conservative screening-
level approach to address the risks associated with the use of the
aerosol can product of lambda-cyhalothrin that can be purchased and
used by homeowners.
A screening-level quantitative calculation was completed for post-
application exposure on treated turf only because this scenario is
expected to have the highest associated exposures of all residential
exposures. EPA believes that the selected post-application assessment
on lawns for children is protective for all residential exposures (even
the aerosol can handler scenario) because the dose levels for children
playing on treated lawns are thought to exceed those expected for all
other scenarios (lawn exposures for children represents the worst-case
scenario). This approach is based on the following conservative
considerations:
i. EPA assumed that children contacted lawns immediately after
application of lawn product and thus there was no dissipation of
residues from the treated lawn.
ii. EPA estimated dermal exposure based on a high duration of
exposure on the lawn and an intensity of activity that results in a
high degree of contact with the treated lawn.
iii. EPA assumed that the pesticide was applied at the maximum
application rate.
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.''
Lambda-cyhalothrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of
pesticides. Although all pyrethroids alter nerve function by modifying
the normal biochemistry and physiology of nerve membrane sodium
channels, EPA is not currently following a cumulative risk approach
(based on a common mechanism of toxicity) for the pyrethroids. Although
pyrethroids interact with sodium channels, there are multiple types of
sodium channels, and it is currently unknown whether pyrethroids have
similar effects on all channels. Nor is there a clear understanding of
effects on key downstream neuronal function (nerve excitability), nor
do we understand how these key events interact to produce their
compound specific patterns of neurotoxicity. There is ongoing research
by the EPA's Office of Research and Development (and pyrethroid
registrants) to evaluate the differential biochemical and physiological
actions of pyrethroids in mammals. When available, the Agency will
consider this research, and make a determination of common mechanism as
a basis for assessing cumulative risk. 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
2. The completeness of the database. The toxicology database is
considered complete for the purposes of an FQPA risk assessment. Based
on the developmental studies in rats and rabbits, and the 3-generation
and neurodevelopmental studies in rats, there is no evidence of
increased susceptibility. The neurotoxicity observed in adult animal
studies raised a concern for potential neurodevelopmental effects. A
rat developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study is available. In this
study, the lowest dose showing neurotoxicity in the offspring (effects
on mortality, body weights, body weight gains, learning, learning and
memory, and brain morphometry) is 10 milligram/kilogram body weight/day
(mg/kg bw/day), with a NOAEL of 4 mg/kg bw/day. Effects in offspring
and adult animals are found at a similar dose based on body weight
decreases. It should be noted that some of the parameters evaluated in
this DNT study were regarded as acceptable but several others were not,
leading to a study classification of ``unacceptable.'' The study
deficiencies which, taken together, led to the unacceptable
classification include:
i. Statistical analyses that adjusted for body weights after
treatment had begun.
[[Page 45661]]
ii. An inadequate assessment of motor activity.
iii. An inadequate assessment of auditory startle in postnal day
(PND) 61 females.
iv. Missing low- and mid-dose morphometry data.
However, it is not likely that these limitations will impact the risk
assessment for the following reasons. The slight changes in brain
morphometry were seen at the highest dose tested. Because these changes
were slight, it is uncertain whether toxicologically significant
differences would be seen at the mid dose, and it is unlikely that
significant changes would be seen at the lowest dose tested. The
auditory startle response is considered adequate for assessment in PND
23 males/females and PND 61 males where no treatment-related effects
were seen in auditory startle response. Only the auditory response data
for PND 61 females is inadequate. Motor activity was examined and there
did not appear to be any differences between treated and control
animals other than decreases for multiple subsessions in PND 18 males/
females at the high dose only, but due to the high variability and the
lack of habituation, these data are considered equivocal. There was no
published literature found that would indicate a neurodevelopmental
concern for lambda-cyhalothrin.
The exposure assessments are based on reliable data and reasonable
worst-case assumptions, and are not likely to underestimate exposure.
Reliable data on anticipated dietary residues was relied upon including
crop field trial studies and monitoring data. Conservative ground and
surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly, conservative
Residential Standard Operating Procedures were used to assess post-
application exposure to children as well as incidental oral exposure of
toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by lambda-cyhalothrin.
3. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure in the developmental studies was observed.
No developmental toxicity was observed in either of these studies. No
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was
observed in the 3-generation reproduction study in rats. Offspring
toxicity (decreased pup weight and pup weight gain) was observed in the
reproduction study at the same dose level as parental toxicity
(decreased body weight and body weight gain). These effects are not
considered to be more severe than the effects in the parents.
EPA has received a DNT for lambda-cyhalothrin (Master Record
Identification Number 46449102), which was classified as unacceptable/
guideline due to inadequacies in some of the developmental parameters
tested. Nonetheless, for the reasons noted in Unit VII.D.2., EPA does
not believe that correction of the deficiencies in this study would
meaningfully change its evaluation of the risk posed by lambda-
cyhalothrin and is not requiring that the study be repeated. In any
event, if a 10-fold factor is applied to this study's NOAEL, (i.e., 4
mg/kg bw/day) to account for the scientific limitations of the study,
the resulting value is 0.4 mg/kg bw/day. This estimate of 0.4 mg/kg/day
is similar to the doses from the chronic dog study used for risk
assessment (i.e., 0.5 mg/kg/day for acute dietary exposure scenarios
and 0.1 mg/kg/day for chronic dietary exposure scenarios). Therefore,
EPA concludes that using the NOAELs from the dog study would not
underestimate risks to infants and children from exposure to lambda-
cyhalothrin, and consequently, a repeat rat DNT study is not required.
4. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for lambda-cyhalothrin is considered
complete for the purpose of an FQPA assessment.
ii. All doses and endpoints for risk assessment are based on
neurotoxic effects seen in the dog, widely known as the most sensitive
test species for pyrethroids.
iii. There is no evidence that lambda-cyhalothrin results in
increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. The acceptable parameters of the developmental neurotoxicity
study in rats do not indicate increased susceptibility to pups exposed
in utero.
iv. The exposure assessments are based on reliable data and
reasonable worst-case assumptions, and are not likely to underestimate
exposure.
Based on all of the considerations in Unit III.D.3., there is not a
need to retain the additional 10X safety factor for children.
Application of the 10X intraspecies uncertainty factor (which accounts
for the possibility that a subpopulation may be 10 times more sensitive
than the average individual) and a 10X interspecies factor (which
accounts for the possibility that humans may be 10 times more sensitive
than animals) to the dog NOAEL (i.e., the most sensitive species)
should assure protection of human health including children. Therefore,
EPA has determined that reliable data show that it would be safe for
infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor to 1X.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to lambda-cyhalothrin will occupy 46% of the aPAD for the general U.S.
population, and 61% of the aPAD for all infants (<1 year old), the most
highly exposed population subgroup.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to lambda-
cyhalothrin from food and water will utilize 17% of the cPAD for the
general U.S. population, and 50% of the cPAD for children (1-2 years
old), the most highly exposed population subgroup. Based on the use
pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of lambda-cyhalothrin
is not expected.
3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
Lambda-cyhalothrin is currently registered for use that could
result in short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the
Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food
and water and short-term exposures for lambda-cyhalothrin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food,
water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of
140 to 490. The residential MOEs were aggregated together because,
regardless of the exposure route (dermal, inhalation, or
[[Page 45662]]
oral), lambda-cyhalothrin has similar adverse effects (neurotoxicity).
This aggregate risk assessment incorporates lawn post-application
exposure (the scenario with the highest potential for exposure), and is
a day-0 screening-level assessment. The resulting aggregate MOEs were
greater than the Agency target MOE of 100 (ranging from 140 to 490),
and there were thus no concerns for aggregate exposure.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Lambda-cyhalothrin is
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore,
there is no aggregate cancer risk associated with the existing or
proposed uses.
5. 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 lambda-cyhalothrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/electron
capture detector (GC/ECD) methods are available for enforcing
tolerances for lambda-cyhalothrin residues in plant and animal
commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mexico, and Canada have all
established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of lambda-
cyhalothrin in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. These
regulatory bodies express residues in terms of only cyhalothrin (Codex)
or of lambda-cyhalothrin (Canada, Mexico); none of these tolerances
include the epimer R157836 found in the U.S. tolerance expression. EPA
includes the epimer due to it being considered as toxic as the active
ingredient and its presence at quantifiable levels in many crops. For
the crop uses currently under consideration, only potatoes have
existing international tolerances. Although the recommended 0.02 ppm
U.S. tolerance agrees numerically with the Codex and Mexican MRLs,
strictly speaking they are not in harmony due to the different residue
definitions.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to
IR-4 petitioning for tolerances, pesticide residues on food and the
establishment of these tolerances. The Agency has received similar
comments from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to
the Federal Registers of June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL-7718-3),
January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1354) (FRL-7691-4), and October 29, 2004 (69 FR
63096-63098) (FRL-7681-9) for the Agency's response to these
objections. In addition, the commenter noted several adverse effects
seen in animal toxicology studies with lambda-cyhalothrin and claims
because of these effects no tolerance should be approved. EPA has
found, however, that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to
humans after considering these toxicological studies and the exposure
levels of humans to lambda-cyhalothrin. The commenter also identified
potential effects on the environment. This comment is considered
irrelevant because the safety standard for approving tolerances under
section 408 of FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health and
does not permit consideration of effects on the environment. Effects on
the environment were considered by EPA in the registration process for
lambda-cyhalothrin under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
V. Conclusion
Modifications to the pesticide petitions included in this final
rule include: Grass, (forage, fodder, hay) from 9.0 ppm to 7.0 ppm
because a crop group tolerance is appropriate--grass forage, fodder,
and hay (Group 17); rye, bran at 0.2 ppm based on the existing residue
data and tolerances in similar wheat commodities; hog, fat from 3.0 ppm
to 0.2 ppm, hog, meat from 0.2 ppm to 0.01 ppm, hog, and meat-
byproducts from 0.2 ppm to 0.02 ppm based on a Theoretical Dietary
Burden (TDB) of 0.9 ppm for swine, the maximum expected residues are
0.16 ppm in hog fat, 0.006 ppm in hog meat, and 0.011 ppm in hog meat-
byproducts; and milk, fat from 5.0 ppm to 10.0 ppm based on a TDB of
10.4 ppm for dairy cattle, the maximum expected residues in milk are
0.35 ppm, equivalent to 8.8 ppm in milk fat.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for the combined residues
of lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its epimer expressed as epimer of
lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on cucurbit vegetables (Crop
Group 9) at 0.05 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay (Crop Group 17) at
7.0 ppm; tuberous and corm vegetables (Crop Subgroup 1C) at 0.02 ppm;
barley, grain at 0.05 ppm; buckwheat, grain at 0.05 ppm; oat, grain at
0.05 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; barley, bran at 0.2 ppm; rye, bran at
0.2 ppm; oat, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, forage at 2.0 ppm; barley, hay at
2.0 ppm; oat, hay at 2.0 ppm; barley, straw at 2.0 ppm; oat, straw at
2.0 ppm; rye, straw at 2.0 ppm; rice, wild, grain at 1.0 ppm; pistachio
at 0.05 ppm; hog, fat at 0.2 ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat-
byproducts at 0.02 ppm; and milk, fat at 10.0 ppm (reflecting 0.4 ppm
in whole milk).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) 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.
[[Page 45663]]
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 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, this
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: August 3, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
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 180.438 is amended by:
i. Revising the entries ``hog, fat;'' ``hog, meat;'' ``hog, meat
byproducts;'' and ``milk, fat (reflecting 0.4 ppm in whole milk)'' in
the table in paragraph (a) (1).
ii. Adding alphabetically the following commodities to the table
in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.438 Lambda-cyhalothrin and an isomer gamma-cyhalothrin;
tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Barley, bran............................................... 0.2
Barley, grain.............................................. 0.05
Barley, hay................................................ 2.0
Barley, straw.............................................. 2.0
* * * * *
Buckwheat, grain........................................... 0.05
* * * * *
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17.................... 7.0
Hog, fat.................................................. 0.2
Hog, meat.................................................. 0.01
Hog, meat byproducts....................................... 0.02
* * * * *
Milk, fat (reflecting 0.4 ppm in whole milk)............... 10.0
* * * * *
Oat, grain................................................. 0.05
Oat, forage................................................ 2.0
Oat, hay................................................... 2.0
Oat, straw................................................. 2.0
* * * * *
Pistachio.................................................. 0.05
* * * * *
Rice, wild, grain.......................................... 1.0
Rye, bran.................................................. 0.2
Rye, grain................................................. 0.05
Rye, forage................................................ 2.0
Rye, straw................................................. 2.0
* * * * *
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9............................... 0.05
* * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C.................. 0.02
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-16050 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S