Fluazifop-P-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances, 5696-5704 [2011-1779]
Download as PDF
5696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Parts per
million
Commodity
Bushberry subgroup 13B ..........
Caneberry subgroup 13A .........
Canistel .....................................
Canola, seed 1 ..........................
Citrus, dried pulp ......................
Citrus, oil ...................................
Fruit, pome ...............................
Fruit, stone ................................
Grape ........................................
Grape, raisin .............................
Herb subgroup 19A, dried, except parsley ...........................
Herb subgroup 19A, fresh, except parsley ...........................
Juneberry ..................................
Kiwifruit .....................................
Leafy greens subgroup 4A, except spinach 35 .....................
Lemon .......................................
Lime ..........................................
Lingonberry ...............................
Longan ......................................
Lychee ......................................
Mango .......................................
Onion, bulb ...............................
Onion, green .............................
Papaya ......................................
Parsley, dried leaves ................
Parsley, leaves .........................
Pistachio ...................................
Pulasan .....................................
Rambutan .................................
Salal ..........................................
Sapodilla ...................................
Sapote, black ............................
Sapote, mamey ........................
Spanish lime .............................
Star apple .................................
Strawberry ................................
Tomatillo ...................................
Tomato ......................................
Tomato, paste ...........................
Turnip, greens ..........................
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ....
Vegetable, leaves of root and
tuber, group 2 .......................
Vegetable, root, except sugarbeet, subgroup 1B 41 ...........
Watercress ................................
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
1 Import
3.0
10
1.2
0.03
8.0
340
1.7
2.0
2.0
3.0
15.0
3.0
3.0
1.8
30
0.60
0.60
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.2
0.60
4.0
1.2
170
35
0.10
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.0
1.2
5.0
0.45
0.45
1.0
10.0
0.70
10
0.75
20
only.
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of the fungicide cyprodinil,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in the commodities in the
table below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum
of cyprodinil 4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-Nphenyl-2-pyrimidinamine and free and
conjugated CGA–304075 4-(4cyclopropyl-6-methyl-pyrimidin-2ylamino)-phenol, calculated as the
stoichiometric equivalent of cyprodinil.
Parts per
million
Commodity
Cattle, meat byproducts .............
Goat, meat byproducts ...............
Horse, meat byproducts .............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
0.02
0.02
0.02
Parts per
million
Commodity
Sheep, meat byproducts ............
*
*
*
*
0.02
*
[FR Doc. 2011–2157 Filed 2–1–11; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0980; FRL–8861–1]
Fluazifop-P-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fluazifop-Pbutyl in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later
in this document. Syngenta Crop
Protection, Inc., requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
February 2, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before April 4, 2011, and must be
filed in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0980. 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:
Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
ADDRESSES:
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–5218; e-mail address:
stanton.susan@epa.gov.
Sfmt 4700
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
To access the harmonized test
guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to https://
www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test
Methods and Guidelines.’’
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0980 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before April 4, 2011. Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
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. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0980, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerances
In the Federal Register of January 6,
2010 (75 FR 864) (FRL–8801–5), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9F7624) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419–8300.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.411 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide,
fluazifop-P-butyl, in or on banana and
plantains at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm); citrus (whole fruit), citrus (oil),
and citrus (juice) at 0.05 ppm; citrus
(dried pulp) at 0.40 ppm; grapes at 0.01
ppm; sugarbeet (root) at 0.25 ppm;
sugarbeet (top) at 1.5 ppm; sugarbeet
(dried pulp) at 1.0 ppm; and sugarbeet
(molasses) at 3.5 ppm.
In the Federal Register of February 4,
2010 (75 FR 5790) (FRL–8807–5), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9E7651) by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419–8300.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.411 be amended by establishing
import tolerances for residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl in or on potato, tuber
at 1.1 ppm; potato, peel (wet) at 1.1
ppm; potato, chips at 3.0 ppm; and
potato, granules/flakes at 5.0 ppm. That
notice incorrectly identified fluazifop-Pbutyl as an insecticide. A corrected
notice, identifying fluazifop-P-butyl as
an herbicide, was issued in the Federal
Register of March 10, 2010 (75 FR
11171) (FRL–8810–8).
Those notices referenced summaries
of the petitions prepared by Syngenta
Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant,
which are available in the dockets
(PP9F7641, docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0833; and PP9E7651, docket
ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0980),
https://www.regulations.gov. There were
no comments received in response to
the notices of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the proposed tolerances
for plantains, sugarbeet (top), and potato
peel (wet) are unnecessary. EPA has also
revised several of the proposed
commodity terms and tolerances levels,
as well as the proposed tolerance
expression. The reasons for these
changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5697
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for fluazifop-P-butyl
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with fluazifop-P-butyl
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
In characterizing the toxicity of
fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered data
on both fluazifop-P-butyl and fluazifop
butyl. Fluazifop-P-butyl is the resolved,
herbicidally-active isomer (R
enantiomer) of fluazifop-butyl. The
toxicity database for fluazifop-butyl is
largely complete with sufficient toxicity
data on fluazifop-P-butyl to demonstrate
similar toxicity between the resolved
and unresolved compounds.
Fluazifop-P-butyl has low acute
toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is
mildly irritating to the eye and skin and
is not a skin sensitizer. In repeated-dose
studies, the liver and kidney were the
main target organs with toxicity
expressed as liver toxicity in the
presence of peroxisome proliferation
and exacerbation of age-related kidney
toxicity. The most sensitive endpoints
were seen in the rat (decreased testes
and epididymal weights in male rats
and decreased pituitary and uterine
weights in female rats), most likely due
to the longer retention time of the major
metabolite (fluazifop acid) in the rat.
Fluazifop-P-butyl is classified as ‘‘Not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans,’’
based on the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in acceptable studies in
rats and hamsters. The hamster was
selected for cancer study, rather than
the mouse, because liver peroxisome
proliferation in hamsters more closely
resembles what is found for human liver
cells. There is no evidence that fluazifop
butyl or fluazifop-P-butyl is mutagenic.
There was no evidence of
neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the
available studies. Marginal increases in
brain weights at termination were
observed in a sub-chronic toxicity study
in rats and in a carcinogenicity study
performed on hamsters; however, they
were only seen at higher doses not
considered relevant to human exposure.
The toxicity database for fluazifopbutyl and fluazifop-P-butyl includes 7
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
5698
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
developmental toxicity studies (5 in rats
and 2 in rabbits) and a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. Fetal
effects (including delayed ossification,
delayed development of the urinary
tract, and diaphragmatic hernias) were
consistent findings across the five rat
developmental toxicity studies.
Maternal toxicity in these studies was
observed primarily as decreased weight/
weight gain, with maternal effects
occurring at higher doses (100/300
milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day))
than doses resulting in fetal effects (2.0/
5.0 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit
developmental studies, developmental
effects (nominal increases in delayed
ossification, total litter loss, abortions,
small fetuses, and cloudy eyes in one
study; and an increased incidence of
13th rib and delayed ossification in
sternebrae 2 in the second study)
occurred at doses also causing maternal
toxicity (abortions, death, and weight
loss). Similarly, in the reproduction
toxicity study in rats, offspring effects
(decreased viability in the F1 and F2
pups during lactational day 1, 4, 11, 18,
and 25; and decreased F2 pup weight on
lactational day 25) occurred at doses
also resulting in parental toxicity
(decreased spleen weight in males and
increased absolute and relative liver and
kidney weights and geriatric
nephropathy in females). Reproductive
toxicity was observed in this study as
decreased absolute and relative testes
and epididymal weight in males and, in
females, decreased pituitary and uterine
weights.
For fluazifop, there were some
indications of potential immunotoxicity
in the form of thymic involution, altered
spleen weights, lymphadenopathy and
bone marrow myelogram changes in the
chronic toxicity study in dogs. The
significance of these effects is discussed
in detail in Unit III.D.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by fluazifop-P-butyl as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effectlevel (NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
‘‘Revised Fluazifop-P-Butyl. Amended
Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support Use on Bananas, Citrus, Grapes,
Sugar Beets, and the Establishment of a
Tolerance on Imported Potatoes,’’ pg. 60
in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2009–0980.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern (LOC) to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for fluazifop-P-butyl used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this Unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (Females 13 to
50 years of age).
NOAEL = 50 milligrams/kilograms/
day (mg/kg/day) UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
Acute RfD = 0.50 mg/kg/day ...........
aPAD = 0.50mg/kg/day ...................
Developmental Toxicity in Rats.
Developmental LOAEL = 200 mg/
kg/day based on diaphragmatic
hernia.
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children).
An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified in the available studies, including the developmental toxicity studies.
Chronic dietary (All populations).
NOAEL= 0.74 mg/kg/day .................
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
Chronic RfD = 0.0074 mg/kg/day ....
cPAD = 0.0074 mg/kg/day ..............
Incidental oral short-term (1
to 30 days).
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Exposure/scenario
NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day ..................
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
NOAEL= 0.74 mg/kg/day .................
UFA= 10x .........................................
UFH= 10x .........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
Incidental oral intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
2-generation Reproduction in Rats.
LOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/day in males
and 7.1 mg/kg/day in females
based on decreased testes &
epididymal weights in males, and
uterine & pituitary weights in females.
Developmental Toxicity in Rats.
Maternal LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day
based on maternal body weight
gain decrement during GD 7–16.
2-generation Reproduction in Rats.
Parental/systemic LOAEL = 5.8 mg/
kg/day in males and 7.1 mg/kg/
day in females based on decreased testes & epididymal
weights in males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in females.
02FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
5699
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Dermal short-term (1 to 30
days).
Dermal intermediate-term (1
to 6 months) and longterm (<6 months).
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days).
Intermediate-term (1 to 6
months) and long-term (<6
months).
Point of departure and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day
(dermal absorption rate = 9% at 2
mg dose and 2% at 200 mg
dose.)
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
Oral study NOAEL= 0.74 mg/kg/day
(dermal absorption rate = 9% at 2
mg dose and 2% at 200 mg
dose.)
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/kg/day
(inhalation absorption rate =
100%).
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
Oral study NOAEL = 0.74 mg/kg/
day (inhalation absorption rate =
100%).
UFA = 10x ........................................
UFH = 10x ........................................
FQPA SF = 1x .................................
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
Developmental Toxicity in Rats.
Developmental LOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/
day based on fetal weight decrement, hydroureter, and delayed
ossification.
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
2-generation Reproduction in Rats.
Parental/systemic LOAEL = 5.8 mg/
kg/day in males and 7.1 mg/kg/
day in females based on decreased testes & epididymal
weights in males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in females.
Developmental Toxicity in Rats
Developmental LOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/
day based on fetal weight decrement, hydroureter, and delayed
ossification.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
LOC for MOE = 100 ........................
2-generation Reproduction in Rats.
Parental/systemic LOAEL = 5.8 mg/
kg/day in males and 7.1 mg/kg/
day in females based on decreased testes & epididymal
weights in males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in females.
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose
(a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
existing fluazifop-P-butyl tolerances in
40 CFR 180.411. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fluazifop-P-butyl in food
as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. Such effects were identified
for fluazifop-P-butyl for women of
childbearing age (13 to 49 years old). In
estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA
used food consumption information
from the U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994–1996
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed
that all foods contain tolerance-level
residues (adjusted to account for all
metabolites of concern, based on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
ratio of parent and metabolites found in
plant metabolism studies) and that
100% of all crops are treated with
fluazifop-P-butyl. Default processing
factors were used to estimate residues in
processed commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998
CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA
assumed that residues were present
either at tolerance or average field trial
levels. As in the acute dietary exposure
assessment, residue levels were adjusted
to account for all metabolites of
concern. Percent crop treated (PCT) data
were used to refine exposure estimates
for several currently registered crop
uses; 100 PCT was assumed for all new
crop commodities. Default processing
factors were used to estimate residues in
processed commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluazifop-P-butyl does
not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure
assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 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.
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
5700
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
• 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 estimated the PCT for
existing uses as follows: Asparagus
2.5%; carrot 10%; cherry 1%;
cottonseed 2.5%; dry beans 1%; garlic
5%; onion (dry bulb) 15%; peach 2.5%;
peanut 1%; pepper (non-bell) 1%; and
sweet potato 10%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from the U. S. Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the
National Pesticide Use Database for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6 to7 years. EPA uses an average
PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis.
The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations
in which the average PCT is less than
one. In those cases, 1% is used as the
average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated
is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which fluazifop-P-butyl may be applied
in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for fluazifop-P-butyl in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
fluazifop-P-butyl. 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 drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fluazifop-P-butyl for acute exposures are
estimated to be 33.4 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for
ground water. The EDWCs for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 6.6 ppb for surface
water and 1.56 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 33.4 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 6.6 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).
Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently
registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures:
Turfgrass and broadleaf ornamentals.
EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions:
Homeowners that apply fluazifop-Pbutyl products may be exposed to
fluazifop-P-butyl for short-term
durations via the dermal and inhalation
routes. There is also the potential for
post-application exposure of adults and
children from activities on treated turf
areas, such as home lawns. Short-term
dermal exposure of adults and children,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as well as incidental oral (hand-tomouth, object-to-mouth, and soil
ingestion) exposure of children may
occur. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’ EPA has not
found fluazifop-P-butyl to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and fluazifop-Pbutyl does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that fluazifop-P-butyl does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site 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
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.
The pre- and postnatal toxicity database
for fluazifop/fluazifop-P-butyl includes
five rat and two rabbit developmental
toxicity studies as well as a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. As
discussed in Unit III.A, there was
evidence of quantitative susceptibility
of fetuses to fluazifop-P-butyl exposure
in the rat developmental toxicity
studies. The degree of concern for the
increased susceptibility is low and there
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
is no residual uncertainty based on the
following considerations: The endpoint
of concern (delayed ossifications) is
considered to be a developmental delay
as opposed to a malformation or
variation which would be considered to
be more serious in nature; there were
considerable variations in the
incidences among the five rat studies;
the NOAELs/LOAELs for this effect
were well defined and consistent across
these studies; and a developmental
endpoint of concern (diaphragmatic
hernia) is used for assessing acute
dietary risk. Also, there was no evidence
(quantitative or qualitative) of increased
susceptibility of fetuses or offspring in
the rabbit developmental studies or in
the 2-generation rat reproduction
toxicity study.
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 fluazifopP-butyl is adequate to assess pre- and
postnatal toxicity, lacking only acute
and sub-chronic neurotoxicity studies
and immunotoxicity testing. Ninety-day
dermal and inhalation toxicity studies
are also required to confirm the PODs
selected for assessing dermal and
inhalation exposures based on route-toroute extrapolations from oral studies.
EPA does not believe an additional
uncertainty factor is needed to account
for the lack of these studies for the
following reasons:
a. Ninety-day dermal and inhalation
studies. Fluazifop-P-butyl is expected to
show similar toxicity by the inhalation
and oral routes because of its
metabolism by blood into the acid form
and excretion in this manner. Further,
EPA selected a conservative (protective)
POD from a developmental toxicity
study (NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day) to
assess both short-term dermal and
inhalation exposures. The NOAEL from
the available 28-day dermal study is
considerably higher (100 mg/kg/day).
Although a POD from an oral study
was used to assess residential handler
inhalation risks for fluazifop-P-butyl,
EPA does not believe this aggregate risk
assessment is under-protective of adult
handlers. Handler MOEs based on the
extrapolated endpoint are quite high
(14,000 to 1.1 million), and the
contribution of residential exposure to
aggregate risk is small. Therefore, even
if an inhalation study were to provide
a lower POD than the oral study, it’s not
expected to have a significant impact on
aggregate risk.
b. Neurotoxicity. There was no
evidence of neurotoxicity or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
neuropathology in the available studies.
Marginal increases in brain weights at
termination were observed in a subchronic toxicity study in rats, and in a
carcinogenicity study performed on
hamsters; however, they were only seen
at higher doses not considered relevant
to human exposure.
c. Immunotoxicity. There were some
indications of potential immunotoxicity
in the form of thymic involution, altered
spleen weights, lymphadenopathy and
bone marrow myelogram changes in the
chronic toxicity study in dogs. EPA’s
concern for these effects is low, based
on the following considerations: Thymic
involution was of slight severity in only
1 female treated with the mid-dose; the
response was equivocal in the males, as
there was no dose-response relationship
(incidence and severity) and controls
also exhibited thymic involution. One
control dog had severe thymic
involution; the statistical and biological
significance of the alterations in spleen
weights could not be assessed because
of the large variation in the weights of
control dogs. Also, the alterations were
inconsistent between dogs that died
(these dogs displayed increased adrenal
weights) and dogs that survived (these
dogs displayed decreased adrenal
weights); lymphadenopathy was
observed only at the high dose (125 mg/
kg/day) and the response is
questionable, since the colony of dogs
used in the study had excessive health
problems that included
lymphadenopathy; the bone marrow
myelogram changes were small and
variable and not considered doserelated; and none of the potential
immunological signs in the dog were
seen in the rat, the most sensitive
species. For these reasons, EPA
considered the results of the chronic
dog study to be unreliable. The colony
of dogs used in the study had excessive
health problems that may have
impacted normal immune status, so that
apparent immunotoxic effects were
observed even in some untreated control
animals. Moreover, no immunotoxic
effects were observed in the sub-chronic
dog study, a study where healthy
animals were used. EPA therefore
concludes that the available data do not
warrant an additional uncertainty factor
(UF) to account for the lack of an
immunotoxicity study.
ii. As noted previously in this unit,
there is no indication that fluazifop-Pbutyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there
is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to
account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is evidence of
increased quantitative susceptibility in
in utero rats in the prenatal
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5701
developmental studies, the degree of
concern for developmental effects is
low, and EPA did not identify any
residual uncertainties after establishing
toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs
to be used in the risk assessment of
fluazifop-P-butyl.
iv. There are no significant residual
uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. A citrus processing study and
data on the stability of fluazifop-P-butyl
in processed potato commodities are
required; however, EPA does not expect
these data to have a measurable impact
on exposure estimates for fluazifop-Pbutyl. Data are available which
demonstrate fluazifop-P-butyl is stable
in a wide variety of frozen crop
commodities, including potatoes. As
such, EPA expects fluazifop to be stable
in frozen potato processed commodities
but is requiring data to confirm its
stability in these fractions. The
submitted citrus processing study was
determined to be inadequate and EPA
is, therefore, requiring that another
study be conducted. In the interim, EPA
is establishing tolerances for processed
citrus commodities using worst-case
concentration factors that will not
underestimate residues of fluazifop-Pbutyl in these commodities.
The acute dietary food exposure
assessment was performed based on
tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT.
The chronic assessment was refined for
some commodities using reliable PCT
information and anticipated residues
values calculated from guideline field
trial studies. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl in
drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess
postapplication exposure of children as
well as incidental oral exposure of
toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by fluazifop-P-butyl.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer
given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
5702
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure
from food and water to fluazifop-P-butyl
will occupy 13% of the aPAD for
females 13 to 49 years old, the only
population group for which an acute
dietary endpoint of concern was
identified.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to fluazifop-Pbutyl from food and water will utilize
40% of the cPAD for children, 1 to 2
years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure. Based
on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues
of fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Fluazifop-P-butyl is
currently registered for uses that could
result in short-term residential
exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short-term residential
exposures to fluazifop-P-butyl.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 150 for adults and 250 for
children. The MOE for adults includes
chronic exposure from food and water
plus short-term residential handler and
post-application exposure of adult
females (the adult population with the
highest estimated exposure). The MOE
for children includes chronic exposure
from food and water plus combined
dermal and incidental oral short-term,
post-application exposures. Because
EPA’s level of concern for fluazifop-Pbutyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level). An
intermediate-term adverse effect was
identified; however, fluazifop-P-butyl is
not registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term
residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no
intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to
assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term
risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluazifop-P-butyl.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected to pose
a 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 fluazifop-Pbutyl residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(High Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Ultra-Violet
Spectrometry (HPLC/UV)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The
method is available in Pesticide
Analytical Methods (PAM), Volume II or
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
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization/
World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized
as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States
is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance
that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4)
requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL
for fluazifop-P-butyl.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA has determined that the
proposed tolerances for plantains,
sugarbeet (top), and potato peel (wet)
are unnecessary. Residues of fluazifopP-butyl on plantains will be covered by
the tolerance for banana (40 CFR 180.1);
and tolerances are no longer required for
sugarbeet tops, which were removed
from the Table I (Significant Feedstuffs
Derived from Agricultural Crops Fed to
Beef, Dairy, Poultry, and Swine) of the
residue chemistry guidelines (860.1000
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines) in
June, 2008. A tolerance is not needed for
potato peel, since processing data
demonstrate that residues do not
concentrate in the peel. Residues in the
peel will, therefore, be covered by the
tolerance for potato.
EPA has also revised several of the
proposed commodity terms and
tolerances levels. Commodity terms
were revised as follows to comply with
the Agency’s Food and Feed
Vocabulary: ‘‘Citrus (whole fruit),’’
‘‘grapes,’’ ‘‘potato tuber,’’ ‘‘sugarbeet
(roots),’’ ‘‘sugarbeet (dried pulp),’’ and
‘‘sugarbeet (molasses)’’ were revised to
read ‘‘fruit, citrus, group 10;’’ ‘‘grape;’’
‘‘potato;’’ ‘‘beet, sugar, roots;’’ ‘‘beet,
sugar, dried pulp;’’ and ‘‘beet, sugar,
molasses;’’ respectively.
The proposed tolerance for citrus was
reduced from 0.05 ppm to 0.03 ppm, the
limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the
residue analytical method, since all
field trial residues were below the LOQ.
The citrus processing study was
inadequate for determining appropriate
tolerances in processed citrus
commodities. Therefore, maximum
theoretical concentration factors were
used in conjunction with the citrus field
trial results (all <0.03 ppm) to derive
tolerances for citrus oil and juice
(proposed at 0.05 ppm) of 30.0 ppm and
0.06 ppm, respectively. A maximum
theoretical concentration factor is not
available for citrus pulp; however, a
recent analysis of data for 27 different
pesticides showed concentration of
residues in citrus pulp of between 2x
and 13x. EPA, therefore, used a
concentration factor of 13x in
conjunction with field trial results to
derive an appropriate tolerance of 0.40
ppm for citrus pulp, the same level
proposed by the petitioner.
Finally, EPA is revising the requested
tolerance expression for fluazifop-Pbutyl in accordance with current
Agency guidance. EPA is also making
this change for the existing fluazifop-Pbutyl tolerances. The revised tolerance
expression makes clear that the
tolerances cover residues of the
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
5703
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl, including
its metabolites and degradates, but that
compliance with the tolerance levels is
to be determined by measuring only the
sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and
the free and conjugated forms of the
resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the
commodity. EPA has determined that it
is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity
for comment, because public comment
is not necessary, in that the change has
no substantive effect on the tolerance,
but rather is merely intended to clarify
the existing tolerance expression.
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on banana at 0.01 ppm;
beet, sugar, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm; beet,
sugar, molasses at 3.5 ppm; beet, sugar,
roots at 0.25 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at
0.40 ppm; citrus, juice at 0.06 ppm;
citrus, oil at 30.0 ppm; fruit, citrus,
group 10 at 0.03 ppm; grape at 0.01
ppm; potato at 1.0 ppm; potato, chips at
2.0 ppm; and potato, granules/flakes at
4.0 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance
levels is to be determined by measuring
only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl,
butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and
the free and conjugated forms of the
resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the
commodity.
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
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) (Pub. L.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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: January 18, 2011.
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:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.411 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
and alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a) and revising paragraph (c) the
introductory text to read as follows:
■
§ 180.411 Fluazifop-P-butyl; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for residues of the herbicide
fluazifop-P-butyl, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
following commodities in the table.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the table below is to be
determined by measuring only the sum
of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and
the free and conjugated forms of the
resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the
commodity.
Commodity
Parts per
million
Banana .....................................
0.01
*
*
*
*
Beet, sugar, dried pulp .............
Beet, sugar, molasses ..............
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
*
1.0
3.5
0.25
*
*
*
*
Citrus, dried pulp ......................
Citrus, juice ...............................
Citrus, oil ...................................
*
0.40
0.06
30.0
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
5704
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 22 / Wednesday, February 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
Fruit, citrus, group 10 ...............
*
*
*
*
Grape ........................................
*
*
*
*
Potato1 ......................................
Potato, chips1 ...........................
Potato, granules/flakes1 ............
*
1 No
*
This regulation is effective
February 2, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
*
on or before April 4, 2011, and must be
0.03 filed in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
*
0.01 Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
1.0
2.0
4.0
*
U.S. registrations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. Tolerances with regional
registrations are established for residues
of the herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the following
commodities in the table. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in the
table below is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of fluazifop-Pbutyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and
the free and conjugated forms of the
resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid,
calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the
commodity.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–1779 Filed 2–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. General Information
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0125; FRL–8860–1]
A. Does this action apply to me?
Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of sulfentrazone
in or on multiple commodities.
Additionally, this regulation deletes
existing tolerances on commodities
superseded by the establishment of crop
subgroups. This regulation also deletes
a time-limited tolerance on bean,
succulent seed without pod (lima bean
and cowpea), as the tolerance expired
on December 31, 2007. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR–4)
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
14:48 Feb 01, 2011
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0125. 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:
Laura Nollen, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7390; e-mail address:
nollen.laura@epa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
VerDate Mar<15>2010
DATES:
Jkt 223001
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0125 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before April 4, 2011. Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
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. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0125, 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).
E:\FR\FM\02FER1.SGM
02FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5696-5704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1779]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980; FRL-8861-1]
Fluazifop-P-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl in or on multiple commodities which are identified
and discussed later in this document. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.,
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective February 2, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 4, 2011, 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-2009-0980. 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: 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).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test
Methods and Guidelines.''
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be
[[Page 5697]]
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 4, 2011. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided
in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances
In the Federal Register of January 6, 2010 (75 FR 864) (FRL-8801-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F7624) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.411 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide, fluazifop-P-
butyl, in or on banana and plantains at 0.01 parts per million (ppm);
citrus (whole fruit), citrus (oil), and citrus (juice) at 0.05 ppm;
citrus (dried pulp) at 0.40 ppm; grapes at 0.01 ppm; sugarbeet (root)
at 0.25 ppm; sugarbeet (top) at 1.5 ppm; sugarbeet (dried pulp) at 1.0
ppm; and sugarbeet (molasses) at 3.5 ppm.
In the Federal Register of February 4, 2010 (75 FR 5790) (FRL-8807-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7651) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419-8300. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.411 be amended by
establishing import tolerances for residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in or
on potato, tuber at 1.1 ppm; potato, peel (wet) at 1.1 ppm; potato,
chips at 3.0 ppm; and potato, granules/flakes at 5.0 ppm. That notice
incorrectly identified fluazifop-P-butyl as an insecticide. A corrected
notice, identifying fluazifop-P-butyl as an herbicide, was issued in
the Federal Register of March 10, 2010 (75 FR 11171) (FRL-8810-8).
Those notices referenced summaries of the petitions prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., the registrant, which are available in
the dockets (PP9F7641, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0833; and
PP9E7651, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980), https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notices of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the proposed tolerances for plantains, sugarbeet (top),
and potato peel (wet) are unnecessary. EPA has also revised several of
the proposed commodity terms and tolerances levels, as well as the
proposed tolerance expression. The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C.
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 fluazifop-P-butyl
including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
fluazifop-P-butyl follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
In characterizing the toxicity of fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered
data on both fluazifop-P-butyl and fluazifop butyl. Fluazifop-P-butyl
is the resolved, herbicidally-active isomer (R enantiomer) of
fluazifop-butyl. The toxicity database for fluazifop-butyl is largely
complete with sufficient toxicity data on fluazifop-P-butyl to
demonstrate similar toxicity between the resolved and unresolved
compounds.
Fluazifop-P-butyl has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is mildly irritating to the eye and
skin and is not a skin sensitizer. In repeated-dose studies, the liver
and kidney were the main target organs with toxicity expressed as liver
toxicity in the presence of peroxisome proliferation and exacerbation
of age-related kidney toxicity. The most sensitive endpoints were seen
in the rat (decreased testes and epididymal weights in male rats and
decreased pituitary and uterine weights in female rats), most likely
due to the longer retention time of the major metabolite (fluazifop
acid) in the rat. Fluazifop-P-butyl is classified as ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans,'' based on the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in acceptable studies in rats and hamsters. The hamster
was selected for cancer study, rather than the mouse, because liver
peroxisome proliferation in hamsters more closely resembles what is
found for human liver cells. There is no evidence that fluazifop butyl
or fluazifop-P-butyl is mutagenic.
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the
available studies. Marginal increases in brain weights at termination
were observed in a sub-chronic toxicity study in rats and in a
carcinogenicity study performed on hamsters; however, they were only
seen at higher doses not considered relevant to human exposure.
The toxicity database for fluazifop-butyl and fluazifop-P-butyl
includes 7
[[Page 5698]]
developmental toxicity studies (5 in rats and 2 in rabbits) and a 2-
generation reproduction toxicity study in rats. Fetal effects
(including delayed ossification, delayed development of the urinary
tract, and diaphragmatic hernias) were consistent findings across the
five rat developmental toxicity studies. Maternal toxicity in these
studies was observed primarily as decreased weight/weight gain, with
maternal effects occurring at higher doses (100/300 milligram/kilogram/
day (mg/kg/day)) than doses resulting in fetal effects (2.0/5.0 mg/kg/
day). In the rabbit developmental studies, developmental effects
(nominal increases in delayed ossification, total litter loss,
abortions, small fetuses, and cloudy eyes in one study; and an
increased incidence of 13th rib and delayed ossification in sternebrae
2 in the second study) occurred at doses also causing maternal toxicity
(abortions, death, and weight loss). Similarly, in the reproduction
toxicity study in rats, offspring effects (decreased viability in the
F1 and F2 pups during lactational day 1, 4, 11,
18, and 25; and decreased F2 pup weight on lactational day
25) occurred at doses also resulting in parental toxicity (decreased
spleen weight in males and increased absolute and relative liver and
kidney weights and geriatric nephropathy in females). Reproductive
toxicity was observed in this study as decreased absolute and relative
testes and epididymal weight in males and, in females, decreased
pituitary and uterine weights.
For fluazifop, there were some indications of potential
immunotoxicity in the form of thymic involution, altered spleen
weights, lymphadenopathy and bone marrow myelogram changes in the
chronic toxicity study in dogs. The significance of these effects is
discussed in detail in Unit III.D.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluazifop-P-butyl 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 ``Revised Fluazifop-P-Butyl.
Amended Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Use on Bananas, Citrus,
Grapes, Sugar Beets, and the Establishment of a Tolerance on Imported
Potatoes,'' pg. 60 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0980.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluazifop-P-butyl used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this Unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluazifop-P-Butyl for Use in Human Health Risk
Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13 to NOAEL = 50 milligrams/ Acute RfD = 0.50 mg/kg/day Developmental Toxicity in
50 years of age). kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) aPAD = 0.50mg/kg/day...... Rats.
UFA = 10x. Developmental LOAEL = 200
UFH = 10x................. mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x.............. diaphragmatic hernia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified in the
population including infants available studies, including the developmental toxicity studies.
and children).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All NOAEL= 0.74 mg/kg/day..... Chronic RfD = 0.0074 mg/kg/ 2-generation Reproduction
populations). UFA = 10x................. day. in Rats.
UFH = 10x................. cPAD = 0.0074 mg/kg/day... LOAEL = 5.8 mg/kg/day in
FQPA SF = 1x.............. males and 7.1 mg/kg/day
in females based on
decreased testes &
epididymal weights in
males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in
females.
Incidental oral short-term (1 NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day...... LOC for MOE = 100......... Developmental Toxicity in
to 30 days). UFA = 10x................ Rats.
UFH = 10x................. Maternal LOAEL = 300 mg/
FQPA SF = 1x.............. kg/day based on maternal
body weight gain
decrement during GD 7-
16.
Incidental oral intermediate- NOAEL= 0.74 mg/kg/day..... LOC for MOE = 100......... 2-generation Reproduction
term (1 to 6 months). UFA= 10x................. in Rats.
UFH= 10x.................. Parental/systemic LOAEL =
FQPA SF = 1x.............. 5.8 mg/kg/day in males
and 7.1 mg/kg/day in
females based on
decreased testes &
epididymal weights in
males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in
females.
[[Page 5699]]
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100......... Developmental Toxicity in
days). kg/day (dermal absorption Rats.
rate = 9% at 2 mg dose Developmental LOAEL = 5.0
and 2% at 200 mg dose.) mg/kg/day based on fetal
UFA = 10x................. weight decrement,
UFH = 10x................. hydroureter, and delayed
FQPA SF = 1x.............. ossification.
Dermal intermediate-term (1 Oral study NOAEL= 0.74 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100......... 2-generation Reproduction
to 6 months) and long-term kg/day (dermal absorption in Rats.
(<6 months). rate = 9% at 2 mg dose Parental/systemic LOAEL =
and 2% at 200 mg dose.) 5.8 mg/kg/day in males
UFA = 10x................. and 7.1 mg/kg/day in
UFH = 10x................. females based on
FQPA SF = 1x.............. decreased testes &
epididymal weights in
males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in
females.
Inhalation short-term (1 to Oral study NOAEL = 2.0 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100......... Developmental Toxicity in
30 days). kg/day (inhalation Rats
absorption rate = 100%). Developmental LOAEL = 5.0
UFA = 10x................. mg/kg/day based on fetal
UFH = 10x................. weight decrement,
FQPA SF = 1x.............. hydroureter, and delayed
ossification.
Intermediate-term (1 to 6 Oral study NOAEL = 0.74 mg/ LOC for MOE = 100......... 2-generation Reproduction
months) and long-term (<6 kg/day (inhalation in Rats.
months). absorption rate = 100%). Parental/systemic LOAEL =
UFA = 10x................. 5.8 mg/kg/day in males
UFH = 10x................. and 7.1 mg/kg/day in
FQPA SF = 1x.............. females based on
decreased testes &
epididymal weights in
males, and uterine &
pituitary weights in
females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
inhalation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluazifop-P-butyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.411. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fluazifop-P-butyl in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for fluazifop-P-butyl for women of childbearing age (13 to 49 years
old). In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII).
As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that all foods contain
tolerance-level residues (adjusted to account for all metabolites of
concern, based on the ratio of parent and metabolites found in plant
metabolism studies) and that 100% of all crops are treated with
fluazifop-P-butyl. Default processing factors were used to estimate
residues in processed commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues
were present either at tolerance or average field trial levels. As in
the acute dietary exposure assessment, residue levels were adjusted to
account for all metabolites of concern. Percent crop treated (PCT) data
were used to refine exposure estimates for several currently registered
crop uses; 100 PCT was assumed for all new crop commodities. Default
processing factors were used to estimate residues in processed
commodities.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluazifop-P-butyl does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
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 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.
[[Page 5700]]
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 estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:
Asparagus 2.5%; carrot 10%; cherry 1%; cottonseed 2.5%; dry beans 1%;
garlic 5%; onion (dry bulb) 15%; peach 2.5%; peanut 1%; pepper (non-
bell) 1%; and sweet potato 10%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from the U. S. Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for
the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 to7 years. EPA uses
an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT
figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public
and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fluazifop-P-butyl may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluazifop-P-butyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of fluazifop-P-butyl. 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 drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fluazifop-P-butyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 33.4 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water. The
EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 6.6 ppb for surface water and 1.56 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 33.4 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 6.6 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).
Fluazifop-P-butyl is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass and broadleaf
ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions: Homeowners that apply fluazifop-P-butyl products may be
exposed to fluazifop-P-butyl for short-term durations via the dermal
and inhalation routes. There is also the potential for post-application
exposure of adults and children from activities on treated turf areas,
such as home lawns. Short-term dermal exposure of adults and children,
as well as incidental oral (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil
ingestion) exposure of children may occur. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
fluazifop-P-butyl to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any
other substances, and fluazifop-P-butyl does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fluazifop-P-butyl
does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site 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 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. The pre- and postnatal
toxicity database for fluazifop/fluazifop-P-butyl includes five rat and
two rabbit developmental toxicity studies as well as a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A, there
was evidence of quantitative susceptibility of fetuses to fluazifop-P-
butyl exposure in the rat developmental toxicity studies. The degree of
concern for the increased susceptibility is low and there
[[Page 5701]]
is no residual uncertainty based on the following considerations: The
endpoint of concern (delayed ossifications) is considered to be a
developmental delay as opposed to a malformation or variation which
would be considered to be more serious in nature; there were
considerable variations in the incidences among the five rat studies;
the NOAELs/LOAELs for this effect were well defined and consistent
across these studies; and a developmental endpoint of concern
(diaphragmatic hernia) is used for assessing acute dietary risk. Also,
there was no evidence (quantitative or qualitative) of increased
susceptibility of fetuses or offspring in the rabbit developmental
studies or in the 2-generation rat reproduction toxicity study.
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 fluazifop-P-butyl is adequate to
assess pre- and postnatal toxicity, lacking only acute and sub-chronic
neurotoxicity studies and immunotoxicity testing. Ninety-day dermal and
inhalation toxicity studies are also required to confirm the PODs
selected for assessing dermal and inhalation exposures based on route-
to-route extrapolations from oral studies. EPA does not believe an
additional uncertainty factor is needed to account for the lack of
these studies for the following reasons:
a. Ninety-day dermal and inhalation studies. Fluazifop-P-butyl is
expected to show similar toxicity by the inhalation and oral routes
because of its metabolism by blood into the acid form and excretion in
this manner. Further, EPA selected a conservative (protective) POD from
a developmental toxicity study (NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day) to assess both
short-term dermal and inhalation exposures. The NOAEL from the
available 28-day dermal study is considerably higher (100 mg/kg/day).
Although a POD from an oral study was used to assess residential
handler inhalation risks for fluazifop-P-butyl, EPA does not believe
this aggregate risk assessment is under-protective of adult handlers.
Handler MOEs based on the extrapolated endpoint are quite high (14,000
to 1.1 million), and the contribution of residential exposure to
aggregate risk is small. Therefore, even if an inhalation study were to
provide a lower POD than the oral study, it's not expected to have a
significant impact on aggregate risk.
b. Neurotoxicity. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or
neuropathology in the available studies. Marginal increases in brain
weights at termination were observed in a sub-chronic toxicity study in
rats, and in a carcinogenicity study performed on hamsters; however,
they were only seen at higher doses not considered relevant to human
exposure.
c. Immunotoxicity. There were some indications of potential
immunotoxicity in the form of thymic involution, altered spleen
weights, lymphadenopathy and bone marrow myelogram changes in the
chronic toxicity study in dogs. EPA's concern for these effects is low,
based on the following considerations: Thymic involution was of slight
severity in only 1 female treated with the mid-dose; the response was
equivocal in the males, as there was no dose-response relationship
(incidence and severity) and controls also exhibited thymic involution.
One control dog had severe thymic involution; the statistical and
biological significance of the alterations in spleen weights could not
be assessed because of the large variation in the weights of control
dogs. Also, the alterations were inconsistent between dogs that died
(these dogs displayed increased adrenal weights) and dogs that survived
(these dogs displayed decreased adrenal weights); lymphadenopathy was
observed only at the high dose (125 mg/kg/day) and the response is
questionable, since the colony of dogs used in the study had excessive
health problems that included lymphadenopathy; the bone marrow
myelogram changes were small and variable and not considered dose-
related; and none of the potential immunological signs in the dog were
seen in the rat, the most sensitive species. For these reasons, EPA
considered the results of the chronic dog study to be unreliable. The
colony of dogs used in the study had excessive health problems that may
have impacted normal immune status, so that apparent immunotoxic
effects were observed even in some untreated control animals. Moreover,
no immunotoxic effects were observed in the sub-chronic dog study, a
study where healthy animals were used. EPA therefore concludes that the
available data do not warrant an additional uncertainty factor (UF) to
account for the lack of an immunotoxicity study.
ii. As noted previously in this unit, there is no indication that
fluazifop-P-butyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative
susceptibility in in utero rats in the prenatal developmental studies,
the degree of concern for developmental effects is low, and EPA did not
identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of
fluazifop-P-butyl.
iv. There are no significant residual uncertainties identified in
the exposure databases. A citrus processing study and data on the
stability of fluazifop-P-butyl in processed potato commodities are
required; however, EPA does not expect these data to have a measurable
impact on exposure estimates for fluazifop-P-butyl. Data are available
which demonstrate fluazifop-P-butyl is stable in a wide variety of
frozen crop commodities, including potatoes. As such, EPA expects
fluazifop to be stable in frozen potato processed commodities but is
requiring data to confirm its stability in these fractions. The
submitted citrus processing study was determined to be inadequate and
EPA is, therefore, requiring that another study be conducted. In the
interim, EPA is establishing tolerances for processed citrus
commodities using worst-case concentration factors that will not
underestimate residues of fluazifop-P-butyl in these commodities.
The acute dietary food exposure assessment was performed based on
tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment was
refined for some commodities using reliable PCT information and
anticipated residues values calculated from guideline field trial
studies. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fluazifop-P-butyl
in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to
assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by fluazifop-P-butyl.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
[[Page 5702]]
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
fluazifop-P-butyl will occupy 13% of the aPAD for females 13 to 49
years old, the only population group for which an acute dietary
endpoint of concern was identified.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluazifop-P-butyl from food and water will utilize 40% of the cPAD for
children, 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fluazifop-P-
butyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to fluazifop-P-butyl.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 150 for adults
and 250 for children. The MOE for adults includes chronic exposure from
food and water plus short-term residential handler and post-application
exposure of adult females (the adult population with the highest
estimated exposure). The MOE for children includes chronic exposure
from food and water plus combined dermal and incidental oral short-
term, post-application exposures. Because EPA's level of concern for
fluazifop-P-butyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fluazifop-P-butyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for fluazifop-P-butyl.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fluazifop-P-butyl is not expected to pose a 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 fluazifop-P-butyl residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid
Chromatography/Ultra-Violet Spectrometry (HPLC/UV)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method is available in Pesticide
Analytical Methods (PAM), Volume II or 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
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for fluazifop-P-butyl.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA has determined that the proposed tolerances for plantains,
sugarbeet (top), and potato peel (wet) are unnecessary. Residues of
fluazifop-P-butyl on plantains will be covered by the tolerance for
banana (40 CFR 180.1); and tolerances are no longer required for
sugarbeet tops, which were removed from the Table I (Significant
Feedstuffs Derived from Agricultural Crops Fed to Beef, Dairy, Poultry,
and Swine) of the residue chemistry guidelines (860.1000 OPPTS
Harmonized Test Guidelines) in June, 2008. A tolerance is not needed
for potato peel, since processing data demonstrate that residues do not
concentrate in the peel. Residues in the peel will, therefore, be
covered by the tolerance for potato.
EPA has also revised several of the proposed commodity terms and
tolerances levels. Commodity terms were revised as follows to comply
with the Agency's Food and Feed Vocabulary: ``Citrus (whole fruit),''
``grapes,'' ``potato tuber,'' ``sugarbeet (roots),'' ``sugarbeet (dried
pulp),'' and ``sugarbeet (molasses)'' were revised to read ``fruit,
citrus, group 10;'' ``grape;'' ``potato;'' ``beet, sugar, roots;''
``beet, sugar, dried pulp;'' and ``beet, sugar, molasses;''
respectively.
The proposed tolerance for citrus was reduced from 0.05 ppm to 0.03
ppm, the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the residue analytical method,
since all field trial residues were below the LOQ. The citrus
processing study was inadequate for determining appropriate tolerances
in processed citrus commodities. Therefore, maximum theoretical
concentration factors were used in conjunction with the citrus field
trial results (all <0.03 ppm) to derive tolerances for citrus oil and
juice (proposed at 0.05 ppm) of 30.0 ppm and 0.06 ppm, respectively. A
maximum theoretical concentration factor is not available for citrus
pulp; however, a recent analysis of data for 27 different pesticides
showed concentration of residues in citrus pulp of between 2x and 13x.
EPA, therefore, used a concentration factor of 13x in conjunction with
field trial results to derive an appropriate tolerance of 0.40 ppm for
citrus pulp, the same level proposed by the petitioner.
Finally, EPA is revising the requested tolerance expression for
fluazifop-P-butyl in accordance with current Agency guidance. EPA is
also making this change for the existing fluazifop-P-butyl tolerances.
The revised tolerance expression makes clear that the tolerances cover
residues of the
[[Page 5703]]
herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
but that compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and
conjugated forms of the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the commodity. EPA
has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final without
prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public comment is
not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect on the
tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluazifop-P-
butyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on banana at
0.01 ppm; beet, sugar, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm; beet, sugar, molasses at
3.5 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.25 ppm; citrus, dried pulp at 0.40
ppm; citrus, juice at 0.06 ppm; citrus, oil at 30.0 ppm; fruit, citrus,
group 10 at 0.03 ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; potato at 1.0 ppm; potato,
chips at 2.0 ppm; and potato, granules/flakes at 4.0 ppm. Compliance
with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum
of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms of
the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the commodity.
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) (Pub. L. 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: January 18, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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 180.411 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table
in paragraph (a) and revising paragraph (c) the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.411 Fluazifop-P-butyl; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the following commodities in the table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the table below is to be determined by
measuring only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and
conjugated forms of the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-
(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the commodity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana..................................................... 0.01
* * * * *
Beet, sugar, dried pulp.................................... 1.0
Beet, sugar, molasses...................................... 3.5
Beet, sugar, roots......................................... 0.25
* * * * *
Citrus, dried pulp......................................... 0.40
Citrus, juice.............................................. 0.06
Citrus, oil................................................ 30.0
[[Page 5704]]
* * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10.................................... 0.03
* * * * *
Grape...................................................... 0.01
* * * * *
Potato\1\.................................................. 1.0
Potato, chips\1\........................................... 2.0
Potato, granules/flakes\1\................................. 4.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No U.S. registrations.
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations are established for residues of the herbicide
fluazifop-P-butyl, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
the following commodities in the table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the table below is to be determined by measuring
only the sum of fluazifop-P-butyl, butyl(R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-
2-pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoate, and the free and conjugated forms
of the resolved isomer of fluazifop, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of fluazifop, in or on the commodity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-1779 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P