Penthiopyrad; Pesticide Tolerances, 14291-14297 [2012-5650]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, EPA 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
EPA 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).
XI. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 29, 2012.
Keith A. Matthews,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention 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 180.1206 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
§ 180.1206 Aspergillus flavus AF36;
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) An exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36
in or on pistachio when applied as an
antifungal agent and used in accordance
with good agricultural practices.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–5769 Filed 3–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
14291
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 308–8050; email address:
maignan.tawanda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0349; FRL–9335–7]
Penthiopyrad; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of penthiopyrad
in or on multiple commodities which
are identified and discussed later in this
document. Mitsui Chemical Agro, Inc.
c/o Landis International Inc. requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 9, 2012. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 8, 2012, 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–2010–0349. 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:
Tawanda Maignan, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 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–2010–0349 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\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
14292
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before May 8, 2012. 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–2010–0349, 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 October 27,
2010 (75 FR 66092) (FRL–8848–3), 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 9F7661) by Mitsui
Chemical Agro, Inc. c/o Landis
International Inc., P.O. Box 5126
Valdosta, GA 31603–5126. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide penthiopyrad,
(RS)-N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, in or on
fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.4 parts per
million (ppm); apple, wet pomace at 1.0
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 4.0 ppm;
low growing berry, subgroup 13–07G at
3.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 4.0
ppm; vegetable, brassica head and stem,
subgroup 5A at 8.0 ppm; vegetable,
brassica leafy, subgroup 5B at 45 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 2.5 ppm;
tomato, paste at 5.0 ppm; vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9 at 1.0 ppm; vegetable,
leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 20
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
ppm; vegetable, root, subgroup 1A at 2.5
ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C at 0.06 ppm; vegetables,
leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 55
ppm; vegetable, edible-podded legume,
subgroup 6A at 2.5 ppm; vegetable,
succulent, shelled peas and beans,
subgroup 6B at 0.4 ppm; vegetable, pea
and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C at 0.3 ppm; soybean, seed
at 0.3 ppm; soybean, hulls at 1.0 ppm;
peanut, nutmeat at 0.04 ppm; grain,
cereal (except corn, millet, sorghum) at
0.2 ppm; corn, field, sweet, pop at 0.01
ppm; corn, refined oil at 0.03 ppm;
cereal grain, millet at 0.9 ppm; cereal
grain, sorghum at 0.9 ppm; nut, tree,
group 14 (including pistachios) at 0.05
ppm; almond, hulls at 6.0 ppm; canola
at 1.0 ppm; sunflower at 0.8 ppm;
cotton, seed at 0.35 ppm; cotton, gin
byproducts at 10 ppm; alfalfa, forage at
10 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 25 ppm; foliage
of legume vegetables, group 7, hay at 80
ppm; foliage of legume vegetables,
group 7, vines/forage at 30 ppm; peanut,
hay at 50 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
hay at 90 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16,
forage at 25 ppm; grain, cereal, group
16, straw at 2 ppm; grain, cereal, stover
at 11 ppm and establishing tolerances
for residues of penthiopyrad, (RS)-N-[2(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl3-(trifluoromethyl)-pyrazole-4carboxamide and its major metabolite
PAM (1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1Hpyrazole-4-carboxamide) in animal
commodities hog, meat at 0.01 ppm;
hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.01
ppm; hog, kidney at 0.01 ppm; hog,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; cattle,
meat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.05
ppm; cattle, liver at 0.2 ppm; cattle,
kidney at 0.1 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts at 0.2 ppm; sheep, meat at
0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm; sheep,
liver at 0.05 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.02
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.05
ppm; milk at 0.05 ppm; milk, fat at 0.01
ppm; poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm;
poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver
at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts
at 0.01 ppm; poultry, eggs at 0.01 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Mitsui Chemical
Agro, Inc. c/o Landis International, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has revised
several of the proposed tolerance levels.
The reasons for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 penthiopyrad
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with penthiopyrad 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.
For penthiopyrad, the liver and
thyroid are the target organs. In toxicity
studies, short-term oral exposure
resulted in liver alterations in rats and
mice at similar doses, and in dogs at
higher doses. Short-term exposure also
resulted in thyroid changes in mice and
rats. Other effects observed were body
weight changes and hematological
alterations in rats and dogs, along with
gallbladder effects in dogs. Short-term
dermal exposure did not result in
dermal irritation or systemic effects up
to the limit dose tested.
Long-term exposure in rats resulted in
liver effects; adrenal, ovarian, and
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
thyroid hypertrophy; and thyroid
tumors. In mice, chronic exposure led to
liver and thyroid effects and liver
tumors. In dogs, effects noted (liver,
gallbladder, and adrenal glands) were
similar to those seen in subchronic dog
studies, with the addition of more
progressive gallbladder effects.
No evidence of increased quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility was
observed in developmental toxicity
studies in rats or rabbits or in a
reproduction toxicity study in rats.
However, increased quantitative
susceptibility was seen in a
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study in rats. In the DNT, decreased
body weight, increased motor activity,
and tremors were seen in offspring
animals in the absence of maternal
toxicity.
Clinical signs (hunched posture,
unsteady gait, reduced body
temperature, and increased landing
foots play) were observed in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats. However, no
clinical signs were observed in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats.
In the immunotoxicity study in mice,
decreased plaque forming ability was
observed at the limit dose. However, in
the immunotoxicity study in rats, no
evidence of immunotoxicity was
observed up to the highest dose tested.
Penthiopyrad has been classified as
having ‘‘suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity.’’ Although liver tumors
were seen in a cancer study in the
mouse, the tumors were only observed
at high doses and only noted in one sex
and one species. The no-observedadverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (27
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg)) used
for establishing the chronic reference
dose is approximately 10-fold lower
than the lowest dose (200 mg/kg/day)
that induced liver tumors in mice.
Based on these factors, including the
fact that the only tumors seen were liver
tumors in mice, the Agency has
determined that the quantification of
risk using a non-linear approach will
adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity that
could result from exposure to
penthiopyrad. The EPA received a
number of studies for penthiopyrad
metabolites, including subchronic oral,
mutagenicity studies, etc.; however,
none of these studies indicated that
metabolites were more toxic than the
parent.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by penthiopyrad as well
as the NOAEL and can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the
document ‘‘Penthiopyrad. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Section
3 Registration Action on Numerous
Agricultural Crops, Turfgrass, and
Ornamentals,’’ starting on page 23 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–
0349.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
14293
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which 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 penthiopyrad used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PENTHIOPYRAD 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 (All populations) ..
NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day .........
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 1.25 mg/kg/day ....
aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/day
Chronic dietary (All populations)
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Exposure/Scenario
NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day ...........
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic RfD = 0.27 mg/kg/day
cPAD = 0.27 mg/kg/day
Incidental Oral short-term (1 to
30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day ...........
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Residential LOC for MOE =
100.
Acute Neurotoxicity in Rats LOAEL = 500
mg/kg/day based on transient functional
alterations (e.g., hunched posture, unsteady gait, reduced body temperature,
and increased landing foot splay) and
decreased motor activity at the estimated time-to-peak-effect (4 hours) on
the day of administration.
Co-critical studies.
Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity in Rats
LOAEL = 83 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight gain and adrenal
effects in females and hepatic periportal
fatty degeneration in males.
Chronic Toxicity in Rats
LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day, based on altered plasma chemistry profile, increased liver weight and alterations in
the adrenal and thyroid glands.
28–Day Oral Toxicity in Dogs LOAEL =
80 mg/kg/day, based on mucosal
edema in the gall bladder.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
14294
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PENTHIOPYRAD FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/Scenario
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Children’s Dermal short-term (1
to 30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption factor = 40%.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Residential LOC for MOE =
100.
Adult Dermal short-term (1 to
30 days) and intermediateterm (1 to 6 months).
NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption factor = 40%.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
Inhalation (or oral) study ..........
NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption factor =
100%)
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Residential LOC for MOE =
100.
Postnatal Developmental Neurotoxicity in
Rats
LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight (8%) in offspring
animals seen in the absence of maternal toxicity.
Developmental in Rabbits
LOAEL = 225 mg/kg/day, based on abortion.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days) and intermediate-term
(1 to 6 months).
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
LOC for MOE = 100 .................
28–Day Oral Toxicity in Dogs LOAEL =
80 mg/kg/day, based on mucosal
edema in the gall bladder.
Classification: ‘‘Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity’’ based on liver tumors in male mice. The dose and
non-cancer endpoint selected for chronic dietary exposure (cRfD) are protective of potential cancer effects.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies). 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. milligrams/kilograms/day = mg/kg/day.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to penthiopyrad, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from penthiopyrad 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
penthiopyrad. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA used tolerance-level
residues, 100% crop treated
assumptions for all commodities, and
both default and empirical processing
factors.
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
used tolerance-level residues, 100%
crop treated assumptions for all
commodities, and both default and
empirical processing factors.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
determined that quantification using a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
linear low dose approach was not
required, and the chronic dose and
endpoint are considered to be protective
of cancer effects. Thus, no separate
exposure assessment was performed in
assessing cancer risk.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for penthiopyrad in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
and fate/transport characteristics of
penthiopyrad. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST), provisional
Tier 1 Cranberry and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–
GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
penthiopyrad for acute exposures are
estimated to be 289 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and ≤98 ppb for
groundwater. For chronic exposures are
estimated to be 222 ppb for surface
water and ≤98 ppb for groundwater. The
surface water estimates were used for
both the acute and chronic (non-cancer/
cancer) assessments because they were
higher than the groundwater estimates.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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).
Penthiopyrad is currently registered
for the following use that could result in
residential exposures: Turfgrass. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions:
No chemical-specific unit exposure
data were provided in support of this
submission; therefore, the Occupational
Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure
Surrogate Reference Table (June 2011)
and the Outdoor Residential Exposure
Task Force (OREFT) study unit
exposures were used to estimate handler
exposures. These unit exposures were
based on residential handlers wearing
short pants, short-sleeved shirt, and no
gloves.
Postapplication scenarios include
children (1 to 3 years old) playing on
treated turf, adults performing yard
work on treated turf, and adults playing
golf on treated turf. The postapplication
scenarios resulting from commercial
and residential applications were
assessed using default assumptions and
transfer coefficients from the EPA Draft
SOPs for Residential Exposure
Assessments, 2000. As the short- and
intermediate-term dermal endpoints are
the same for each route of exposure,
only short-term dermal exposures were
assessed for adults and children. EPA
estimates short-term dermal
postapplication exposure based on
day-0 residues, that is, the residue
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
present on the day of application. Using
day-0 residues to assess intermediateterm exposure does not take into
account dissipation of residues over
time and, thus, results in a conservative
estimate. Therefore, the short-term
dermal postapplication exposure
assessment represents the worst case
scenario and is protective of
intermediate-term dermal exposure.
Additionally, oral non-dietary ingestion
exposures were assessed for children
(i.e., soil ingestion, and hand-/object-tomouth). 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 penthiopyrad to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
penthiopyrad does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that penthiopyrad 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.
There is no evidence of increased
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
in developmental toxicity studies on
rats/rabbits or in a reproduction toxicity
study on rats. However, there is
evidence of increased susceptibility
following prenatal/or postnatal
exposure in preliminary and definitive
DNT studies on rats. Effects include
decreased body weight, increased motor
activity, and tremors (definitive), as well
as mortality (preliminary).
Although increased susceptibility was
seen in the DNT studies, the EPA
concluded that there is a low concern
and no residual uncertainties for
prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity effects
of penthiopyrad because:
• The pup body weight changes noted
in the definitive and preliminary DNT
studies were observed in other
developmental/reproduction studies at
similar doses. Additionally, the body
weight changes in these studies
occurred in the presence of significant
maternal toxicity and there was no
evidence of increased susceptibility.
Although clinical signs (tremors and
increased motor activity) were noted in
offspring animals in the DNT study, the
neurotoxic potential of penthiopyrad
has been adequately characterized in the
available neurotoxicity studies. In the
preliminary DNT study, mortality was
observed in the offspring animals at the
limit dose. However, this finding is
attributed to the poor condition (body
weight loss, under activity, pallor) of the
offspring animals in this dose group.
• Clear NOAELs have been identified
for all offspring effects and the risk
assessments are based on the most
sensitive endpoints. Therefore, the
NOAELs selected for risk assessment are
protective of potential developmental
and offspring effects.
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
penthiopyrad is complete.
ii. There is no concern for
neurotoxicity after exposure to
penthiopyrad. A complete neurotoxicity
battery is available for penthiopyrad.
This includes acute neurotoxicity,
subchronic neurotoxicity, and DNT
studies in rats. As a result, the
neurotoxic potential of penthiopyrad is
well characterized and no additional
data are needed
iii. There is no residual concern
regarding increased quantitative or
qualitative prenatal and/or postnatal
susceptibility for the reasons explained
in Unit III.D.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14295
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% crop
treated and tolerance-level residues.
EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to penthiopyrad in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions
to assess residential exposures,
including those of adults applying
penthiopyrad and postapplication
exposures of adults and children as well
as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by penthiopyrad.
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 PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
penthiopyrad will occupy 7% of the
aPAD for the general U.S. population
and 11% of the aPAD for children 1 to
2 years old (the population group
receiving the greatest exposure). Since
acute aggregate risk results from
exposure to residues in food and water
alone, the acute aggregate risks are not
of concern.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to penthiopyrad
from food and water will utilize 11% of
the cPAD for the general U.S.
population and 19% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old (the population
group receiving the greatest exposure).
Since there are no residential scenarios
that result in long-term exposure to
penthiopyrad, the chronic aggregate
risks are equivalent to the chronic
dietary risks and are not of concern.
3. Short-/intermediate-term risk.
Short-/intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short-/
intermediate-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). The short-/
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
14296
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
intermediate-term toxicological
endpoints for penthiopyrad are the same
for each route of exposure. Therefore,
for residential exposure scenarios, only
short-term exposures were assessed, and
are protective of intermediate-term
exposure and risk. Penthiopyrad is
proposed for registration for uses that
could result in short-/intermediate-term
residential exposures, and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with short -term residential
exposures to penthiopyrad.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded that the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in adult
aggregate estimated MOEs of 580 for
males and females. Furthermore,
although there is the potential for
exposure to children resulting from two
different routes (i.e. dermal and oral
exposure), the toxicological effects from
the dermal and oral routes of exposure
are different. As a result, a combined
residential exposure assessment was not
conducted for children. The short-term
aggregate risk assessment for children
resulted in estimated MOEs of 500 for
dermal and 410 for oral exposure.
Because EPA’s level of concern for
penthiopyrad is a MOE of 100 or below,
these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the relevant
cancer studies EPA has concluded that
the pesticide poses no greater than a
negligible cancer risk and the chronic
dietary risk assessment is protective of
cancer effects and, therefore, cancer risk
resulting from exposure to penthiopyrad
is not of concern.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to
penthiopyrad residues.
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 MRLs
for the new active ingredient
penthiopyrad.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The EPA has revised several of the
proposed tolerance levels. The major
reason for the modifications is that the
petitioner determined the proposed
tolerances using the tolerance
calculation procedure utilized by
countries in the North American Free
Trade Agreement but EPA conducted a
joint review of this chemical with the
United Kingdom and utilized a similar,
but slightly different tolerance
calculation procedure followed by the
Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of penthiopyrad, N-[2-(1,3dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazole-4carboxamide, in or on plant and
livestock commodities as indicated
below.
Adequate liquid chromatography
methods with tandem mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) are available
to enforce the tolerance expressions for
penthiopyrad in plant (Method CEMR
3727 also known as Method CEM 3399–
001) and livestock (Methods LDA0082
and LDA0083) matrices.
The methods may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905;
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
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Other Considerations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 tolerances 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
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 47 / Friday, March 9, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 24, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, 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. Add § 180.658 to subpart C to read
as follows:
■
§ 180.658 Penthiopyrad; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are
established for residues of
penthiopyrad, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only penthiopyrad (N-[2-(1,3dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazole-4carboxamide).
Parts per
million
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commodity
Alfalfa, forage .............................
Alfalfa, hay ..................................
Almond, hulls ..............................
Apple, wet pomace .....................
Barley, grain ...............................
Barley, hay ..................................
Barley, milled byproducts ...........
Barley, straw ...............................
Beet, sugar, dried pulp ...............
Beet, sugar, roots .......................
Berry, low growing, subgroup
13–07G ...................................
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A .................................
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
5B ............................................
Buckwheat, grain ........................
Canola ........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Mar 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
7.0
20
6.0
1.5
0.15
80
0.90
1.0
1.5
0.5
3.0
5.0
50
0.15
1.5
14297
3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide) and its
metabolite (1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl40 1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), calculated
0.01 as the stoichiometric equivalent of
0.05
15 penthiopyrad, in or on the commodity.
Parts per
million
Commodity
Corn, field, forage .......................
Corn, field, grain .........................
Corn, field, refined oil .................
Corn, field, stover .......................
Corn, pop, grain ..........................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ................
Cotton, seed ...............................
Cotton, gin byproducts ...............
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ...........
Fruit, stone, group 12 .................
Grain, aspirated fractions ...........
Millet, spp. ..................................
Nut, tree, group 14 .....................
Oat, forage ..................................
Oat, grain ....................................
Oat, hay ......................................
Oat, straw ...................................
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C ....
Peanut ........................................
Peanut, hay ................................
Peanut, refined oil ......................
Pistachio .....................................
Potato, processed potato waste
Rye, forage .................................
Rye, grain ...................................
Rye, straw ...................................
Sorghum, forage .........................
Sorghum, grain, grain .................
Sorghum, stover .........................
Soybean, seed ............................
Sunflower, seed ..........................
Teosinte, grain ............................
Tomato, paste .............................
Triticale, forage ...........................
Triticale, grain .............................
Triticale, hay ...............................
Triticale, straw ............................
Vegetable, bulb, group 3–07 ......
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ......
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
group 7, hay ............................
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
group 7, vines/forage ..............
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 ..
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 ...........................
Vegetable, leaves of root and
tuber, group 2 .........................
Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A ...................
Vegetable, legume, succulent
shelled, subgroup 6B ..............
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1B,
except sugar beet ...................
Vegetable, tuber and corm, subgroup 1C .................................
Wheat, forage .............................
Wheat, grain ...............................
Wheat, hay .................................
Wheat, milled byproducts ...........
Wheat, straw ...............................
0.01
Commodity
0.01
1.5
15
0.50
4.0
30
0.80
0.06
40
0.15
80
1.0
0.40
0.04
30
0.06
0.06
0.20
40
0.15
1.0
40
0.80
15
0.40
1.5
0.15
3.5
40
0.15
80
1.0
3.0
0.60
Parts per
million
Cattle, fat ....................................
Cattle, meat ................................
Cattle, meat byproducts .............
Goat, fat ......................................
Goat, meat ..................................
Goat, meat byproducts ...............
Horse, fat ....................................
Horse, meat ................................
Horse, meat byproducts .............
Milk .............................................
Sheep, fat ...................................
Sheep, meat ...............................
Sheep, meat byproducts ............
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.09
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2012–5650 Filed 3–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 51 and 54
[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 07–135, 05–337,
03–109; GN Docket No. 09–51; CC Docket
Nos. 01–92, 96–45; WT Docket No. 10–208;
DA 12–147]
200
Connect America Fund; a National
Broadband Plan for Our Future;
Establishing Just and Reasonable
Rates for Local Exchange Carriers;
30 High-Cost Universal Service Support
50
3.0
50
4.0
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission clarifies
3.0 certain rules. This document also
modifies certain initial filing deadlines
0.06 required to comply with the Paperwork
40 Reduction Act requirements, and finds
0.15
good cause to delete certain rules that
80
0.30 are now obsolete.
1.0 DATES: Effective April 9, 2012, except
for §§ 54.313(a)(9), 54.313(f)(2), and
54.1003(b), which contain information
(2) Tolerances are established for
collection requirements that are not
residues of penthiopyrad, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the effective until approved by the Office of
Management and Budget. The Federal
commodities in the table below.
Communications Commission will
Compliance with the tolerance levels
publish a document in the Federal
specified below is to be determined by
Register announcing the effective date
measuring only the sum of
penthiopyrad (N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)- for those sections.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.40
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09MRR1.SGM
09MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14291-14297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5650]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0349; FRL-9335-7]
Penthiopyrad; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
penthiopyrad in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Mitsui Chemical Agro, Inc. c/o Landis
International Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective March 9, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 8, 2012, 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-2010-0349. 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: Tawanda Maignan, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-8050; email address: maignan.tawanda@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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. 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-2010-0349 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 14292]]
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 8, 2012. 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-2010-0349, 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 October 27, 2010 (75 FR 66092) (FRL-
8848-3), 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
9F7661) by Mitsui Chemical Agro, Inc. c/o Landis International Inc.,
P.O. Box 5126 Valdosta, GA 31603-5126. The petition requested that 40
CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide penthiopyrad, (RS)-N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-
methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, in or on fruit,
pome, group 11 at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); apple, wet pomace at 1.0
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 4.0 ppm; low growing berry, subgroup 13-
07G at 3.0 ppm; vegetable, bulb, group 3 at 4.0 ppm; vegetable,
brassica head and stem, subgroup 5A at 8.0 ppm; vegetable, brassica
leafy, subgroup 5B at 45 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 2.5 ppm;
tomato, paste at 5.0 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 1.0 ppm;
vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 20 ppm; vegetable, root,
subgroup 1A at 2.5 ppm; vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at
0.06 ppm; vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 55 ppm;
vegetable, edible-podded legume, subgroup 6A at 2.5 ppm; vegetable,
succulent, shelled peas and beans, subgroup 6B at 0.4 ppm; vegetable,
pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.3 ppm;
soybean, seed at 0.3 ppm; soybean, hulls at 1.0 ppm; peanut, nutmeat at
0.04 ppm; grain, cereal (except corn, millet, sorghum) at 0.2 ppm;
corn, field, sweet, pop at 0.01 ppm; corn, refined oil at 0.03 ppm;
cereal grain, millet at 0.9 ppm; cereal grain, sorghum at 0.9 ppm; nut,
tree, group 14 (including pistachios) at 0.05 ppm; almond, hulls at 6.0
ppm; canola at 1.0 ppm; sunflower at 0.8 ppm; cotton, seed at 0.35 ppm;
cotton, gin byproducts at 10 ppm; alfalfa, forage at 10 ppm; alfalfa,
hay at 25 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables, group 7, hay at 80 ppm;
foliage of legume vegetables, group 7, vines/forage at 30 ppm; peanut,
hay at 50 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, hay at 90 ppm; grain, cereal,
group 16, forage at 25 ppm; grain, cereal, group 16, straw at 2 ppm;
grain, cereal, stover at 11 ppm and establishing tolerances for
residues of penthiopyrad, (RS)-N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-
methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-pyrazole-4-carboxamide and its major
metabolite PAM (1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide)
in animal commodities hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog,
liver at 0.01 ppm; hog, kidney at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm; cattle,
liver at 0.2 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.1 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at
0.2 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm; sheep, liver
at 0.05 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.02 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.05
ppm; milk at 0.05 ppm; milk, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.01
ppm; poultry, fat at 0.01 ppm; poultry, liver at 0.01 ppm; poultry,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; poultry, eggs at 0.01 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Mitsui Chemical Agro,
Inc. c/o Landis International, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised several of the proposed tolerance levels. 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 penthiopyrad including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with penthiopyrad
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.
For penthiopyrad, the liver and thyroid are the target organs. In
toxicity studies, short-term oral exposure resulted in liver
alterations in rats and mice at similar doses, and in dogs at higher
doses. Short-term exposure also resulted in thyroid changes in mice and
rats. Other effects observed were body weight changes and hematological
alterations in rats and dogs, along with gallbladder effects in dogs.
Short-term dermal exposure did not result in dermal irritation or
systemic effects up to the limit dose tested.
Long-term exposure in rats resulted in liver effects; adrenal,
ovarian, and
[[Page 14293]]
thyroid hypertrophy; and thyroid tumors. In mice, chronic exposure led
to liver and thyroid effects and liver tumors. In dogs, effects noted
(liver, gallbladder, and adrenal glands) were similar to those seen in
subchronic dog studies, with the addition of more progressive
gallbladder effects.
No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
was observed in developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits or in
a reproduction toxicity study in rats. However, increased quantitative
susceptibility was seen in a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study in
rats. In the DNT, decreased body weight, increased motor activity, and
tremors were seen in offspring animals in the absence of maternal
toxicity.
Clinical signs (hunched posture, unsteady gait, reduced body
temperature, and increased landing foots play) were observed in the
acute neurotoxicity study in rats. However, no clinical signs were
observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats. In the
immunotoxicity study in mice, decreased plaque forming ability was
observed at the limit dose. However, in the immunotoxicity study in
rats, no evidence of immunotoxicity was observed up to the highest dose
tested. Penthiopyrad has been classified as having ``suggestive
evidence of carcinogenicity.'' Although liver tumors were seen in a
cancer study in the mouse, the tumors were only observed at high doses
and only noted in one sex and one species. The no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) (27 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg)) used for
establishing the chronic reference dose is approximately 10-fold lower
than the lowest dose (200 mg/kg/day) that induced liver tumors in mice.
Based on these factors, including the fact that the only tumors seen
were liver tumors in mice, the Agency has determined that the
quantification of risk using a non-linear approach will adequately
account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity that could
result from exposure to penthiopyrad. The EPA received a number of
studies for penthiopyrad metabolites, including subchronic oral,
mutagenicity studies, etc.; however, none of these studies indicated
that metabolites were more toxic than the parent.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by penthiopyrad as well as the NOAEL and can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Penthiopyrad.
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Action on
Numerous Agricultural Crops, Turfgrass, and Ornamentals,'' starting on
page 23 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0349.
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 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 penthiopyrad used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Penthiopyrad for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and
Exposure/Scenario uncertainty/safety RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations).... NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day. Acute RfD = 1.25 mg/kg/ Acute Neurotoxicity in Rats
UFA = 10x............. day. LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day
UFH = 10x............. aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/day. based on transient
FQPA SF = 1x.......... functional alterations
(e.g., hunched posture,
unsteady gait, reduced
body temperature, and
increased landing foot
splay) and decreased motor
activity at the estimated
time[dash]to-peak-effect
(4 hours) on the day of
administration.
Chronic dietary (All populations).. NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day.. Chronic RfD = 0.27 mg/ Co-critical studies.
kg/day.
UFA = 10x cPAD = 0.27 mg/kg/day Chronic Toxicity/
UFH = 10x............. Carcinogenicity in Rats
FQPA SF = 1x.......... LOAEL = 83 mg/kg/day, based
on decreased body weight
gain and adrenal effects
in females and hepatic
periportal fatty
degeneration in males.
Chronic Toxicity in Rats
LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day,
based on altered plasma
chemistry profile,
increased liver weight and
alterations in the adrenal
and thyroid glands.
Incidental Oral short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day.. Residential LOC for 28-Day Oral Toxicity in
days) and intermediate-term (1 to UFA = 10x............. MOE = 100. Dogs LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day,
6 months). UFH = 10x............. based on mucosal edema in
FQPA SF = 1x.......... the gall bladder.
[[Page 14294]]
Children's Dermal short-term (1 to NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for Postnatal Developmental
30 days) and intermediate-term (1 (dermal absorption MOE = 100. Neurotoxicity in Rats
to 6 months). factor = 40%. LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day,
UFA = 10x............. based on decreased body
UFH = 10x............. weight (8%) in offspring
FQPA SF = 1x.......... animals seen in the
absence of maternal
toxicity.
Adult Dermal short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL = 75 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for Developmental in Rabbits
days) and intermediate-term (1 to (dermal absorption MOE = 100. LOAEL = 225 mg/kg/day,
6 months). factor = 40%. based on abortion.
UFA = 10x.............
UFH = 10x.............
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 Inhalation (or oral) LOC for MOE = 100..... 28-Day Oral Toxicity in
days) and intermediate-term (1 to study. Dogs LOAEL = 80 mg/kg/day,
6 months). NOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day based on mucosal edema in
(inhalation the gall bladder.
absorption factor =
100%).
UFA = 10x.............
UFH = 10x.............
FQPA SF = 1x..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).. Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity'' based on liver
tumors in male mice. The dose and non-cancer endpoint selected for chronic
dietary exposure (cRfD) are protective of potential cancer effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
of the human population (intraspecies). 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. milligrams/kilograms/day = mg/kg/day.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to penthiopyrad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from penthiopyrad 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 penthiopyrad. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, 100% crop
treated assumptions for all commodities, and both default and empirical
processing factors.
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 used tolerance-level
residues, 100% crop treated assumptions for all commodities, and both
default and empirical processing factors.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
determined that quantification using a linear low dose approach was not
required, and the chronic dose and endpoint are considered to be
protective of cancer effects. Thus, no separate exposure assessment was
performed in assessing cancer risk.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for penthiopyrad in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of penthiopyrad. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST),
provisional Tier 1 Cranberry and Screening Concentration in Ground
Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of penthiopyrad for acute exposures are estimated to be 289
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and <=98 ppb for groundwater.
For chronic exposures are estimated to be 222 ppb for surface water and
<=98 ppb for groundwater. The surface water estimates were used for
both the acute and chronic (non-cancer/cancer) assessments because they
were higher than the groundwater estimates. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary
exposure model.
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).
Penthiopyrad is currently registered for the following use that
could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions:
No chemical-specific unit exposure data were provided in support of
this submission; therefore, the Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit
Exposure Surrogate Reference Table (June 2011) and the Outdoor
Residential Exposure Task Force (OREFT) study unit exposures were used
to estimate handler exposures. These unit exposures were based on
residential handlers wearing short pants, short-sleeved shirt, and no
gloves.
Postapplication scenarios include children (1 to 3 years old)
playing on treated turf, adults performing yard work on treated turf,
and adults playing golf on treated turf. The postapplication scenarios
resulting from commercial and residential applications were assessed
using default assumptions and transfer coefficients from the EPA Draft
SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments, 2000. As the short- and
intermediate-term dermal endpoints are the same for each route of
exposure, only short-term dermal exposures were assessed for adults and
children. EPA estimates short-term dermal postapplication exposure
based on day-0 residues, that is, the residue
[[Page 14295]]
present on the day of application. Using day-0 residues to assess
intermediate-term exposure does not take into account dissipation of
residues over time and, thus, results in a conservative estimate.
Therefore, the short-term dermal postapplication exposure assessment
represents the worst case scenario and is protective of intermediate-
term dermal exposure. Additionally, oral non-dietary ingestion
exposures were assessed for children (i.e., soil ingestion, and hand-/
object-to-mouth). 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 penthiopyrad to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and penthiopyrad does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
penthiopyrad 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. There is no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility in developmental
toxicity studies on rats/rabbits or in a reproduction toxicity study on
rats. However, there is evidence of increased susceptibility following
prenatal/or postnatal exposure in preliminary and definitive DNT
studies on rats. Effects include decreased body weight, increased motor
activity, and tremors (definitive), as well as mortality (preliminary).
Although increased susceptibility was seen in the DNT studies, the
EPA concluded that there is a low concern and no residual uncertainties
for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity effects of penthiopyrad because:
The pup body weight changes noted in the definitive and
preliminary DNT studies were observed in other developmental/
reproduction studies at similar doses. Additionally, the body weight
changes in these studies occurred in the presence of significant
maternal toxicity and there was no evidence of increased
susceptibility. Although clinical signs (tremors and increased motor
activity) were noted in offspring animals in the DNT study, the
neurotoxic potential of penthiopyrad has been adequately characterized
in the available neurotoxicity studies. In the preliminary DNT study,
mortality was observed in the offspring animals at the limit dose.
However, this finding is attributed to the poor condition (body weight
loss, under activity, pallor) of the offspring animals in this dose
group.
Clear NOAELs have been identified for all offspring
effects and the risk assessments are based on the most sensitive
endpoints. Therefore, the NOAELs selected for risk assessment are
protective of potential developmental and offspring effects.
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 penthiopyrad is complete.
ii. There is no concern for neurotoxicity after exposure to
penthiopyrad. A complete neurotoxicity battery is available for
penthiopyrad. This includes acute neurotoxicity, subchronic
neurotoxicity, and DNT studies in rats. As a result, the neurotoxic
potential of penthiopyrad is well characterized and no additional data
are needed
iii. There is no residual concern regarding increased quantitative
or qualitative prenatal and/or postnatal susceptibility for the reasons
explained in Unit III.D.2.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to penthiopyrad in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess residential
exposures, including those of adults applying penthiopyrad and
postapplication exposures of adults and children as well as incidental
oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by penthiopyrad.
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 PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to penthiopyrad will occupy 7% of the aPAD for the general U.S.
population and 11% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old (the
population group receiving the greatest exposure). Since acute
aggregate risk results from exposure to residues in food and water
alone, the acute aggregate risks are not of concern.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
penthiopyrad from food and water will utilize 11% of the cPAD for the
general U.S. population and 19% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years
old (the population group receiving the greatest exposure). Since there
are no residential scenarios that result in long-term exposure to
penthiopyrad, the chronic aggregate risks are equivalent to the chronic
dietary risks and are not of concern.
3. Short-/intermediate-term risk. Short-/intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short-/intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). The short-/
[[Page 14296]]
intermediate-term toxicological endpoints for penthiopyrad are the same
for each route of exposure. Therefore, for residential exposure
scenarios, only short-term exposures were assessed, and are protective
of intermediate-term exposure and risk. Penthiopyrad is proposed for
registration for uses that could result in short-/intermediate-term
residential exposures, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short -term residential exposures to penthiopyrad.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food,
water, and residential exposures result in adult aggregate estimated
MOEs of 580 for males and females. Furthermore, although there is the
potential for exposure to children resulting from two different routes
(i.e. dermal and oral exposure), the toxicological effects from the
dermal and oral routes of exposure are different. As a result, a
combined residential exposure assessment was not conducted for
children. The short-term aggregate risk assessment for children
resulted in estimated MOEs of 500 for dermal and 410 for oral exposure.
Because EPA's level of concern for penthiopyrad is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the relevant
cancer studies EPA has concluded that the pesticide poses no greater
than a negligible cancer risk and the chronic dietary risk assessment
is protective of cancer effects and, therefore, cancer risk resulting
from exposure to penthiopyrad is not of concern.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to penthiopyrad residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate liquid chromatography methods with tandem mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) are available to enforce the tolerance
expressions for penthiopyrad in plant (Method CEMR 3727 also known as
Method CEM 3399-001) and livestock (Methods LDA0082 and LDA0083)
matrices.
The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
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 MRLs for the new active ingredient
penthiopyrad.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The EPA has revised several of the proposed tolerance levels. The
major reason for the modifications is that the petitioner determined
the proposed tolerances using the tolerance calculation procedure
utilized by countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement but
EPA conducted a joint review of this chemical with the United Kingdom
and utilized a similar, but slightly different tolerance calculation
procedure followed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of penthiopyrad,
N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-
pyrazole-4-carboxamide, in or on plant and livestock commodities as
indicated below.
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 tolerances 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
[[Page 14297]]
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule
must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 24, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, 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. Add Sec. 180.658 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 180.658 Penthiopyrad; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
penthiopyrad, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only penthiopyrad (N-
[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-
pyrazole-4-carboxamide).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfalfa, forage............................................. 7.0
Alfalfa, hay................................................ 20
Almond, hulls............................................... 6.0
Apple, wet pomace........................................... 1.5
Barley, grain............................................... 0.15
Barley, hay................................................. 80
Barley, milled byproducts................................... 0.90
Barley, straw............................................... 1.0
Beet, sugar, dried pulp..................................... 1.5
Beet, sugar, roots.......................................... 0.5
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G......................... 3.0
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A........................ 5.0
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B......................... 50
Buckwheat, grain............................................ 0.15
Canola...................................................... 1.5
Corn, field, forage......................................... 40
Corn, field, grain.......................................... 0.01
Corn, field, refined oil.................................... 0.05
Corn, field, stover......................................... 15
Corn, pop, grain............................................ 0.01
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed............. 0.01
Cotton, seed................................................ 1.5
Cotton, gin byproducts...................................... 15
Fruit, pome, group 11-10.................................... 0.50
Fruit, stone, group 12...................................... 4.0
Grain, aspirated fractions.................................. 30
Millet, spp................................................. 0.80
Nut, tree, group 14......................................... 0.06
Oat, forage................................................. 40
Oat, grain.................................................. 0.15
Oat, hay.................................................... 80
Oat, straw.................................................. 1.0
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C.... 0.40
Peanut...................................................... 0.04
Peanut, hay................................................. 30
Peanut, refined oil......................................... 0.06
Pistachio................................................... 0.06
Potato, processed potato waste.............................. 0.20
Rye, forage................................................. 40
Rye, grain.................................................. 0.15
Rye, straw.................................................. 1.0
Sorghum, forage............................................. 40
Sorghum, grain, grain....................................... 0.80
Sorghum, stover............................................. 15
Soybean, seed............................................... 0.40
Sunflower, seed............................................. 1.5
Teosinte, grain............................................. 0.15
Tomato, paste............................................... 3.5
Triticale, forage........................................... 40
Triticale, grain............................................ 0.15
Triticale, hay.............................................. 80
Triticale, straw............................................ 1.0
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07................................. 3.0
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................ 0.60
Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7, hay.................. 200
Vegetable, foliage of legume, group 7, vines/forage......... 50
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10............................. 3.0
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4.................. 30
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2................ 50
Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A............... 4.0
Vegetable, legume, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B........... 0.40
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1B, except sugar beet............. 3.0
Vegetable, tuber and corm, subgroup 1C...................... 0.06
Wheat, forage............................................... 40
Wheat, grain................................................ 0.15
Wheat, hay.................................................. 80
Wheat, milled byproducts.................................... 0.30
Wheat, straw................................................ 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Tolerances are established for residues of penthiopyrad,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in
the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below
is to be determined by measuring only the sum of penthiopyrad (N-[2-
(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-3-thienyl]-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-
pyrazole-4-carboxamide) and its metabolite (1-methyl-3-trifluoromethyl-
1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of penthiopyrad, in or on the commodity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................. 0.03
Cattle, meat................................................ 0.03
Cattle, meat byproducts..................................... 0.09
Goat, fat................................................... 0.03
Goat, meat.................................................. 0.03
Goat, meat byproducts....................................... 0.09
Horse, fat.................................................. 0.03
Horse, meat................................................. 0.03
Horse, meat byproducts...................................... 0.09
Milk........................................................ 0.02
Sheep, fat.................................................. 0.03
Sheep, meat................................................. 0.03
Sheep, meat byproducts...................................... 0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2012-5650 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P