Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances, 12601-12606 [E9-6412]
Download as PDF
12601
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
rule does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate
as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VIII. 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: February 24, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.603 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.603 Dinotefuran; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
Time-limited tolerances specified in the
following table are established for
combined residues of Dinotefuran, [ N
-methyl- N ′-nitro- N′′ -((tetrahydro-3furanyl)methyl)guanidine] and its
metabolites DN [1-methyl-3-(tetrahydro3-furylmethyl)guanidine] and UF [1methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3furylmethyl)urea], expressed as
dinotefuran in or on the specified
agricultural commodities, resulting from
use of the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA
section 18 emergency exemptions. The
tolerances expire and are revoked on the
date specified in the table.
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Commodity
Parts per million
Rice, grain ....................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–6253 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006-0875; FRL–8400–8]
Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fenpropathrin
in or on almond, hulls at 4.5 parts per
million (ppm); cherry, sweet, at 5.0
ppm; cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; fruit,
stone, crop group 12 (except cherry) at
1.4 ppm; nuts, tree, crop group 14 at
0.10 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm, PP
4E6867; avocado at 1.0 ppm; black
sapote at 1.0 ppm; canistel at 1.0 ppm;
maney sapote at 1.0 ppm; mango at 1.0
ppm; papaya at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla at 1.0
ppm; star apple at 1.0 ppm, PP 6E7066;
caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm;
and olive at 5.0 ppm, PP 7E7298. In
addition, the Agency is deleting a timelimited tolerance on currant at 15 ppm
which had an expiration date of 12/31/
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
2008. The Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 25, 2009. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 26, 2009, 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–2006–0875. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Expiration/
revocation date
2.8
12/31/09
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7610; e-mail address:
jackson.sidney@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).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
12602
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 electronically
available documents 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 e-CFR
cite at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0875 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 May 26, 2009
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–2006–0875, 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
II. Petitioned for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of November
15, 2006, (71 FR 66520) (FRL–8102–5),
and February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964)
(FRL–8350–9), EPA issued a notice
pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA,
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the
filing of pesticide petitions (PP 4E6867,
6E7066, and 7E7298) by IR-4, 500
College Rd. East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions
requested that 40 CFR 180.466 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide,
fenpropathrin, (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on fruit, stone, group 12 (except
cherry) at 5.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14
at 0.10 ppm, pistachio at 0.10 ppm, and
almond hulls at 5.0 ppm, PP 4E6867;
avocado, black sapote, canistel, mamey
sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, star
apple at 1.0 ppm; barley, grain at 0.30
ppm; barley, hay at 2.5 ppm; and barley,
straw at 4.5 ppm, PP 6E7066; caneberry
subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm and olives
at 5 ppm, PP 7E7298. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Valent, U.S.A., the
registrant, which is available to the
public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filings.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions listed in this
Unit, EPA has made certain
modifications including revisions to
proposed tolerance levels, scope of
proposed crop groups, existing tolerance
levels, proposed commodity definitions,
as follows: Changed the proposed
tolerance for fruit, stone, group 12 to
fruit, stone, group 12 (except cherry)
and revised the tolerance level from 5.0
to 1.4 ppm; established an individual
tolerance for cherry, sweet at 5.0 ppm,
and cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; changed the
proposed tolerance for nut, tree, group
14 (including pistachio) to nut, tree,
group 14; established an individual
tolerance for pistachio at 0.10 ppm;
revised the tolerance level for almond,
hulls from 5.0 to 4.5 ppm, and corrected
the commodity definition for caneberry,
subgroup 13-07A. Additionally, at this
time, the Agency is not making a
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
decision on the proposed tolerances for
barley, grain at 0.30 ppm, barley, hay at
2.5 ppm, and barley, straw at 4.5 ppm
pending submission and review of a
barley processing study. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit
IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue.’’
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of FFDCA, and the factors specified in
section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of,
and to make a determination on,
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fenpropathrin
in or on almond, hulls at 4.5 ppm;
cherry, sweet at 5.0 ppm; cherry, tart at
5.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.4
ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm;
avocado at 1.0 ppm; black sapote at 1.0
ppm; canistel at 1.0 ppm; maney sapote
at 1.0 ppm; mango at 1.0 ppm; papaya
at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla at 1.0 ppm; star
apple at 1.0; caneberry, subgroup 1307A at 12 ppm; olive at 5.0 ppm; and
pistachio at 0.10 ppm. EPA’s assessment
of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
The database for fenpropathrin is not
complete, but it does provide adequate
information to characterize toxicity.
Acute neurotoxicity, subchronic
neurotoxicity, and developmental
neurotoxicity studies have been
submitted and reviewed since the
previous risk assessment. These studies
were classified acceptable/guideline and
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
were considered during endpoint
selection.
Fenpropathrin exhibits high toxicity
through the oral and dermal routes of
exposure. Acute inhalation toxicity has
not been determined for fenpropathrin.
Because of the chemical’s low vapor
pressure, sufficient test material could
not be generated to elicit a toxic
response during the inhalation studies.
Fenpropathrin is a mild eye irritant, but
does not cause dermal irritation in
rabbits or skin sensitization in guinea
pigs.
Clinical signs of toxicity observed in
rats and dogs following subchronic
exposure included tremors, ataxia,
salivation, and hypersensitivity.
Decreased body weights and food
consumption are more general
responses to dietary consumption in rats
and dogs. Pregnant rabbits exposed to
fenpropathrin during a developmental
study also exhibited neurotoxic signs
including tremors, shakiness,
unsteadiness, and flicking limbs.
Chronic dietary exposure to
fenpropathrin produced no treatmentrelated effects in mice. Following
chronic exposure, rats and dogs showed
evidence of neurotoxicity that was
consistent with the effects that were
seen after subchronic exposures. There
was no evidence of carcinogenicity in
either the rat or mouse long-term dietary
studies. Fenpropathrin is not mutagenic
in bacteria or cultured mammalian cells.
This chemical is neither clastogenic nor
damaging to DNA. Fenpropathrin is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.’’
Developmental studies in rats and
rabbits showed no evidence of increased
susceptibility in fetuses as compared to
maternal animals following exposure to
fenpropathrin in utero. Maternal
animals of both species exhibited
clinical signs of neurotoxicity. In rats,
reduced body weight gains were also
present. In neither study did doserelated changes in fecundity, fertility,
implantations, number of abortions, or
early or late resorptions occur. The only
anomaly noted for either species was an
increased incidence of asymmetrical or
incomplete ossification of the fifth or
sixth sternebrae in rat fetuses. A twogeneration reproduction study in rats,
likewise, did not show an increased
sensitivity to fenpropathrin in pups as
compared to adults.
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as
well as the relationship of the results of
the studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by fenpropathrin as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Fenpropathrin. Human health risk
assessment for the proposed uses on
barley, stone fruit (Crop Group 12), tree
nuts (Crop Group 14), pistachio,
caneberries (Crop Subgroup 13-07A),
and star apple, dated 11/26/2008’’, page
13 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2006–0875–0005.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, a toxicological point of departure
(POD) is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as
the highest dose at which no adverse
effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the
toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment.
However, if a NOAEL cannot be
determined, the lowest dose at which
adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose
(BMD) approach is sometimes used for
risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety
factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD to take into account
uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal
data to humans and in the variations in
sensitivity among members of the
human population as well as other
unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute
and chronic dietary risks by comparing
aggregate food and water exposure to
the pesticide to the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The
aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing food, water, and residential
exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by
the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded. This latter value is referred to
as the level of concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus,
the Agency estimates risk in terms of the
probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect greater than that expected
in a lifetime. For more information on
the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12603
process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for fenpropathrin used for
human risk assessment can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in document
‘‘Fenpropathrin. Human health risk
assessment for the proposed uses on
barley, stone fruit (Crop Group 12), tree
nuts (Crop Group 14), pistachio,
caneberries (Crop Subgroup 13-07A),
and star apple, dated 11/26/2008, page
19 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2006–0875–0005.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropathrin, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing fenpropathrin tolerances in (40
CFR 180.466). EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fenpropathrin 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.
Acute dietary exposure assessments
were conducted using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMFCID, Version 2.03), which uses food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) 1994–1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). A
partially refined acute probabilistic
dietary exposure analysis was
performed for fenpropathrin. As to
residue levels in food, EPA’s analysis
was based on tolerance level residues
for some commodities, crop field trial
data (only for apricots, nectarines,
apples, cherries, grapes, peaches, pears,
and plums), processing factors, and the
assumption of 100% percent crop
treated for all registered and proposed
commodity uses. As a result, the Agency
considers these analyses to be refined,
but not highly refined.
ii. Chronic exposure. Chronic dietary
exposure assessments were conducted
using the DEEM-FCID, (Version 2.03),
which uses food consumption data from
the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII.
As to residue levels in food, EPA’s
analysis was based on tolerance level
residues for some commodities, crop
field trial data (only for apricots,
nectarines, apples, cherries, grapes,
peaches, pears, and plums), processing
factors, and the assumption of 100%
percent crop treated for all registered
and proposed commodity uses. As a
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12604
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
result, the Agency considers these
analyses to be refined, but not highly
refined.
iii. Cancer. An exposure assessment
to evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary.
There is no evidence of carcinogenicity
in either the rat or mouse long-term
dietary studies. Fenpropathrin is not
mutagenic in bacteria or cultured
mammalian cells. The chemical is
neither clastogenic nor damaging to
DNA. Fenpropathrin is classified as
‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.’’
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA
to use available data and information on
the anticipated residue levels of
pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have
been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified, or
left in effect, demonstrating that the
levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide
for periodic evaluation of any estimates
used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F),
EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
The assumption of 100% PCT was
made for all registered and proposed
commodity uses.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for fenpropathrin in drinking water.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
fenpropathrin. 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 First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST) Model for
surface water and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) Model for ground water, the
estimated drinking water concentrations
(EWDC) of fenpropathrin for acute
exposures are estimated to be 10.3 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.005 ppb for ground water. The EWDCs
for chronic exposures is estimated to be
1.81 ppb for surface water and 0.005
ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the DEEM-FCID. For acute dietary
risk assessment, the peak water
concentration value of 10.3 ppb was
used to assess the contribution of
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the annual average
concentration of 1.8 ppb was used to
assess the contribution of 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).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for
any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. No new
residential uses are associated with the
petitioned-for tolerances.
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 considers
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found fenpropathrin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
fenpropathrin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances.
Fenpropathrin is a member of the
pyrethroid class of pesticides. Although
all pyrethroids alter nerve function by
modifying the normal biochemistry and
physiology of nerve membrane sodium
channels, EPA is not currently following
a cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity for the
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids
interact with sodium channels, there are
multiple types of sodium channels and
it is currently unknown whether the
pyrethroids have similar effects on all
channels. The Agency does not have a
clear understanding of effects on key
downstream neuronal function, e.g.,
nerve excitability, nor does it
understand how these key events
interact to produce their compoundspecific patterns of neurotoxicity. There
is ongoing research by EPA and
pyrethroid registrants to evaluate the
differential biochemical and
physiological actions of pyrethroids in
mammals. When the results of the
research are available, the Agency will
consider this research and make a
determination of common mechanism
as a basis for assessing cumulative risk.
Information regarding EPA’s procedures
for cumulating effects from substances
found to have a common mechanism
can be found on EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
safety factor (SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There are no concerns or residual
uncertainties for pre-and/or post-natal
toxicity resulting from exposure to
fenpropathrin. There is no evidence
(qualitative or quantitative) of increased
susceptibility following in utero and/or
pre-natal or post-natal exposure in
adequate developmental toxicity studies
in rats or rabbits, a 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, and a
developmental neurotoxicity study in
rats.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
fenpropathrin is adequate for FQPA
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
determination. The database for
fenpropathrin is not complete, but it
does provide adequate information to
characterize toxicity/endpoint selection
for infants and children including
acceptable acute neurotoxicity,
subchronic neurotoxicity, and
developmental neurotoxicity studies.
Based on recently revised EPA Part 158
Guidelines, an immunotoxicology study
in rats must be submitted to the Agency.
However, because there was no
indication of immunotoxicity in the
toxicity database, an additional 10x
database uncertainty factor is not
considered necessary in order to be
protective of potential immunotoxic
effects.
ii. The toxicity data, including a
developmental neurotoxicity study,
showed no increase in qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility in fetuses and
pups with in utero and/or post-natal
exposure to fenpropathrin.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
Dietary food exposure assessments were
performed based on 100% PCT,
tolerance-level residues for existing and
proposed uses, and field trial data. The
exposure databases (dietary food and
drinking water) are complete and the
exposure assessment for each potential
exposure scenario includes all
metabolites and/or degradates of
concern and does not underestimate the
potential exposure for infants and
children. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to fenpropathrin in
drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by fenpropathrin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic pesticide exposures are safe by
comparing aggregate exposure estimates
to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD represent the highest safe
exposures, taking into account all
appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the
aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by
all applicable UFs. For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to
ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account exposure
estimates from acute dietary
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
consumption of food and drinking
water. Dietary (food + water)
consumption is the only source of
exposure to fenpropathrin that is
expected to result in acute exposure.
Therefore, the acute aggregate risk
estimates are equivalent to the acute
dietary exposure discussed in Unit III.
Acute aggregate risk is below EPA’s
level of concern for the general U.S.
population and all population
subgroups. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
fenpropathrin will occupy 53% of the
aPAD for children 1-2 years, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to fenpropathrin
from food and water will utilize 41% of
the cPAD for children 1-2 years, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses
for fenpropathrin.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in
residential exposure. Therefore, the
short-term aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from exposure to fenpropathrin
through food and water and will not be
greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure.
Therefore, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
exposure to fenpropathrin through food
and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than
the chronic aggregate risk.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Aggregate cancer risk is not
a concern because fenpropathrin is
classified as ‘‘not likely to be
carcinogenic 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
fenpropathrin residues.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
12605
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
There are adequate enforcement
methods for fenpropathrin. The
methods use gas chromatography using
an electron capture detector (GC/ECD),
for the determination of fenpropathrin
residues in/on plants (RM-22-4, revised
5/3/93) and animals (RM-22A-1). The
limit of detection (LOD) for Method RM22-4 is 0.01 ppm.
The methods may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
Codex and Mexican maximum
residue limits (MRLs) are established for
residues of fenpropathrin, but no limits
are listed for the crop commodities
addressed herein. No Canadian MRLs
are established for fenpropathrin.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
Based upon review of available data
supporting these petitions, EPA revised
the tolerance levels, added or deleted
tolerances, corrected commodity
definitions, or otherwise modified the
petitions as proposed in the notice of
filings, as follows:
• EPA did not include cherries in the
proposed tolerance on fruit, stone, crop
group 12 because of the significant
difference in residue levels on cherries
compared to other commodities in the
crop group. Instead, EPA established an
individual tolerance for cherry, sweet at
5.0 ppm, and cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm.
• Based on available field trials
residue data, analyzed under the
Guidance for Setting Pesticide
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
SOP, the Agency revised the tolerance
level from 5.0 to 1.4 ppm for fruit, stone,
group 12 (except cherry).
• EPA did not include pistachios in
the proposed tolerance on tree nuts,
crop group 14 because of pistachios are
not currently part of that crop group.
Instead EPA established an individual
tolerance for pistachios at 0.10 ppm.
• Based on available field trials
residue data, analyzed under the
Guidance for Setting Pesticide
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data
SOP, the Agency revised the tolerance
level for almond, hulls from 5.0 to 4.5
ppm.
• Corrected commodity definition of
the proposed tolerance on caneberry
subgroup 13A to caneberry, subgroup
13-07A to reflect how the crop group is
defined in the applicable regulations.
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
12606
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of the insecticide,
fenpropathrin, (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl 2,2,3,3tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on almond, hulls at 4.5 ppm; cherry,
sweet at 5.0 ppm; cherry, tart at 5.0
ppm; fruit, stone, crop group 12 (except
cherry) at 1.4 ppm; nut, tree, crop group
14 at 0.10 ppm; avocado at 1.0 ppm;
black sapote at 1.0 ppm; canistel at 1.0
ppm; maney sapote at 1.0 ppm; mango
at 1.0 ppm; papaya at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla
at 1.0 ppm; star apple at 1.0; caneberry,
subgroup 13-07A at 12.0 ppm; olive at
5.0 ppm; and pistachio at 0.10 ppm. In
addition, the Agency is deleting a timelimited tolerance on currant at 15 ppm
which had an expiration date of 12/31/
2008.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under section 408(d) of FFDCA in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
VerDate Nov<24>2008
00:39 Mar 25, 2009
Jkt 217001
Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
rule does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate
as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 24, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180. 466 is amended by
alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a) and by removing the text in
paragraph (b) and reserving the heading.
■
§ 180.466 Fenpropathrin; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
*
*
Commodity
*
Parts per million
Almond, hulls ...........
Avocado ...................
*
*
*
4.5
1.0
Caneberry subgroup
13-07A.
Canistel ....................
*
*
*
12
Cherry, sweet ..........
Cherry, tart ..............
*
*
*
5.0
5.0
Fruit, stone, crop
group 12, except
cherry.
*
*
*
1.4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1.0
Mango ......................
*
*
1.0
Nut, tree, crop group
14.
Olive ........................
Papaya ....................
*
*
*
0.10
Pistachio ..................
*
*
0.10
Sapodilla ..................
Sapote, black ...........
Sapote, mamey .......
*
*
*
1.0
1.0
1.0
Star apple ................
1.0
*
*
5.0
1.0
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–6412 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1202; FRL–8403–7]
Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for combined residues of
propiconazole in or on beet, garden,
roots at 0.30 ppm; beet, garden, tops at
E:\FR\FM\25MRR1.SGM
25MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12601-12606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6412]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0875; FRL-8400-8]
Fenpropathrin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fenpropathrin in or on almond, hulls at 4.5 parts per million (ppm);
cherry, sweet, at 5.0 ppm; cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; fruit, stone, crop
group 12 (except cherry) at 1.4 ppm; nuts, tree, crop group 14 at 0.10
ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm, PP 4E6867; avocado at 1.0 ppm; black sapote
at 1.0 ppm; canistel at 1.0 ppm; maney sapote at 1.0 ppm; mango at 1.0
ppm; papaya at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla at 1.0 ppm; star apple at 1.0 ppm, PP
6E7066; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm; and olive at 5.0 ppm, PP
7E7298. In addition, the Agency is deleting a time-limited tolerance on
currant at 15 ppm which had an expiration date of 12/31/2008. The
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective March 25, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 26, 2009, 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-2006-0875. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at 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: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7610; e-mail address: jackson.sidney@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).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of
[[Page 12602]]
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 electronically available documents 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 e-CFR cite
at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0875 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 May 26, 2009
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-2006-0875, 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 Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Petitioned for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of November 15, 2006, (71 FR 66520) (FRL-
8102-5), and February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964) (FRL-8350-9), EPA issued a
notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 4E6867, 6E7066, and
7E7298) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.466 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, fenpropathrin,
(alpha-cyano-3-phenoxy-benzyl 2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on fruit, stone, group 12
(except cherry) at 5.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm, pistachio
at 0.10 ppm, and almond hulls at 5.0 ppm, PP 4E6867; avocado, black
sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, star apple at
1.0 ppm; barley, grain at 0.30 ppm; barley, hay at 2.5 ppm; and barley,
straw at 4.5 ppm, PP 6E7066; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm and
olives at 5 ppm, PP 7E7298. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Valent, U.S.A., the registrant, which is available
to the public in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filings.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions listed in
this Unit, EPA has made certain modifications including revisions to
proposed tolerance levels, scope of proposed crop groups, existing
tolerance levels, proposed commodity definitions, as follows: Changed
the proposed tolerance for fruit, stone, group 12 to fruit, stone,
group 12 (except cherry) and revised the tolerance level from 5.0 to
1.4 ppm; established an individual tolerance for cherry, sweet at 5.0
ppm, and cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; changed the proposed tolerance for
nut, tree, group 14 (including pistachio) to nut, tree, group 14;
established an individual tolerance for pistachio at 0.10 ppm; revised
the tolerance level for almond, hulls from 5.0 to 4.5 ppm, and
corrected the commodity definition for caneberry, subgroup 13-07A.
Additionally, at this time, the Agency is not making a decision on the
proposed tolerances for barley, grain at 0.30 ppm, barley, hay at 2.5
ppm, and barley, straw at 4.5 ppm pending submission and review of a
barley processing study. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of, and to
make a determination on, aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fenpropathrin in or on almond, hulls at 4.5
ppm; cherry, sweet at 5.0 ppm; cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; fruit, stone,
group 12 at 1.4 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.10 ppm; avocado at 1.0
ppm; black sapote at 1.0 ppm; canistel at 1.0 ppm; maney sapote at 1.0
ppm; mango at 1.0 ppm; papaya at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla at 1.0 ppm; star
apple at 1.0; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 12 ppm; olive at 5.0 ppm;
and pistachio at 0.10 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
The database for fenpropathrin is not complete, but it does provide
adequate information to characterize toxicity. Acute neurotoxicity,
subchronic neurotoxicity, and developmental neurotoxicity studies have
been submitted and reviewed since the previous risk assessment. These
studies were classified acceptable/guideline and
[[Page 12603]]
were considered during endpoint selection.
Fenpropathrin exhibits high toxicity through the oral and dermal
routes of exposure. Acute inhalation toxicity has not been determined
for fenpropathrin. Because of the chemical's low vapor pressure,
sufficient test material could not be generated to elicit a toxic
response during the inhalation studies. Fenpropathrin is a mild eye
irritant, but does not cause dermal irritation in rabbits or skin
sensitization in guinea pigs.
Clinical signs of toxicity observed in rats and dogs following
subchronic exposure included tremors, ataxia, salivation, and
hypersensitivity. Decreased body weights and food consumption are more
general responses to dietary consumption in rats and dogs. Pregnant
rabbits exposed to fenpropathrin during a developmental study also
exhibited neurotoxic signs including tremors, shakiness, unsteadiness,
and flicking limbs.
Chronic dietary exposure to fenpropathrin produced no treatment-
related effects in mice. Following chronic exposure, rats and dogs
showed evidence of neurotoxicity that was consistent with the effects
that were seen after subchronic exposures. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in either the rat or mouse long-term dietary studies.
Fenpropathrin is not mutagenic in bacteria or cultured mammalian cells.
This chemical is neither clastogenic nor damaging to DNA. Fenpropathrin
is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Developmental studies in rats and rabbits showed no evidence of
increased susceptibility in fetuses as compared to maternal animals
following exposure to fenpropathrin in utero. Maternal animals of both
species exhibited clinical signs of neurotoxicity. In rats, reduced
body weight gains were also present. In neither study did dose-related
changes in fecundity, fertility, implantations, number of abortions, or
early or late resorptions occur. The only anomaly noted for either
species was an increased incidence of asymmetrical or incomplete
ossification of the fifth or sixth sternebrae in rat fetuses. A two-
generation reproduction study in rats, likewise, did not show an
increased sensitivity to fenpropathrin in pups as compared to adults.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by fenpropathrin 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 document ``Fenpropathrin. Human health risk
assessment for the proposed uses on barley, stone fruit (Crop Group
12), tree nuts (Crop Group 14), pistachio, caneberries (Crop Subgroup
13-07A), and star apple, dated 11/26/2008'', page 13 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0875-0005.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpropathrin used for
human risk assessment can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Fenpropathrin. Human health risk assessment for the proposed
uses on barley, stone fruit (Crop Group 12), tree nuts (Crop Group 14),
pistachio, caneberries (Crop Subgroup 13-07A), and star apple, dated
11/26/2008, page 19 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0875-0005.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropathrin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fenpropathrin
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.466). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fenpropathrin 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.
Acute dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID, Version 2.03), which uses food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). A partially refined acute
probabilistic dietary exposure analysis was performed for
fenpropathrin. As to residue levels in food, EPA's analysis was based
on tolerance level residues for some commodities, crop field trial data
(only for apricots, nectarines, apples, cherries, grapes, peaches,
pears, and plums), processing factors, and the assumption of 100%
percent crop treated for all registered and proposed commodity uses. As
a result, the Agency considers these analyses to be refined, but not
highly refined.
ii. Chronic exposure. Chronic dietary exposure assessments were
conducted using the DEEM-FCID, (Version 2.03), which uses food
consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII. As to residue
levels in food, EPA's analysis was based on tolerance level residues
for some commodities, crop field trial data (only for apricots,
nectarines, apples, cherries, grapes, peaches, pears, and plums),
processing factors, and the assumption of 100% percent crop treated for
all registered and proposed commodity uses. As a
[[Page 12604]]
result, the Agency considers these analyses to be refined, but not
highly refined.
iii. Cancer. An exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is
unnecessary. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in either the rat
or mouse long-term dietary studies. Fenpropathrin is not mutagenic in
bacteria or cultured mammalian cells. The chemical is neither
clastogenic nor damaging to DNA. Fenpropathrin is classified as ``not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
The assumption of 100% PCT was made for all registered and proposed
commodity uses.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fenpropathrin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fenpropathrin. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) Model for
surface water and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW)
Model for ground water, the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EWDC) of fenpropathrin for acute exposures are estimated to be 10.3
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.005 ppb for ground
water. The EWDCs for chronic exposures is estimated to be 1.81 ppb for
surface water and 0.005 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the DEEM-FCID. For acute dietary risk assessment, the peak
water concentration value of 10.3 ppb was used to assess the
contribution of drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment,
the annual average concentration of 1.8 ppb was used to assess the
contribution of 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).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure. No new residential uses are
associated with the petitioned-for tolerances.
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 considers ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found fenpropathrin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fenpropathrin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
Fenpropathrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of pesticides.
Although all pyrethroids alter nerve function by modifying the normal
biochemistry and physiology of nerve membrane sodium channels, EPA is
not currently following a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity for the pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids
interact with sodium channels, there are multiple types of sodium
channels and it is currently unknown whether the pyrethroids have
similar effects on all channels. The Agency does not have a clear
understanding of effects on key downstream neuronal function, e.g.,
nerve excitability, nor does it understand how these key events
interact to produce their compound-specific patterns of neurotoxicity.
There is ongoing research by EPA and pyrethroid registrants to evaluate
the differential biochemical and physiological actions of pyrethroids
in mammals. When the results of the research are available, the Agency
will consider this research and make a determination of common
mechanism as a basis for assessing cumulative risk. Information
regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found
to have a common mechanism can be found on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There are no concerns or
residual uncertainties for pre-and/or post-natal toxicity resulting
from exposure to fenpropathrin. There is no evidence (qualitative or
quantitative) of increased susceptibility following in utero and/or
pre-natal or post-natal exposure in adequate developmental toxicity
studies in rats or rabbits, a 2-generation reproduction study in rats,
and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for fenpropathrin is adequate for FQPA
[[Page 12605]]
determination. The database for fenpropathrin is not complete, but it
does provide adequate information to characterize toxicity/endpoint
selection for infants and children including acceptable acute
neurotoxicity, subchronic neurotoxicity, and developmental
neurotoxicity studies. Based on recently revised EPA Part 158
Guidelines, an immunotoxicology study in rats must be submitted to the
Agency. However, because there was no indication of immunotoxicity in
the toxicity database, an additional 10x database uncertainty factor is
not considered necessary in order to be protective of potential
immunotoxic effects.
ii. The toxicity data, including a developmental neurotoxicity
study, showed no increase in qualitative or quantitative susceptibility
in fetuses and pups with in utero and/or post-natal exposure to
fenpropathrin.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the
exposure databases. Dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on 100% PCT, tolerance-level residues for existing and proposed
uses, and field trial data. The exposure databases (dietary food and
drinking water) are complete and the exposure assessment for each
potential exposure scenario includes all metabolites and/or degradates
of concern and does not underestimate the potential exposure for
infants and children. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
fenpropathrin in drinking water. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fenpropathrin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Dietary (food + water) consumption is the only source
of exposure to fenpropathrin that is expected to result in acute
exposure. Therefore, the acute aggregate risk estimates are equivalent
to the acute dietary exposure discussed in Unit III. Acute aggregate
risk is below EPA's level of concern for the general U.S. population
and all population subgroups. Using the exposure assumptions discussed
in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food
and water to fenpropathrin will occupy 53% of the aPAD for children 1-2
years, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fenpropathrin from food and water will utilize 41% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for fenpropathrin.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate
risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to fenpropathrin through food
and water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
Fenpropathrin is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to fenpropathrin through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Aggregate cancer risk
is not a concern because fenpropathrin is classified as ``not likely to
be carcinogenic 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 fenpropathrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
There are adequate enforcement methods for fenpropathrin. The
methods use gas chromatography using an electron capture detector (GC/
ECD), for the determination of fenpropathrin residues in/on plants (RM-
22-4, revised 5/3/93) and animals (RM-22A-1). The limit of detection
(LOD) for Method RM-22-4 is 0.01 ppm.
The methods 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
Codex and Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for
residues of fenpropathrin, but no limits are listed for the crop
commodities addressed herein. No Canadian MRLs are established for
fenpropathrin.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Based upon review of available data supporting these petitions, EPA
revised the tolerance levels, added or deleted tolerances, corrected
commodity definitions, or otherwise modified the petitions as proposed
in the notice of filings, as follows:
EPA did not include cherries in the proposed tolerance on
fruit, stone, crop group 12 because of the significant difference in
residue levels on cherries compared to other commodities in the crop
group. Instead, EPA established an individual tolerance for cherry,
sweet at 5.0 ppm, and cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm.
Based on available field trials residue data, analyzed
under the Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field
Trial Data SOP, the Agency revised the tolerance level from 5.0 to 1.4
ppm for fruit, stone, group 12 (except cherry).
EPA did not include pistachios in the proposed tolerance
on tree nuts, crop group 14 because of pistachios are not currently
part of that crop group. Instead EPA established an individual
tolerance for pistachios at 0.10 ppm.
Based on available field trials residue data, analyzed
under the Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field
Trial Data SOP, the Agency revised the tolerance level for almond,
hulls from 5.0 to 4.5 ppm.
Corrected commodity definition of the proposed tolerance
on caneberry subgroup 13A to caneberry, subgroup 13-07A to reflect how
the crop group is defined in the applicable regulations.
[[Page 12606]]
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide, fenpropathrin, (alpha-cyano-3-phenoxy-benzyl 2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on almond, hulls at 4.5 ppm;
cherry, sweet at 5.0 ppm; cherry, tart at 5.0 ppm; fruit, stone, crop
group 12 (except cherry) at 1.4 ppm; nut, tree, crop group 14 at 0.10
ppm; avocado at 1.0 ppm; black sapote at 1.0 ppm; canistel at 1.0 ppm;
maney sapote at 1.0 ppm; mango at 1.0 ppm; papaya at 1.0 ppm; sapodilla
at 1.0 ppm; star apple at 1.0; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 12.0 ppm;
olive at 5.0 ppm; and pistachio at 0.10 ppm. In addition, the Agency is
deleting a time-limited tolerance on currant at 15 ppm which had an
expiration date of 12/31/2008.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 24, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Section 180. 466 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) and by removing the text in
paragraph (b) and reserving the heading.
Sec. 180.466 Fenpropathrin; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls............................. 4.5
Avocado................................... 1.0
* * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A................. 12
Canistel.................................. 1.0
* * * * *
Cherry, sweet............................. 5.0
Cherry, tart.............................. 5.0
* * * * *
Fruit, stone, crop group 12, except cherry 1.4
* * * * *
Mango..................................... 1.0
* * * * *
Nut, tree, crop group 14.................. 0.10
Olive..................................... 5.0
Papaya.................................... 1.0
* * * * *
Pistachio................................. 0.10
* * * * *
Sapodilla................................. 1.0
Sapote, black............................. 1.0
Sapote, mamey............................. 1.0
* * * * *
Star apple................................ 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-6412 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S