Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance, 19154-19161 [E8-7043]
Download as PDF
19154
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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: March 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Kenny,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
§180.553 Fenhexamid; tolerances for
website to view the docket index or
residues.
access available documents. All
(a) * * *
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available in
Commodity
Parts per million
regulations.gov. Although listed in the
*
*
*
*
* index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Asparagus .......................
0.02 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.
[FR Doc. E8–7038 Filed 4–8–08; 8:45 am]
Publicly available docket materials are
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
AGENCY
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
40 CFR Part 180
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0426; FRL–8356–9]
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
5805.
Agency (EPA).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ACTION: Final rule.
Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
tolerances for residues of buprofezin in
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
or on berry, low growing , subgroup 13DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
07G; okra; olive; olive, oil; pepper,
(703) 305-5218; e-mail address:
nonbell; radicchio; vegetable, fruiting,
stanton.susan@epa.gov.
group 8, except nonbell pepper; and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group
4, except head lettuce and radicchio;
I. General Information
and increases the existing tolerance for
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
residues of buprofezin in or on head
You may be potentially affected by
lettuce. Interregional Research Project
this action if you are an agricultural
Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
producer, food manufacturer, or
tolerances under the Federal Food,
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This
affected entities may include, but are
regulation also removes existing
not limited to those engaged in the
tolerances for residues of buprofezin in
following activities:
or on leaf lettuce and tomato and
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
modifies 40 CFR 180.511 by removing
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
the third column (Expiration/
nursery, and floriculture workers;
Revocation Date) from the table in
farmers.
paragraph (a), since it is no longer
• Animal production (NAICS code
applicable.
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
DATES: This regulation is effective April
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
9, 2008. Objections and requests for
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
hearings must be received on or before
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
June 9, 2008, and must be filed in
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
accordance with the instructions
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
INFORMATION ).
commercial applicators; farmers;
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
docket for this action under docket
workers; residential users.
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
This listing is not intended to be
OPP–2007–0426. To access the
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
electronic docket, go to https://
for readers regarding entities likely to be
2. Section 180.553 is amended by
alphabetically adding the following
commodities to/in the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
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 EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 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–2007–0426 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 June 9, 2008.
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–2007–0426, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
• 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 July 25,
2007 (72 FR 40877) (FRL–8137–1), 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 7E7207) by
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.511 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide buprofezin,
2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5thiadiazin-4-one, in or on vegetable,
leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 25
parts per million (ppm); olive at 3.0
ppm; olive, oil at 9.0 ppm; and
strawberry, bearberry, bilberry, lowbush
blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry,
lingonberry, muntries and partridge
berry at 2.5 ppm. That notice referenced
a summary of the petition prepared by
Ninchino America, Inc., the registrant,
which is available to the public in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
In the Federal Register of October 24,
2007 (72 FR 60369) (FRL–8150–8), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 7E7253) by
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.511 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide buprofezin,
2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5thiadiazin-4-one, in or on vegetable,
fruiting, group 8; and okra at 1.8 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Ninchino America,
Inc., the registrant, which is available to
the public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received in response
to the notices of filing. EPA’s response
to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for several
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19155
commodities (okra; olive; olive, oil;
vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group
4; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8) and
determined that separate tolerances are
appropriate for head lettuce and
radicchio of the leafy vegetable, except
Brassica, group 4; and nonbell pepper of
the fruiting vegetable group 8. EPA has
also determined that a tolerance on
berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G is
appropriate in lieu of the proposed
tolerances on individual berry
commodities. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue....’’ 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 residues of buprofezin, 2[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5thiadiazin-4-one, on berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 2.5 ppm; lettuce,
head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm; olive
at 3.5 ppm; olive, oil at 4.8 ppm;
pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm; radicchio at
6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8,
except nonbell pepper at 1.3 ppm; and
vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group
4, except head lettuce and radicchio at
35 ppm. EPA’s assessment of exposures
and risks associated with establishing
the tolerance follows.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
19156
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Buprofezin has low acute toxicity via
the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of
exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant;
nor is it a dermal sensitizer. In
subchronic toxicity studies, the primary
effects of concern in the rat were
increased microscopic lesions in male
and female liver and thyroid, increased
liver weights in males and females, and
increased thyroid weight in males. In
chronic studies in the rat, an increased
incidence of follicular cell hyperplasia
and hypertrophy in the thyroid of males
was reported. Increased relative liver
weights were reported in female dogs.
Buprofezin was not carcinogenic to
male and female rats. In the mouse,
increased absolute liver weights in
males and females, along with an
increased incidence of hepatocellular
adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas
plus carcinomas in females were
reported. Based on the increased
incidence of liver tumors in female mice
only, no evidence of carcinogenicity in
rats, and no evidence of genotoxicity in
submitted guideline studies using in
vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays,
EPA classified buprofezin as having
suggestive evidence but found the
evidence to be sufficiently weak that
quantification of cancer risk was not
deemed to be appropriate.
There is no evidence that buprofezin
results in increased susceptibility of in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats
in the 2-generation reproduction study.
Toxicity in the offspring was found at
dose levels that were also toxic to the
parent(s), and the effects observed in the
offspring were not more severe,
qualitatively, than the effects observed
in the parent(s).
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by buprofezin as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Application to LowGrowing Berries, Olives, Leafy
Vegetables (except Brassica), and
Fruiting Vegetables. The referenced
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is
described under ADDRESSES, and is
identified as document ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0426-0004 in that
docket.
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 (UFs) 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/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for buprofezin used for
human risk assessment can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in document
Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Application to LowGrowing Berries, Olives, Leafy
Vegetables (except Brassica), and
Fruiting Vegetables at page 11. The
referenced document is available in the
docket established by this action, which
is described under ADDRESSES, and is
identified as document ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0426-0004 in that
docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to buprofezin, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
buprofezin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.511. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from buprofezin in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1–day or single
exposure. Such effects were identified
in the toxicological studies for
buprofezin for the population subgroup,
females 13-50 years old; no such effects
were identified for the general
population or other population
subgroups. In estimating acute dietary
exposure of females 13-50 years old,
EPA used food consumption
information from the USDA 1994-1996
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed
that residues are present at tolerance
levels in all commodities except meat
and milk. Anticipated residues were
calculated for meat and milk
commodities as follows: Tolerances for
meat and milk are established at the
analytical method limit of quantitation
(LOQ). Since residues were only
detected in the livestock feeding study
when feed contained 6.8-9.3x the
maximum theoretical dietary burden
(MTDB), residues in these commodities
were normalized to 1x the MTDB in the
acute dietary exposure assessment. For
fruits and crops with an extended
interval from initial application to
harvest (>50 day), additional
metabolites of toxicological concern
(BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that
are not included in the tolerance
expression were included in the dietary
exposure assessment, as appropriate,
based on the ratio of metabolite to
parent found in plant metabolism
studies. No adjustment was made to
account for the percent of crops treated
with buprofezin in the acute dietary
exposure assessment. 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) was assumed for all
commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA relied upon
anticipated residues and PCT
information for some commodities. The
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
chronic analysis employed the same
anticipated residue estimates for meat
and milk as those employed in the acute
analysis. For apple, pear, orange, and
orange juice, average residues from the
2003, 2004 and/or 2005 USDA Pesticide
Data Program (PDP) monitoring data
were used for estimation of total
buprofezin and metabolite residues. For
all other plant commodities, tolerancelevel or average field trial residues were
used. For fruits and crops with an
extended interval from initial
application to harvest (>50 day),
additional metabolites of toxicological
concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and
BF12) that are not included in the
tolerance expression were included in
the dietary exposure assessment, as
appropriate, based on the ratio of
metabolite to parent found in plant
metabolism studies. The chronic
analysis incorporated screening-level
PCT estimates for several registered
crops and projected percent crop
treatment (PPCT) estimates for apple,
peach, apricot, nectarine, cherry, plum,
celery, lettuce, spinach, strawberry and
tomato. Default processing factors were
assumed for all commodities except
`
tomato paste and puree. The tomato
`
paste and puree processing factors were
reduced to 1.2x based on the results of
a tomato processing study.
iii. Cancer. EPA has classified
buprofezin as having suggestive
evidence based on the occurrence of
liver tumors in female mice. Since the
increased incidence of liver tumors
occurred in female mice only and there
was no evidence of carcinogenicity in
rats or evidence of genotoxicity in
submitted guideline studies using in
vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays,
EPA regards the carcinogenic potential
of buprofezin as very low and has
determined that quantification of
human cancer risk is not appropriate.
Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment
was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
PCT estimates for existing uses:
Almond 1%; cantaloupe 5%; cotton 1%;
citrus 1%; grape 1%; honeydew 1%;
pear 10%; pistachio 1%; pumpkin 1%;
squash 1%; and watermelon 1%.
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 five percent except for those
situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases 1% is used
as the average. 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 six years.
EPA used PPCT estimates for the
following commodities: Apple 5%;
peach 13%; apricot 40%; nectarine
60%; sweet cherry 44%; tart cherry
76%; plum 35%; celery 18%; head
lettuce 67%; lettuce (other) 63%;
spinach 30%; strawberry 39%; tomato
(fresh) 42%; and tomato (processing)
25%.
EPA estimates PPCT for a new
pesticide use by assuming that the PCT
during the pesticide’s initial five years
of use on a specific use site will not
exceed the average PCT of the market
leader (i.e., the one pesticide with the
greatest PCT) on that site over the three
most recent surveys. Comparisons are
only made among the chemicals of the
same pesticide type (i.e., the leading
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19157
insecticide on the use site is selected for
comparison with the new insecticide).
The PCT values included in the
averages may be for the same pesticide
or for different pesticides, since the
same or different pesticides may
dominate for each year selected.
Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the
primary source for PCT data. When a
specific use site is not surveyed by
USDA/NASS, EPA uses other sources
including proprietary data and
calculates the PPCT.
This estimated PPCT, based on the
average PCT of the market leader, is
appropriate for use in chronic dietary
risk assessment. The method of
estimating a PPCT for a new use of a
registered pesticide or a new pesticide
produces a high-end estimate that is
unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded
during the initial five years of actual
use. The predominant factors that bear
on whether the estimated PPCT could
be exceeded are whether a new
pesticide use or new pesticide is more
efficacious or controls a broader
spectrum of pests than the dominant
pesticide; whether there are concerns
that increasing pest pressure may
intensify the use of alternate pesticides;
and/or whether the new pesticide has a
shorter pre-harvest or re-entry interval
than alternative insecticides. Based on
all information currently available, EPA
concludes that it is unlikely that actual
PCT for buprofezin will exceed the
PPCT during the next five years. A
discussion of the factors considered in
making this determination can be found
in the documents Projected Percent
Crop Treated for the Insecticide
Buprofezin on Six Crops: Grapes,
Apricots, Nectarines, Sweet Cherries,
Tart Cherries, and Plums and Projected
Percent Crop Treated (PPCT) for the
Insecticide Buprofezin on Five Crops:
Celery, Lettuce, Spinach, Strawberries,
and Tomatoes; and in Attachment #2 to
the document Buprofezin - Acute and
Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk
Assessments. The referenced documents
are available at www.regulations.gov in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–
0426.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions listed in this unit have been
met. With respect to Condition a, PCT
estimates are derived from Federal and
private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The
Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not
likely to be an underestimation. As to
Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
19158
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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
buprofezin 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
buprofezin 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
buprofezin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of
buprofezin for acute exposures are
estimated to be 57.4 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.09 ppb for
ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 12.5 ppb
for surface water and 0.09 ppb for
ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 57.4 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 12.5 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).
Buprofezin is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.’’
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to
buprofezin and any other substances
and buprofezin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
not assumed that buprofezin has a
common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see 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 tenfold (‘‘10X’’) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA safety factor. 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
of in utero rat or rabbit fetuses from
exposure to buprofezin in prenatal
developmental toxicity studies; and
there is no evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
of rat offspring in the 2-generation
reproduction study. There is evidence of
thyroid toxicity following subchronic
and chronic exposures of rats and dogs
to buprofezin; however, data to
determine whether young animals are
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
more susceptible to these effects are not
available.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that the FQPA safety factor of 10X must
be retained and applied to all
subchronic and chronic exposures
whose endpoint is based on thyroid
effects. For acute exposures, EPA has
determined that the FQPA safety factor
may be reduced to 1X. These decisions
are based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for buprofezin
contains all of the standard toxicity
studies. However, there is uncertainty
regarding potential thyroid effects seen
in some of these studies. Based on the
evidence of thyroid toxicity following
subchronic and chronic exposures of
rats (histopathological lesions) and dogs
(decreases in serum thyroxine levels
and increased thyroid weights), EPA
requested a buprofezin comparative
thyroid assay study in rats (28–day;
young versus adults) to determine if the
thyroid effects occur at a lower dose in
young versus adult animals. Since this
study has not been submitted, EPA
concludes that the 10X FQPA safety
factor to account for database
uncertainty should be retained and
applied to all subchronic and chronic
exposures whose endpoint is based on
thyroid effects. The FQPA safety factor
of 10X is not applicable to the acute
endpoint, since a single dose of
buprofezin would not be expected to
perturb thyroid homeostasis in the adult
or the young due to the buffering of
thyroid hormone concentrations by
homeostatic mechanisms for
compounds with short half lives, like
buprofezin.
ii. There is no indication that
buprofezin is a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to
account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
buprofezin 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. However, the
developmental studies were not
adequate to fully assess the potential for
susceptibility from subchronic and
chronic exposures. Consequently, there
is concern for potential increased
sensitivity or susceptibility in offspring
regarding thyroid effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were refined for some commodities
using reliable PCT/PPCT information
and anticipated residue values
calculated from the available monitoring
data and field trial results. Dietary
drinking water exposure is based on
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
conservative modeling estimates.
Residential exposures are not expected.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by buprofezin.
Although there are no residual
uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases, no neurotoxic concerns for
buprofezin, and no evidence of
increased susceptibility of offspring in
available studies, there is sufficient
uncertainty regarding thyroid effects,
particularly thyroid effects in the young,
that EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA
safety factor for all subchronic and
chronic exposures whose endpoint is
based on thyroid effects. EPA has also
determined that the traditional 10X
uncertainty factor to account for
interspecies variation may be reduced to
3X for these exposures, since it has been
established that rats are more
susceptible to thyroid effects than
humans. These factors, together with the
traditional 10X uncertainty factor to
account for intraspecies variation, result
in a total uncertainty factor of 300X
(10X, 3X and 10X) for subchronic and
chronic exposures. The total uncertainty
factor for acute exposures is 100X (10X
intraspecies variation and 10X
interspecies variation).
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
buprofezin will occupy 7% of the aPAD
for the population group females 13-49
years old. No acute endpoint of concern
was identified for the remaining
population groups.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that exposure to buprofezin from food
and water will utilize 91% of the cPAD
for children, 1 to 2 years old, the
population group with the greatest
estimated exposure. There are no
residential uses for buprofezin that
result in chronic residential exposure to
buprofezin.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Buprofezin is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from food and
water, which does not exceed the
Agency’s level of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Buprofezin is not
registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure.
Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum
of the risk from food and water, which
does not exceed the Agency’s level of
concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. As discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iii., EPA regards the carcinogenic
potential of buprofezin as very low and
concludes that it poses no greater than
a negligible cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to buprofezin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The gas chromatography/nitrogen
phosphorus detector methods used in
the field trial studies were adequately
validated and similar to the method
validated by EPA’s Analytical
Chemistry Branch (ACB) and forwarded
to the Food and Drug Administration for
publication in the Pesticide Analytical
Manual I. Since adequate method
validation and concurrent recoveries
were attained in the field trial studies,
EPA concludes that the method
validated by ACB is appropriate for
enforcement of the tolerances associated
with these petitions. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Canadian, Mexican, or
Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs)
established for buprofezin in/on any of
the commodities associated with the
current petitions, except tomato. There
are Codex and Mexican MRLs for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19159
residues of buprofezin per se on tomato
of 1 ppm and 0.5 ppm, respectively.
Both MRLs are lower than the tolerance
of 1.3 ppm being established for fruiting
vegetables, a group which includes
tomato; however, since the field trial
data considered in determining the U.S.
tolerance level indicate the potential for
residues in/on tomato to exceed the
international MRLs, harmonization is
not possible at this time.
C. Response to Comments
Comments were received from a
private citizen in response to the notices
of filing of pesticide petitions PP7E7253
and PP7E7207. In response to the notice
of filing of PP7E7207, the commenter
indicated that she was unable to open
‘‘the report on the proposal’’ and
complained generally about the
government website, https://
www.regulations.gov. If by ‘‘the report
on the proposal’’ the commenter is
referring to the registrant’s summary of
the petition, EPA notes that it is
available in the docket in two common
file formats, MicroSoft Word and
Portable Document Format (PDF,) and
cannot explain the commenter’s
inability to open it. In response to the
notice of filing of PP7E7253, the
commenter objected to any residues on
vegetables and ‘‘exemptions’’ for ‘‘this
product’’ on the basis of its potential
carcinogenicity. EPA considered the
carcinogenic potential of buprofezin in
its risk assessment and determined that
it did not pose a cancer risk. Comments
received contained no scientific data or
other substantive evidence to rebut this
conclusion or the Agency’s finding that
there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate
exposure to buprofezin from the
establishment of these tolerances. The
Agency has received these same or
similar comments from this commenter
on numerous previous occasions. Refer
to Federal Register 70 FR 37686 (June
30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005),
and 69 FR 63096 (October 29, 2004) for
the Agency’s previous responses to
these objections.
D. Changes to Proposed Tolerances
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for several
commodities and determined that
separate tolerances are appropriate for
certain members of the leafy (except
Brassica) and fruiting vegetable groups.
EPA revised the tolerances for okra from
1.8 ppm to 4.0 ppm; olive from 3.0 ppm
to 3.5 ppm; olive, oil from 9.0 ppm to
4.8 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce
and radicchio from 25 ppm to 35 ppm;
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
19160
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
and vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except
nonbell pepper from 1.8 ppm to 1.3
ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels
based on analyses of the residue field
trial data using the Agency’s Tolerance
Spreadsheet in accordance with the
Agency’s Guidance for Setting Pesticide
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
and the results of the olive processing
study. EPA also determined that
separate tolerances should be
established for head lettuce and
radicchio at 6.0 ppm and for nonbell
pepper at 4.0 ppm, since there is more
than a 5-fold difference between
residues on these crops and other
members of their respective crop
groups: vegetable, leafy (except
Brassica) group 4; and vegetable,
fruiting group 8. A tolerance already
exists for residues of buprofezin on head
lettuce at 5.0 ppm; it will be increased
to 6.0 ppm.
IR-4 petitioned for individual
tolerances on strawberry, bearberry,
bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry,
cranberry, lingonberry, muntries and
partridgeberry (PP 6E7163). In the
Federal Register of December 7, 2007
(72 FR 69150) (FRL–8340–6), EPA
issued a final rule that revised the crop
grouping regulations. As part of this
action, EPA expanded and revised
berries group 13. Changes to crop group
13 included adding new commodities,
revising existing subgroups and creating
new subgroups (including a low
growing berry subgroup consisting of
the commodities requested in PP
7E7207 and cultivars, varieties, and/or
hybrids of these). EPA indicated in the
December 7, 2007 final rule as well as
the earlier May 23, 2007 proposed rule
(72 FR 28920) (FRL–8126–1) that, for
existing petitions for which a Notice of
Filing had been published, the Agency
would attempt to conform these
petitions to the rule. Therefore,
consistent with this rule, EPA is
establishing a tolerance on low growing
berry subgroup 13-07G. EPA concludes
it is reasonable to establish the tolerance
on the newly created subgroup, since
the individual commodities for which
tolerances were requested are identical
to those which comprise low growing
berry subgroup 13-07G.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5thiadiazin-4-one, in or on berry, low
growing , subgroup 13-07G at 2.5 ppm;
lettuce, head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0
ppm; olive at 3.5 ppm; olive, oil at 4.8
ppm; pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm;
radicchio at 6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
group 8, except nonbell pepper at 1.3
ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce
and radicchio at 35 ppm. Further, the
existing tolerances in/on ‘‘lettuce, leaf’’
at 13.0 ppm and ‘‘tomato’’ at 0.50 ppm
are deleted, since residues of buprofezin
on these commodities will be covered
by the higher tolerances being
established on ‘‘vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce
and radicchio ’’ and ‘‘vegetable, fruiting,
group 8, except non-bell pepper’’.
The table of buprofezin tolerances at
40 CFR 180.511(a) currently includes a
third column for expiration/revocation
dates. Since none of the existing
tolerances is time-limited and EPA is
not time-limiting the new tolerances
listed in this unit, there is no need for
this column. Therefore, the third
column of the table is being deleted.
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: March 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Kenny,
Acting 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
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.511 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Commodity
Parts per million
I
§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of buprofezin,
2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5thiadiazin-4-one, in or on the following
food commodities:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Commodity
Parts per million
Acerola ............................
Almond ............................
Almond, hulls ..................
Apricot .............................
Atemoya ..........................
Avocado ..........................
Banana ...........................
Bean, snap, succulent ....
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G ..............
Birida ...............................
Canistel ...........................
Cattle, fat ........................
Cattle, kidney ..................
Cattle, liver ......................
Cattle, meat ....................
Cattle, meat byproducts
Cherimoya ......................
Citrus, dried pulp ............
Citrus, oil .........................
Cotton, gin byproducts ...
Cotton, undelinted seed
Custard apple .................
Feijoa ..............................
Fruit, citrus, group 10 .....
Fruit, pome, group 11 .....
Fruit, stone, group 12,
except apricot and
peach ..........................
Goat, fat ..........................
Goat, kidney ...................
Goat, liver .......................
Goat, meat ......................
Goat, meat byproducts ...
Grape ..............................
Guave .............................
Hog, fat ...........................
Hog, kidney .....................
Hog, liver ........................
Hog, meat .......................
Hog, meat byproducts ....
Horse, fat ........................
Horse, kidney ..................
Horse, liver .....................
Horse, meat ....................
Horse, meat byproducts
Llama ..............................
Jaboticaba ......................
Lettuce, head ..................
Loganberry ......................
Lychee ............................
Mango .............................
Milk .................................
Okra ................................
Olive ................................
Olive, oil ..........................
Papaya ............................
Passionfruit .....................
Peach ..............................
Pepper, nonbell ..............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:48 Apr 08, 2008
0.30
0.05
2.0
9.0
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.02
2.5
0.30
0.90
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.30
7.5
80
20.0
0.35
0.30
0.30
2.5
4.0
Pistachio .........................
Pulasan ...........................
Radicchio ........................
Rambutan .......................
Sapodilla .........................
Sapote, black ..................
Sapote, mamey ..............
Sheep, fat .......................
Sheep, kidney .................
Sheep, liver .....................
Sheep, meat ...................
Sheep, meat byproducts
Soursop ..........................
Spanish lime ...................
Star apple .......................
Starfruit ...........................
Sugar apple ....................
Vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9 ........................
Vegetable, fruiting, group
8, except nonbell pepper ...............................
Vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce and
radicchio ......................
Wax jambu ......................
*
*
*
*
0.05
0.30
6.0
0.30
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.30
0.90
0.30
0.30
0.50
1.3
35
0.30
*
[FR Doc. E8–7043 Filed 4–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 67
1.9
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
2.5
0.30
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.30
6.0
0.30
0.30
0.90
0.01
4.0
3.5
4.8
0.90
0.30
9.0
4.0
Jkt 214001
Final Flood Elevation Determinations
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the
communities listed below. The BFEs
and modified BFEs are the basis for the
flood plain management measures that
each community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or
remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing
BFEs and modified BFEs for each
community. This date may be obtained
by contacting the office where the maps
are available for inspection as indicated
on the table below.
ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each
community are available for inspection
at the office of the Chief Executive
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19161
Officer of each community. The
respective addresses are listed in the
table below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering
Management Branch, Mitigation
Directorate, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations
listed below for the modified BFEs for
each community listed. These modified
elevations have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and
ninety (90) days have elapsed since that
publication. The Assistant
Administrator of the Mitigation
Directorate has resolved any appeals
resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance
with section 110 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104,
and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has
developed criteria for flood plain
management in floodprone areas in
accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real
property are encouraged to review the
proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM
available at the address cited below for
each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed
below. Elevations at selected locations
in each community are shown.
National Environmental Policy Act.
This final rule is categorically excluded
from the requirements of 44 CFR part
10, Environmental Consideration. An
environmental impact assessment has
not been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood
elevation determinations are not within
the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Regulatory Classification. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under the criteria of section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This final rule involves no policies that
have federalism implications under
Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform. This final rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order
12988.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Administrative practice and
procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19154-19161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426; FRL-8356-9]
Buprofezin; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
buprofezin in or on berry, low growing , subgroup 13-07G; okra; olive;
olive, oil; pepper, nonbell; radicchio; vegetable, fruiting, group 8,
except nonbell pepper; and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4,
except head lettuce and radicchio; and increases the existing tolerance
for residues of buprofezin in or on head lettuce. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also
removes existing tolerances for residues of buprofezin in or on leaf
lettuce and tomato and modifies 40 CFR 180.511 by removing the third
column (Expiration/Revocation Date) from the table in paragraph (a),
since it is no longer applicable.
DATES: This regulation is effective April 9, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 9, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426. 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: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-5218; e-mail address: stanton.susan@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
[[Page 19155]]
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 EPA's tolerance regulations at
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-2007-0426 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 June 9, 2008.
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-2007-0426, 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 July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40877) (FRL-8137-
1), 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
7E7207) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.511 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the insecticide buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-
3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on
vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 25 parts per million
(ppm); olive at 3.0 ppm; olive, oil at 9.0 ppm; and strawberry,
bearberry, bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry,
lingonberry, muntries and partridge berry at 2.5 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Ninchino America,
Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov.
In the Federal Register of October 24, 2007 (72 FR 60369) (FRL-
8150-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7253) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.511 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the insecticide buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-
3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on
vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and okra at 1.8 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Ninchino America,
Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received in response to the notices of filing. EPA's
response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for several commodities (okra; olive;
olive, oil; vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4; and vegetable,
fruiting, group 8) and determined that separate tolerances are
appropriate for head lettuce and radicchio of the leafy vegetable,
except Brassica, group 4; and nonbell pepper of the fruiting vegetable
group 8. EPA has also determined that a tolerance on berry, low
growing, subgroup 13-07G is appropriate in lieu of the proposed
tolerances on individual berry commodities. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' 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 residues of buprofezin, 2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-
methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, on berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 2.5 ppm; lettuce, head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm;
olive at 3.5 ppm; olive, oil at 4.8 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm;
radicchio at 6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell
pepper at 1.3 ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4,
except head lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
[[Page 19156]]
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.
Buprofezin has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant; nor
is it a dermal sensitizer. In subchronic toxicity studies, the primary
effects of concern in the rat were increased microscopic lesions in
male and female liver and thyroid, increased liver weights in males and
females, and increased thyroid weight in males. In chronic studies in
the rat, an increased incidence of follicular cell hyperplasia and
hypertrophy in the thyroid of males was reported. Increased relative
liver weights were reported in female dogs. Buprofezin was not
carcinogenic to male and female rats. In the mouse, increased absolute
liver weights in males and females, along with an increased incidence
of hepatocellular adenomas and hepatocellular adenomas plus carcinomas
in females were reported. Based on the increased incidence of liver
tumors in female mice only, no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats, and
no evidence of genotoxicity in submitted guideline studies using in
vitro and in vivo genotoxicity assays, EPA classified buprofezin as
having suggestive evidence but found the evidence to be sufficiently
weak that quantification of cancer risk was not deemed to be
appropriate.
There is no evidence that buprofezin results in increased
susceptibility of in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. Toxicity in the offspring was found at dose levels that were
also toxic to the parent(s), and the effects observed in the offspring
were not more severe, qualitatively, than the effects observed in the
parent(s).
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by buprofezin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Application to Low-Growing Berries, Olives, Leafy
Vegetables (except Brassica), and Fruiting Vegetables. The referenced
document is available in the docket established by this action, which
is described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0426-0004 in that docket.
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 (UFs)
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/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for buprofezin used for
human risk assessment can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
document Buprofezin - Human-Health Risk Assessment for Application to
Low-Growing Berries, Olives, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), and
Fruiting Vegetables at page 11. The referenced document is available in
the docket established by this action, which is described under
ADDRESSES, and is identified as document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0426-0004 in that docket.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to buprofezin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing buprofezin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.511. EPA assessed dietary exposures from buprofezin in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
in the toxicological studies for buprofezin for the population
subgroup, females 13-50 years old; no such effects were identified for
the general population or other population subgroups. In estimating
acute dietary exposure of females 13-50 years old, EPA used food
consumption information from the USDA 1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed that residues are present at tolerance levels in all
commodities except meat and milk. Anticipated residues were calculated
for meat and milk commodities as follows: Tolerances for meat and milk
are established at the analytical method limit of quantitation (LOQ).
Since residues were only detected in the livestock feeding study when
feed contained 6.8-9.3x the maximum theoretical dietary burden (MTDB),
residues in these commodities were normalized to 1x the MTDB in the
acute dietary exposure assessment. For fruits and crops with an
extended interval from initial application to harvest (>50 day),
additional metabolites of toxicological concern (BF4 and its
conjugates, and BF12) that are not included in the tolerance expression
were included in the dietary exposure assessment, as appropriate, based
on the ratio of metabolite to parent found in plant metabolism studies.
No adjustment was made to account for the percent of crops treated with
buprofezin in the acute dietary exposure assessment. 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) was assumed for all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated
residues and PCT information for some commodities. The
[[Page 19157]]
chronic analysis employed the same anticipated residue estimates for
meat and milk as those employed in the acute analysis. For apple, pear,
orange, and orange juice, average residues from the 2003, 2004 and/or
2005 USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data were used for
estimation of total buprofezin and metabolite residues. For all other
plant commodities, tolerance-level or average field trial residues were
used. For fruits and crops with an extended interval from initial
application to harvest (>50 day), additional metabolites of
toxicological concern (BF4 and its conjugates, and BF12) that are not
included in the tolerance expression were included in the dietary
exposure assessment, as appropriate, based on the ratio of metabolite
to parent found in plant metabolism studies. The chronic analysis
incorporated screening-level PCT estimates for several registered crops
and projected percent crop treatment (PPCT) estimates for apple, peach,
apricot, nectarine, cherry, plum, celery, lettuce, spinach, strawberry
and tomato. Default processing factors were assumed for all commodities
except tomato paste and pur[egrave]e. The tomato paste and pur[egrave]e
processing factors were reduced to 1.2x based on the results of a
tomato processing study.
iii. Cancer. EPA has classified buprofezin as having suggestive
evidence based on the occurrence of liver tumors in female mice. Since
the increased incidence of liver tumors occurred in female mice only
and there was no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats or evidence of
genotoxicity in submitted guideline studies using in vitro and in vivo
genotoxicity assays, EPA regards the carcinogenic potential of
buprofezin as very low and has determined that quantification of human
cancer risk is not appropriate. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment
was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and 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 FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
PCT estimates for existing uses: Almond 1%; cantaloupe 5%; cotton
1%; citrus 1%; grape 1%; honeydew 1%; pear 10%; pistachio 1%; pumpkin
1%; squash 1%; and watermelon 1%.
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 five percent except for those situations in which
the average PCT is less than one. In those cases 1% is used as the
average. 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 six years.
EPA used PPCT estimates for the following commodities: Apple 5%;
peach 13%; apricot 40%; nectarine 60%; sweet cherry 44%; tart cherry
76%; plum 35%; celery 18%; head lettuce 67%; lettuce (other) 63%;
spinach 30%; strawberry 39%; tomato (fresh) 42%; and tomato
(processing) 25%.
EPA estimates PPCT for a new pesticide use by assuming that the PCT
during the pesticide's initial five years of use on a specific use site
will not exceed the average PCT of the market leader (i.e., the one
pesticide with the greatest PCT) on that site over the three most
recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among the chemicals of the
same pesticide type (i.e., the leading insecticide on the use site is
selected for comparison with the new insecticide). The PCT values
included in the averages may be for the same pesticide or for different
pesticides, since the same or different pesticides may dominate for
each year selected. Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS as the primary source
for PCT data. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS,
EPA uses other sources including proprietary data and calculates the
PPCT.
This estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader,
is appropriate for use in chronic dietary risk assessment. The method
of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new
pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases,
to be exceeded during the initial five years of actual use. The
predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded are whether a new pesticide use or new pesticide is more
efficacious or controls a broader spectrum of pests than the dominant
pesticide; whether there are concerns that increasing pest pressure may
intensify the use of alternate pesticides; and/or whether the new
pesticide has a shorter pre-harvest or re-entry interval than
alternative insecticides. Based on all information currently available,
EPA concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for buprofezin will
exceed the PPCT during the next five years. A discussion of the factors
considered in making this determination can be found in the documents
Projected Percent Crop Treated for the Insecticide Buprofezin on Six
Crops: Grapes, Apricots, Nectarines, Sweet Cherries, Tart Cherries, and
Plums and Projected Percent Crop Treated (PPCT) for the Insecticide
Buprofezin on Five Crops: Celery, Lettuce, Spinach, Strawberries, and
Tomatoes; and in Attachment 2 to the document Buprofezin -
Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments. The referenced
documents are available at www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0426.
The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in this unit
have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and
consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA's computer-based model
[[Page 19158]]
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 buprofezin 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 buprofezin 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
buprofezin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
buprofezin for acute exposures are estimated to be 57.4 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.09 ppb for ground water. The EECs
for chronic exposures are estimated to be 12.5 ppb for surface water
and 0.09 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 57.4 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 12.5 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). Buprofezin is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to buprofezin and any other
substances and buprofezin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that buprofezin has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
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 tenfold (``10X'') margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of in utero rat or
rabbit fetuses from exposure to buprofezin in prenatal developmental
toxicity studies; and there is no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility of rat offspring in the 2-generation
reproduction study. There is evidence of thyroid toxicity following
subchronic and chronic exposures of rats and dogs to buprofezin;
however, data to determine whether young animals are more susceptible
to these effects are not available.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor of
10X must be retained and applied to all subchronic and chronic
exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. For acute
exposures, EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor may be
reduced to 1X. These decisions are based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for buprofezin contains all of the
standard toxicity studies. However, there is uncertainty regarding
potential thyroid effects seen in some of these studies. Based on the
evidence of thyroid toxicity following subchronic and chronic exposures
of rats (histopathological lesions) and dogs (decreases in serum
thyroxine levels and increased thyroid weights), EPA requested a
buprofezin comparative thyroid assay study in rats (28-day; young
versus adults) to determine if the thyroid effects occur at a lower
dose in young versus adult animals. Since this study has not been
submitted, EPA concludes that the 10X FQPA safety factor to account for
database uncertainty should be retained and applied to all subchronic
and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. The
FQPA safety factor of 10X is not applicable to the acute endpoint,
since a single dose of buprofezin would not be expected to perturb
thyroid homeostasis in the adult or the young due to the buffering of
thyroid hormone concentrations by homeostatic mechanisms for compounds
with short half lives, like buprofezin.
ii. There is no indication that buprofezin is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that buprofezin 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. However, the developmental studies were not adequate to fully
assess the potential for susceptibility from subchronic and chronic
exposures. Consequently, there is concern for potential increased
sensitivity or susceptibility in offspring regarding thyroid effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were refined for some
commodities using reliable PCT/PPCT information and anticipated residue
values calculated from the available monitoring data and field trial
results. Dietary drinking water exposure is based on
[[Page 19159]]
conservative modeling estimates. Residential exposures are not
expected. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by buprofezin.
Although there are no residual uncertainties identified in the
exposure databases, no neurotoxic concerns for buprofezin, and no
evidence of increased susceptibility of offspring in available studies,
there is sufficient uncertainty regarding thyroid effects, particularly
thyroid effects in the young, that EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety
factor for all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based
on thyroid effects. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X
uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced
to 3X for these exposures, since it has been established that rats are
more susceptible to thyroid effects than humans. These factors,
together with the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for
intraspecies variation, result in a total uncertainty factor of 300X
(10X, 3X and 10X) for subchronic and chronic exposures. The total
uncertainty factor for acute exposures is 100X (10X intraspecies
variation and 10X interspecies variation).
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 buprofezin will occupy 7% of the aPAD for the population group
females 13-49 years old. No acute endpoint of concern was identified
for the remaining population groups.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
buprofezin from food and water will utilize 91% of the cPAD for
children, 1 to 2 years old, the population group with the greatest
estimated exposure. There are no residential uses for buprofezin that
result in chronic residential exposure to buprofezin.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which does not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Buprofezin is
not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which does not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iii., EPA regards the carcinogenic potential of buprofezin as
very low and concludes that it poses no greater than a negligible
cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to buprofezin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The gas chromatography/nitrogen phosphorus detector methods used in
the field trial studies were adequately validated and similar to the
method validated by EPA's Analytical Chemistry Branch (ACB) and
forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration for publication in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual I. Since adequate method validation and
concurrent recoveries were attained in the field trial studies, EPA
concludes that the method validated by ACB is appropriate for
enforcement of the tolerances associated with these petitions. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established for buprofezin in/on any of the commodities
associated with the current petitions, except tomato. There are Codex
and Mexican MRLs for residues of buprofezin per se on tomato of 1 ppm
and 0.5 ppm, respectively. Both MRLs are lower than the tolerance of
1.3 ppm being established for fruiting vegetables, a group which
includes tomato; however, since the field trial data considered in
determining the U.S. tolerance level indicate the potential for
residues in/on tomato to exceed the international MRLs, harmonization
is not possible at this time.
C. Response to Comments
Comments were received from a private citizen in response to the
notices of filing of pesticide petitions PP7E7253 and PP7E7207. In
response to the notice of filing of PP7E7207, the commenter indicated
that she was unable to open ``the report on the proposal'' and
complained generally about the government website, https://
www.regulations.gov. If by ``the report on the proposal'' the commenter
is referring to the registrant's summary of the petition, EPA notes
that it is available in the docket in two common file formats,
MicroSoft Word and Portable Document Format (PDF,) and cannot explain
the commenter's inability to open it. In response to the notice of
filing of PP7E7253, the commenter objected to any residues on
vegetables and ``exemptions'' for ``this product'' on the basis of its
potential carcinogenicity. EPA considered the carcinogenic potential of
buprofezin in its risk assessment and determined that it did not pose a
cancer risk. Comments received contained no scientific data or other
substantive evidence to rebut this conclusion or the Agency's finding
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to buprofezin from the establishment of these
tolerances. The Agency has received these same or similar comments from
this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to Federal
Register 70 FR 37686 (June 30, 2005), 70 FR 1354 (January 7, 2005), and
69 FR 63096 (October 29, 2004) for the Agency's previous responses to
these objections.
D. Changes to Proposed Tolerances
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA has
revised the tolerance levels for several commodities and determined
that separate tolerances are appropriate for certain members of the
leafy (except Brassica) and fruiting vegetable groups. EPA revised the
tolerances for okra from 1.8 ppm to 4.0 ppm; olive from 3.0 ppm to 3.5
ppm; olive, oil from 9.0 ppm to 4.8 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio from 25 ppm to 35
ppm;
[[Page 19160]]
and vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper from 1.8 ppm to
1.3 ppm. EPA revised these tolerance levels based on analyses of the
residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Based on Field Trial Data and the results of the olive processing
study. EPA also determined that separate tolerances should be
established for head lettuce and radicchio at 6.0 ppm and for nonbell
pepper at 4.0 ppm, since there is more than a 5-fold difference between
residues on these crops and other members of their respective crop
groups: vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) group 4; and vegetable,
fruiting group 8. A tolerance already exists for residues of buprofezin
on head lettuce at 5.0 ppm; it will be increased to 6.0 ppm.
IR-4 petitioned for individual tolerances on strawberry, bearberry,
bilberry, lowbush blueberry, cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry,
muntries and partridgeberry (PP 6E7163). In the Federal Register of
December 7, 2007 (72 FR 69150) (FRL-8340-6), EPA issued a final rule
that revised the crop grouping regulations. As part of this action, EPA
expanded and revised berries group 13. Changes to crop group 13
included adding new commodities, revising existing subgroups and
creating new subgroups (including a low growing berry subgroup
consisting of the commodities requested in PP 7E7207 and cultivars,
varieties, and/or hybrids of these). EPA indicated in the December 7,
2007 final rule as well as the earlier May 23, 2007 proposed rule (72
FR 28920) (FRL-8126-1) that, for existing petitions for which a Notice
of Filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these
petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA is
establishing a tolerance on low growing berry subgroup 13-07G. EPA
concludes it is reasonable to establish the tolerance on the newly
created subgroup, since the individual commodities for which tolerances
were requested are identical to those which comprise low growing berry
subgroup 13-07G.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin,
2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-
1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on berry, low growing , subgroup 13-07G
at 2.5 ppm; lettuce, head at 6.0 ppm; okra at 4.0 ppm; olive at 3.5
ppm; olive, oil at 4.8 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 4.0 ppm; radicchio at
6.0 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper at 1.3
ppm; and vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4, except head
lettuce and radicchio at 35 ppm. Further, the existing tolerances in/on
``lettuce, leaf'' at 13.0 ppm and ``tomato'' at 0.50 ppm are deleted,
since residues of buprofezin on these commodities will be covered by
the higher tolerances being established on ``vegetable, leafy, except
Brassica, group 4, except head lettuce and radicchio '' and
``vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except non-bell pepper''.
The table of buprofezin tolerances at 40 CFR 180.511(a) currently
includes a third column for expiration/revocation dates. Since none of
the existing tolerances is time-limited and EPA is not time-limiting
the new tolerances listed in this unit, there is no need for this
column. Therefore, the third column of the table is being deleted.
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.
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: March 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Kenny,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 19161]]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Section 180.511 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of buprofezin,
2-[(1,1-dimethylethyl)imino]tetrahydro-3(1-methylethyl)-5-phenyl-4H-
1,3,5-thiadiazin-4-one, in or on the following food commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acerola.............................................. 0.30
Almond............................................... 0.05
Almond, hulls........................................ 2.0
Apricot.............................................. 9.0
Atemoya.............................................. 0.30
Avocado.............................................. 0.30
Banana............................................... 0.20
Bean, snap, succulent................................ 0.02
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G.................. 2.5
Birida............................................... 0.30
Canistel............................................. 0.90
Cattle, fat.......................................... 0.05
Cattle, kidney....................................... 0.05
Cattle, liver........................................ 0.05
Cattle, meat......................................... 0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts.............................. 0.05
Cherimoya............................................ 0.30
Citrus, dried pulp................................... 7.5
Citrus, oil.......................................... 80
Cotton, gin byproducts............................... 20.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.............................. 0.35
Custard apple........................................ 0.30
Feijoa............................................... 0.30
Fruit, citrus, group 10.............................. 2.5
Fruit, pome, group 11................................ 4.0
Fruit, stone, group 12, except apricot and peach..... 1.9
Goat, fat............................................ 0.05
Goat, kidney......................................... 0.05
Goat, liver.......................................... 0.05
Goat, meat........................................... 0.05
Goat, meat byproducts................................ 0.05
Grape................................................ 2.5
Guave................................................ 0.30
Hog, fat............................................. 0.05
Hog, kidney.......................................... 0.05
Hog, liver........................................... 0.05
Hog, meat............................................ 0.05
Hog, meat byproducts................................. 0.05
Horse, fat........................................... 0.05
Horse, kidney........................................ 0.05
Horse, liver......................................... 0.05
Horse, meat.......................................... 0.05
Horse, meat byproducts............................... 0.05
Llama................................................ 0.30
Jaboticaba........................................... 0.30
Lettuce, head........................................ 6.0
Loganberry........................................... 0.30
Lychee............................................... 0.30
Mango................................................ 0.90
Milk................................................. 0.01
Okra................................................. 4.0
Olive................................................ 3.5
Olive, oil........................................... 4.8
Papaya............................................... 0.90
Passionfruit......................................... 0.30
Peach................................................ 9.0
Pepper, nonbell...................................... 4.0
Pistachio............................................ 0.05
Pulasan.............................................. 0.30
Radicchio............................................ 6.0
Rambutan............................................. 0.30
Sapodilla............................................ 0.90
Sapote, black........................................ 0.90
Sapote, mamey........................................ 0.90
Sheep, fat........................................... 0.05
Sheep, kidney........................................ 0.05
Sheep, liver......................................... 0.05
Sheep, meat.......................................... 0.05
Sheep, meat byproducts............................... 0.05
Soursop.............................................. 0.30
Spanish lime......................................... 0.30
Star apple........................................... 0.90
Starfruit............................................ 0.30
Sugar apple.......................................... 0.30
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9......................... 0.50
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except nonbell pepper.. 1.3
Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica, group 4, except 35
head lettuce and radicchio..........................
Wax jambu............................................ 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-7043 Filed 4-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S