Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances, 6826-6833 [2014-02210]
Download as PDF
6826
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the data are required to be submitted for
similar products already registered.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1)
of this section, the Agency will not
approve an application if it determines
that the data for which a data gap claim
has been made are needed to determine
if the product meets the requirements of
FIFRA sections 3(c)(5) or (7).
■ 14. Revise § 152.97 to read as follows:
§ 152.96
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
this cite-all option must submit to the
Agency:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The applicant’s name, address,
and contact information, including a
telephone number and email address.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Revise § 152.96 to read as follows:
§ 152.97 Rights and obligations regarding
the Data Submitters List.
40 CFR Part 180
(a) Each original data submitter shall
have the right to be included on the
Agency’s Data Submitters List.
(b) Each original data submitter who
wishes to have his name added to the
current Data Submitters List must
submit to the Agency the following
information:
(1) Name and current address.
(2) Chemical name, common name (if
any) and Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) number (if any) of the active
ingredients(s), with respect to which he
is an original data submitter.
(3) For each such active ingredient,
the type(s) of study he has previously
submitted (identified by reference to
data/information requirements listed in
part 158 of this chapter), the date of
submission, and the EPA registration
number, file symbol, or other
identifying reference for which it was
submitted.
(c) Each applicant not already
included on the Data Submitters List for
a particular active ingredient must
inform the Agency at the time of the
submission of a relevant study whether
he wishes to be included on the Data
Submitters List for that pesticide.
■ 15. In § 152.99:
■ a. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(iv).
■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(2)(v)
and (a)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)
and (a)(2)(v).
■ c. Revise newly redesignated
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and paragraph
(b)(2).
The amendments read as follows:
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0668; FRL–9388–7]
Claim of data gap.
(a) When a data gap may be claimed.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, an applicant may defer his
obligation to satisfy an applicable data
requirement until the Agency requires
the data if no other person has
previously submitted to the Agency a
valid study that would satisfy the data
requirement in question.
(b) When a data gap may not be
claimed—(1) Product containing a new
active ingredient. An applicant for
registration of a product containing a
new active ingredient may not defer his
obligation by claiming a data gap unless
he can demonstrate to the Agency’s
satisfaction that the data requirement
was imposed so recently that
insufficient time has elapsed for the
study to have been completed and that,
in the public interest, the product
should be registered during the limited
period of time required to complete the
study. Refer to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
section 3(c)(7)(C).
(2) Product not containing a new
active ingredient. An applicant for
registration of a product under FIFRA
sections 3(c)(7)(A) or (B) (a product not
containing a new active ingredient) may
not defer his obligation by claiming a
data gap if the data are:
(i) Data needed to determine whether
the product is identical or substantially
similar to another currently registered
product or differs only in ways that
would substantially increase the risk of
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.
(ii) Efficacy data specific to the
product, if required to be submitted to
the Agency.
(iii) If a new use is proposed for a
product that is identical or substantially
similar to an existing product, data to
demonstrate whether the new use
would substantially increase the risk of
unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.
(c) Approval of application with a
data gap claim—(1) In accordance with
§ 152.115(a), any registration that is
approved based upon a data gap claim
shall be conditioned on the submission
of the data no later than the time that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
§ 152.99
Petitions to cancel registration.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The applicant has falsely or
improperly claimed that a data gap
existed at the time of his application.
(b) * * *
(2) Notice to affected registrant. At the
same time that the petitioner files his
petition with the Agency, the petitioner
shall send a copy to the affected
applicant or registrant by certified mail
or by any other method that provides
evidence of delivery. The affected
applicant or registrant shall have 60
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
days from the date of receipt of the
petition to submit written comments to
the Agency.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–02294 Filed 2–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of
cyantraniliprole in or on multiple
commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont)
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
SUMMARY:
This regulation is effective
February 5, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before April 7, 2014, and must be
filed in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
DATES:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0668, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois
Rossi, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
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–2011–0668 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before April 7, 2014. 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 (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(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 the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2011–0668, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 23,
2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL–9347–8), EPA
issued a document pursuant to FFDCA
section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 1F7894) by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company (DuPont), 1007
Market St., Wilmington, DE 19898. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing tolerances
for residues of the insecticide
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
almond hulls at 30 parts per million
(ppm); berries and small fruits,
bushberries (subgroup 13–07B) at 4
ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables,
head and stem Brassica (subgroup 5A)
at 2 ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy
vegetables, leafy Brassica greens
(subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; bulb
vegetables, onion, bulb (subgroup 3–
07A) at 0.04 ppm; bulb vegetables,
onion, green (subgroup 3–07B) at 8
ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver
at 0.04 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm;
cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.01 ppm; cherries at 6 ppm; citrus
fruits (group 10–10) at 0.7 ppm; cotton
gin byproduct at 10 ppm; cucurbit
vegetables (group 9) at 0.3 ppm; fruiting
vegetables (group 8–10) at 2 ppm; goat,
fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, liver at 0.04 ppm;
goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm;
hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.04
ppm; hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat
byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm;
horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, liver at
0.04 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm;
horse, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.01 ppm; leafy vegetables (except
Brassica vegetables) (group 4) at 15
ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; milk, fat at 0.04
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6827
ppm; oilseeds, except cotton gin
byproduct (group 20) at 1 ppm; pome
fruits (group 11–10) at 0.8 ppm; root and
tuber vegetables, tuberous and corm
vegetables (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm;
sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, liver at
0.04 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm;
sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at
0.01 ppm; stone fruits, except cherries
(group 12) at 1.5 ppm; tree nuts, except
almond hulls (group 14) at 0.06 ppm;
citrus, oil at 6 ppm; citrus, raw peel at
2 ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.3 ppm.
In addition, DuPont requested to
amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish
indirect or inadvertent tolerances for
residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2methyl-6[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
following commodities: Foliage of
legume vegetables (group 7), forage at
0.15 ppm; foliage of legume vegetables
(group 7), hay at 0.6 ppm; forage, fodder
and straw of cereal grains (group 16),
forage at 0.06 ppm; forage, fodder and
straw of cereal grains (group 16), hay
and straw at 0.15 ppm; grass forage,
fodder, and hay (group 17), forage at
0.06 ppm; grass forage, fodder, and hay
(group 17), hay at 0.15 ppm; leaves of
root and tuber vegetables (human food
or animal feed) (group 2) at 0.04 ppm;
nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder,
straw, and hay) (group 18), forage at
0.06 ppm; nongrass animal feeds
(forage, fodder, straw, and hay) (group
18), hay at 0.15 ppm; peanut hay at 0.03
ppm; root and tuber vegetables, root
vegetables (subgroup 1A) at 0.03 ppm.
That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by DuPont, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing several tolerances that vary
from levels requested in the original
petition. The reasons for these changes
are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
6828
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with cyantraniliprole
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. Cyantraniliprole is
a 2-generation ryanodine receptor (RyR)
insecticide belonging to the diamide
class of chemistry whose pesticidal
mode of action (MOA) is through
unregulated activation of insect RyR
channels. This leads to internal calcium
store depletion and impaired regulation
of muscle contraction, causing paralysis
and eventual death of the insect.
Mammalian RyR are shown to be 350 to
>2,500 times less sensitive than those of
insects. In general, cyantraniliprole
administration in mammals produces
both adverse and adaptive changes in
the liver, thyroid gland, and adrenal
cortex. With repeated dosing, consistent
findings of mild to moderate increases
in liver weights across multiple species
(rats, mice, and dogs) are observed. Dogs
appear to be more sensitive than rats
and mice; cyantraniliprole produces
adverse liver effects (increases in
alkaline phosphatase, decreases in
cholesterol, and decreases in albumin)
in dogs at lower dose levels than in rats.
In addition, the liver effects in the dog
show progressive severity with
increased duration of exposure. The
available data also show thyroid
hormone homeostasis is altered in rats
following exposure to cyantraniliprole
after 90 days due to enhanced
metabolism of the thyroid hormones by
the liver. However, cyantraniliprole
does not act directly on the thyroid; the
thyroid effects observed are only as a
result of the adverse effects on the liver.
Cyantraniliprole is classified as ‘‘Not
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’
based on the absence of increased tumor
incidence in acceptable/guideline
carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice.
In addition, there are no genotoxicity,
mutagenicity, neurotoxicity, or
immunotoxicity concerns. There are
also no developmental or reproductive
toxicity concerns. There is no evidence
of an adverse effect attributable to a
single dose. Specific information on the
studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by
cyantraniliprole as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
‘‘Cyantraniliprole. Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment for the
Proposed New Uses of the New Active
Insecticide (March 7, 2013)’’ at p.16 in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–
0668.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern (LOC) to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints and points of departure for
cyantraniliprole used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1 of this
unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYANTRANILIPROLE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
POD and
uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
An effect attributed to a single dose was not identified in the toxicology database.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (general population, including infants and
children and females 13–49
years of age).
NOAEL = 1 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Chronic RfD = 0.01
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/
day.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Based on 1-year oral study in dogs.
LOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day based on effects indicative of liver toxicity (increased liver weights and alkaline phosphatase activity), and significant decreases in albumin level.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
6829
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYANTRANILIPROLE FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
POD and
uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
LOC for MOE = 100
Based on both 28-day and 90-day oral study in dogs.
28-Day LOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day (lowest dose tested) based on
decreases in body weight, food consumption, food efficiency,
and changes in clinical chemistry (increased alkaline phosphatase, decreased cholesterol and decreased albumin).
90-Day LOAEL = 32 mg/kg/day based on a collection of treatment-related effects indicative of liver toxicity. The effects included decreases in total protein, albumin, and cholesterol in
males and females; increases in alkaline phosphatase in
males and females; increases in alanine aminotransferase in
females; and increases in liver weights in males and females.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to
30 days) and incidental oral
intermediate-term (1 to 6
months).
NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x.
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30
days).
A toxicity endpoint was not identified.
Systemic toxicity was not seen in 28-day dermal toxicity in rats at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). There are
no concerns for developmental or reproductive toxicity or neurotoxicity.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30
days).
Inhalation study
NOAEL = 0.1 mg/
kg/day.
UFA = 3x.a
UFH = 10x.
FQPA SF = 1x.
HEC = 0.05 mg/L.
HED = 7.2 mg/kg/
day.
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classification: ‘‘Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ based on data showing lack of treatment-related increase in tumor incidence in the rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies. Mutagenic concern was not reported
in the mutagenicity studies.
LOC for MOE = 30 ..
Based on 28-day inhalation toxicity study in rats.
A LOAEL was not established because the highest concentration tested (0.1 mg/L) did not demonstrate any adverse portal
of entry or systemic effects.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. HEC = human equivalent concentration. HED = human equivalent dose. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day.
mg/L = milligram/Liter. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. PAD = population-adjusted dose. POD = point
of departure. RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation
in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
a The magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on the methodology used to calculate risk. The reference concentration (RfC) methodology
takes into consideration the pharmacokinetic (PK) differences, but not the pharmacodynamic (PD) differences. Consequently, the UF for interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3x (to account for the PD differences).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyantraniliprole, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from cyantraniliprole
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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies
for cyantraniliprole; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the 2003–2008 food consumption
data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food,
EPA conducted a somewhat refined
chronic (food and drinking water)
dietary assessment assuming average
field trial residues for all crops (except
crop subgroup 1A which used tolerance
levels). Tolerance-level residues were
used to cover residues in all livestock
commodities except liver and meat
byproducts for which higher anticipated
residue calculations were used. For
processed commodities, input values
included combined average residues of
parent and the metabolite with relevant
processing factors. It was assumed that
100% crop treated (PCT) for all crops.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyantraniliprole does
not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure
assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue
levels of pesticide residues in food and
the actual levels of pesticide residues
that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must
require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years
after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating
that the levels in food are not above the
levels anticipated. For the present
action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than
5 years from the date of issuance of
these tolerances.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for cyantraniliprole in drinking water.
These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical,
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
6830
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and fate/transport characteristics of
cyantraniliprole. 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) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI–
GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of
cyantraniliprole for acute exposures are
estimated to be 43.14 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 6.33 ppb for
ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments EDWCs are also
estimated to be 24.45 ppb for surface
water and 6.33 for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. An
acute dietary risk assessment was not
conducted since no acute toxicological
effects were found. For chronic dietary
risk assessment, the water concentration
of value 24.45 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Cyantraniliprole is proposed for use on
the following sites that could result in
residential exposures: indoor crack/
crevice application, turfgrass, golf
courses, and ornamentals including
both outdoors and in interior
plantscapes. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following
assumptions: Residential exposure may
occur by the dermal, oral, and
inhalation routes of exposures.
However, since dermal hazard has not
been identified for cyantraniliprole, the
only exposures of concern are handler
inhalation (for adults), and postapplication incidental oral (for
children). Residential handler exposure
is expected to be short-term in duration.
The turf and ornamental labels indicate
that a maximum of two applications are
allowed per season. Thus, intermediateterm exposures are not likely because of
the intermittent nature of applications
by homeowners. Post-application
incidental oral exposures for children
may occur for short- and intermediateterm durations due to the persistence of
cyantraniliprole. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions
and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at https://
www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/
residential-exposure-sop.html.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 cyantraniliprole to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and
cyantraniliprole does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that cyantraniliprole 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
Food Quality Protection Act Safety
Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10x, or uses a different
additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence of susceptibility in
developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits. The developmental toxicity
study in rats is tested up to the limit
dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit
developmental toxicity study decrease
in fetal body weight is seen at a dose
higher than that resulting in maternal
effects. In the reproductive toxicity
study, increased incidence of thyroid
follicular epithelium hypertrophy/
hyperplasia occurs in F1 parental
animals (offspring of P0 generation) at
14 mg/kg/day which is lower than that
for the parental (P0) generation (110 mg/
kg/day). A clear NOAEL (1.4 mg/kg/day)
is established for F1 parental animals,
and the PODs selected for risk
assessment from the dog studies (1 or 3
mg/kg/day) are protective of the effect
(thyroid effect) seen in the F1 parental
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
animals. In addition, the submitted data
support the conclusion that the effects
on the thyroid are secondary to effects
on the liver.
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 1. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
cyantraniliprole is complete.
ii. There is no indication that
cyantraniliprole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there
is no evidence that cyantraniliprole
results in increased susceptibility in in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100 PCT and
average field trial residues. The field
trial data were validated against the
appropriate guideline criteria and found
acceptable. The field trial data reflect
the maximum residues that are likely to
occur on food commodities when
cyantraniliprole is used according to
label directions at the maximum
allowed application rate and minimum
allowed interval from treatment to
harvest. These are farm gate residues
and do not reflect decreases in residues
that may occur during transport and
storage prior to consumption. No
corrections were made for the
percentage of crops treated, that is, it
was assumed that 100% of all crops for
which there is a cyantraniliprole
tolerance will be treated. Therefore, the
data are considered unlikely to
underestimate actual dietary exposure
to cyantraniliprole. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to
cyantraniliprole in drinking water. In
addition, the residential exposure
assessment is based on the updated
2012 Residential Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) employing surrogate
study data, including conservative
exposure assumptions based on day 0
dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces
treated at the maximum application
rate. These data are reliable and are not
expected to underestimate risks to
adults or children. The Residential
SOPs are based upon reasonable ‘‘worstcase’’ assumptions are not expected to
underestimate risk.
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account acute
exposure estimates from dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, cyantraniliprole is
not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to
cyantraniliprole from food and water
will utilize 50% of the cPAD for
children 1–2 years old (the population
group receiving the greatest exposure)
and 22% of the general U.S. population.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Cyantraniliprole is
proposed for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the
Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to
cyantraniliprole. Residential exposure
estimates of all possible scenarios are
not of concern. Short-term inhalation
MOEs range from 22,000 to 220,000,000.
Furthermore, these calculated risk
estimates are highly conservative
because the inhalation exposure POD is
based on an exposure duration of 24
hours per day.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 290 for children 1–2 years old
(the population group receiving the
greatest exposure) and 22,000 for adults.
Because EPA’s LOC for cyantraniliprole
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level). For
adults, intermediate-term exposure is
not expected for the residential
exposure pathway. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk would
be equivalent to the chronic dietary
exposure estimate. For children 1 to <2
years old, the short-term aggregate risk
is protective of the intermediate-term
duration.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
cyantraniliprole is not expected to pose
a cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to
cyantraniliprole residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate residue analytical method
data have been submitted. Validation
data have been provided for the
proposed enforcement methods.
Methods for measuring cyantraniliprole
include the European Union (EU) multiresidue method DFG S19 (LC/MS/MS
module, Dupont-21328) and the North
American Free Trade Association
(NAFTA) LC/MS/MS 1187 and 1552
methods. These methods utilize two
mass ion transitions so confirmatory
methods are not required. EU Method
DFG S19 has been independently
validated with a limit of quantification
(LOQ) of 0.01 ppm for parent
cyantraniliprole in cereals and dry
products, matrices with high water
content, acidic matrices, and fatty
products. NAFTA method 1187 has
been independently validated with an
LOQ of 0.01 ppm for parent
cyantraniliprole in almonds, onions,
tomato paste, and sun dried tomatoes.
NAFTA method 1552 has been
independently validated with an LOQ of
0.01 ppm for parent cyantraniliprole in
milk, muscle, and kidney. Note that
cyantraniliprole is not recovered using
the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) multi-residue methods.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6831
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
United Nations 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. Currently there
are no Codex MRLs for cyantraniliprole.
C. Response to Comments
The Agency did not receive any
public comments on the May 23, 2012
Federal Register Notice of Filing.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
Based on the residue data provided
and using the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
statistical calculation procedures, EPA
is revising the tolerance levels for the
following plant commodities: Almond
hulls; Brassica head and stem vegetables
(subgroup 5A); fruit, pome (group 11–
10); fruit, stone; nut, tree (group 14–12);
oilseed (group 20); vegetable, cucurbit
(group 9); and vegetable, leafy (except
Brassica) (group 4).
The proposed tolerance for citrus oil
was lowered from 4 ppm to 2.4 ppm,
consistent with the results from
application of the median processing
factor to the highest average field trials
(HAFT) for oranges. EPA is not
establishing tolerances for the processed
commodities citrus raw peel and potato
wet peel. The processing studies do not
show a concentration of residue in these
commodities relative to the raw
agricultural commodities (RAC);
therefore, the tolerances on RAC are
sufficient to cover residues in these
processed commodities.
EPA is not establishing separate
tolerances for liver of cattle, goat, horse,
and sheep; hog fat, liver, meat, and meat
byproducts; and milk fat. The livestock
commodity tolerances are derived from
consideration of the maximum
reasonably balanced livestock diets and
the livestock feeding studies. A
tolerance value of 0.01 ppm is
appropriate for liver (of cattle, goat,
horse, and sheep), which is covered by
the meat byproducts tolerance. The
dietary exposures of hogs and poultry
do not indicate a need for tolerances
(residues are not anticipated), and there
is no indication of significant
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
6832
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
concentration of cyantraniliprole in
milk fat relative to milk.
With the exception of the proposed
tolerance for leaves of root and tuber
vegetables, EPA is revising all of the
proposed tolerances for inadvertent
residues (with a plantback interval (PBI)
of 30 days) based on available residue
data and use of the OECD statistical
calculation procedures. For some crop
groups, more than one tolerance was
proposed for various components of the
group (e.g., crop group 16 which
includes forage, fodder, and straw of
cereal grains); however, only one
tolerance is possible per group, and the
tolerance is based on the member
commodity with the highest residue
levels.
EPA issued a final rule in the Federal
Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR
50617) (FRL–9354–3) that revised some
crop grouping regulations. As part of
that action, EPA expanded and revised
the previously existing tree nut crop
group 14. Changes to crop group 14
included adding pistachios plus a
number of other nuts, revising the
taxonomic names for several
commodities, and naming the new crop
group tree nut group 14–12. The
representative commodities remain the
same as previous almond and pecan.
That final rule became effective on
October 22, 2012. EPA indicated in the
August 22, 2012 final rule as well as the
earlier proposed rule published in the
Federal Register of November 9, 2011
(76 FR 69693) (FRL–8887–8) that, for
existing petitions for which a Notice of
Filing had been published, the Agency
would attempt to conform these
petitions to the rule. Therefore,
consistent with this rule, EPA has
assessed and is establishing a tolerance
for cyantraniliprole on tree nuts crop
group 14–12.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo
-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]
phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide,
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on almond, hulls at 8.0
ppm; Brassica head and stem (subgroup
5A) at 3.0 ppm; Brassica leafy
vegetables (subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm;
bushberry (subgroup 13–07B) at 4.0
ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat
at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm; cherry (subgroup 12–12A) at
6.0 ppm; citrus, oil at 2.4 ppm; cotton,
gin byproducts at 10 ppm; fruit, citrus
(group 10–10) at 0.70 ppm; fruit, pome
(group 11–10) at 1.5 ppm; goat, fat at
0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm;
horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm;
milk at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree (group 14–
12) at 0.04 ppm; oilseed (group 20) at
1.5 ppm; onion, bulb (subgroup 3–07A)
at 0.04 ppm; onion, green (subgroup 3–
07B) at 8.0 ppm; peach (subgroup 12–
12B) at 1.5 ppm; plum (subgroup 12–
12C) at 0.50 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01
ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; vegetable,
cucurbit (group 9) at 0.40 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting (group 8–10) at 2.0
ppm; vegetable, leafy (except Brassica)
(group 4) at 20 ppm; vegetable, tuberous
and corm (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm. In
addition, indirect or inadvertent
tolerances for cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo
-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]
phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide),
including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the following
commodities: Animal feed, nongrass
(group 18) at 0.20 ppm; grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw (group 16) at
0.50 ppm; grass forage, fodder and hay
(group 17) at 0.50 ppm; peanut, hay at
0.01 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume
(group 7) at 0.70 ppm; vegetable, leaves
of root and tuber vegetables (group 2) at
0.04 ppm; vegetable, root (subgroup 1A)
at 0.02 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 24, 2014.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 new § 180.672 to subpart C to
read as follows:
■
§ 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the combined residues of
the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)
carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5carboxamide, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on commodities in
the following table. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified in the
following table is to be determined by
measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on
the commodity.
Commodity
Parts per
million
pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1Hpyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
commodities in the following table.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the following table is to be
determined by measuring only
cyantraniliprole in or on the
commodity.
Parts per
million
Commodity
Animal feed, nongrass (group
18) .........................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder
and straw (group 16) ............
Grass forage, fodder and hay
(group 17) .............................
Peanut, hay ..............................
Vegetable, foliage of legume
(group 7) ...............................
Vegetable, leaves of root and
tuber vegetables (group 2) ...
Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A)
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.01
0.70
0.04
0.02
[FR Doc. 2014–02210 Filed 2–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Almond, hulls ............................
Brassica head and stem (subgroup 5A) ..............................
Brassica leafy vegetables (subgroup 5B) ..............................
Bushberry (subgroup 13–07B)
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts ...........
Cherry (subgroup 12–12A) .......
Citrus, oil ...................................
Cotton, gin byproducts .............
Fruit, citrus (group 10–10) ........
Fruit, pome (group 11–10) .......
Goat, fat ....................................
Goat, meat ................................
Goat, meat byproducts .............
Horse, fat ..................................
Horse, meat ..............................
Horse, meat byproducts ...........
Milk ...........................................
Nut, tree (group 14–12) ............
Oilseed (group 20) ....................
Onion, bulb (subgroup 3–07A)
Onion, green (subgroup 3–07B)
Peach (subgroup 12–12B) .......
Plum (subgroup 12–12C) .........
Sheep, fat .................................
Sheep, meat .............................
Sheep, meat byproducts ..........
Vegetable, cucurbit (group 9) ...
Vegetable, fruiting (group 8–10)
Vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) (group 4) .......................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm
(subgroup 1C) .......................
8.0
3.0
30
4.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
6.0
2.4
10
0.70
1.5
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
1.5
0.04
8.0
1.5
0.50
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.40
2.0
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8321]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule identifies
communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
20 adopted the required floodplain
management measures prior to the
0.15 effective suspension date given in this
rule, the suspension will not occur and
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. a notice of this will be provided by
publication in the Federal Register on a
[Reserved]
subsequent date. Also, information
(c) Tolerances with regional
identifying the current participation
registrations. [Reserved]
status of a community can be obtained
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
from FEMA’s Community Status Book
Tolerances are established for indirect
or inadvertent tolerances for residues of (CSB). The CSB is available at https://
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2- www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:12 Feb 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6833
Effective Dates: The effective
date of each community’s scheduled
suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’)
listed in the third column of the
following tables.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended
on the suspension date or for further
information, contact David Stearrett,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP
enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not
otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities
agree to adopt and administer local
floodplain management measures aimed
at protecting lives and new construction
from future flooding. Section 1315 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits the sale of NFIP flood
insurance unless an appropriate public
body adopts adequate floodplain
management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The
communities listed in this document no
longer meet that statutory requirement
for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59.
Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the
third column. As of that date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in
the community. We recognize that some
of these communities may adopt and
submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain
management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue
to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood
insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of such communities will be
published in the Federal Register.
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth
column of the table. No direct Federal
financial assistance (except assistance
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may be provided for construction
or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not
participating in the NFIP and identified
for more than a year on FEMA’s initial
FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\05FER1.SGM
05FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6826-6833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0668; FRL-9388-7]
Cyantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyantraniliprole in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
(DuPont) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective February 5, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 7, 2014, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0668, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 6827]]
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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
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-2011-0668 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 7, 2014. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0668, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 23, 2012 (77 FR 30481) (FRL-9347-8),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1F7894)
by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), 1007 Market St.,
Wilmington, DE 19898. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-
6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on almond hulls at 30 parts per
million (ppm); berries and small fruits, bushberries (subgroup 13-07B)
at 4 ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables, head and stem Brassica
(subgroup 5A) at 2 ppm; Brassica (cole) leafy vegetables, leafy
Brassica greens (subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; bulb vegetables, onion, bulb
(subgroup 3-07A) at 0.04 ppm; bulb vegetables, onion, green (subgroup
3-07B) at 8 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, liver at 0.04 ppm;
cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01
ppm; cherries at 6 ppm; citrus fruits (group 10-10) at 0.7 ppm; cotton
gin byproduct at 10 ppm; cucurbit vegetables (group 9) at 0.3 ppm;
fruiting vegetables (group 8-10) at 2 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat,
liver at 0.04 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts,
except liver at 0.01 ppm; hog, fat at 0.01 ppm; hog, liver at 0.04 ppm;
hog, meat at 0.01 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm;
horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, liver at 0.04 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01
ppm; horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm; leafy vegetables
(except Brassica vegetables) (group 4) at 15 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm;
milk, fat at 0.04 ppm; oilseeds, except cotton gin byproduct (group 20)
at 1 ppm; pome fruits (group 11-10) at 0.8 ppm; root and tuber
vegetables, tuberous and corm vegetables (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm;
sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, liver at 0.04 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.01 ppm; stone fruits,
except cherries (group 12) at 1.5 ppm; tree nuts, except almond hulls
(group 14) at 0.06 ppm; citrus, oil at 6 ppm; citrus, raw peel at 2
ppm; and potato, wet peel at 0.3 ppm.
In addition, DuPont requested to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish
indirect or inadvertent tolerances for residues of cyantraniliprole, 3-
bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the following commodities: Foliage
of legume vegetables (group 7), forage at 0.15 ppm; foliage of legume
vegetables (group 7), hay at 0.6 ppm; forage, fodder and straw of
cereal grains (group 16), forage at 0.06 ppm; forage, fodder and straw
of cereal grains (group 16), hay and straw at 0.15 ppm; grass forage,
fodder, and hay (group 17), forage at 0.06 ppm; grass forage, fodder,
and hay (group 17), hay at 0.15 ppm; leaves of root and tuber
vegetables (human food or animal feed) (group 2) at 0.04 ppm; nongrass
animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, and hay) (group 18), forage at
0.06 ppm; nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, and hay) (group
18), hay at 0.15 ppm; peanut hay at 0.03 ppm; root and tuber
vegetables, root vegetables (subgroup 1A) at 0.03 ppm.
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
DuPont, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing several tolerances that vary from levels requested in the
original petition. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
[[Page 6828]]
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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cyantraniliprole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
cyantraniliprole 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. Cyantraniliprole is a 2-generation ryanodine receptor (RyR)
insecticide belonging to the diamide class of chemistry whose
pesticidal mode of action (MOA) is through unregulated activation of
insect RyR channels. This leads to internal calcium store depletion and
impaired regulation of muscle contraction, causing paralysis and
eventual death of the insect. Mammalian RyR are shown to be 350 to
>2,500 times less sensitive than those of insects. In general,
cyantraniliprole administration in mammals produces both adverse and
adaptive changes in the liver, thyroid gland, and adrenal cortex. With
repeated dosing, consistent findings of mild to moderate increases in
liver weights across multiple species (rats, mice, and dogs) are
observed. Dogs appear to be more sensitive than rats and mice;
cyantraniliprole produces adverse liver effects (increases in alkaline
phosphatase, decreases in cholesterol, and decreases in albumin) in
dogs at lower dose levels than in rats. In addition, the liver effects
in the dog show progressive severity with increased duration of
exposure. The available data also show thyroid hormone homeostasis is
altered in rats following exposure to cyantraniliprole after 90 days
due to enhanced metabolism of the thyroid hormones by the liver.
However, cyantraniliprole does not act directly on the thyroid; the
thyroid effects observed are only as a result of the adverse effects on
the liver. Cyantraniliprole is classified as ``Not Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on the absence of increased tumor
incidence in acceptable/guideline carcinogenicity studies in rats and
mice. In addition, there are no genotoxicity, mutagenicity,
neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns. There are also no
developmental or reproductive toxicity concerns. There is no evidence
of an adverse effect attributable to a single dose. Specific
information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by cyantraniliprole as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Cyantraniliprole. Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses of the New Active
Insecticide (March 7, 2013)'' at p.16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2011-0668.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints and points of departure
for cyantraniliprole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1
of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyantraniliprole for Use in Human Health Risk
Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POD and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for
Exposure/scenario safety factors risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (general An effect attributed to a single dose was not identified in the toxicology
population, including infants database.
and children and females 13-49
years of age).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 1 mg/kg/day. Chronic RfD = 0.01 Based on 1-year oral study in
UFA = 10x........... mg/kg/day. dogs.
UFH = 10x........... cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x........ day.. effects indicative of liver
toxicity (increased liver weights
and alkaline phosphatase
activity), and significant
decreases in albumin level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 6829]]
Incidental oral short-term (1 to NOAEL = 3 mg/kg/day. LOC for MOE = 100.. Based on both 28-day and 90-day
30 days) and incidental oral UFA = 10x........... oral study in dogs.
intermediate-term (1 to 6 UFH = 10x........... 28-Day LOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
months). FQPA SF = 1x........ (lowest dose tested) based on
decreases in body weight, food
consumption, food efficiency, and
changes in clinical chemistry
(increased alkaline phosphatase,
decreased cholesterol and
decreased albumin).
90-Day LOAEL = 32 mg/kg/day based
on a collection of treatment-
related effects indicative of
liver toxicity. The effects
included decreases in total
protein, albumin, and cholesterol
in males and females; increases
in alkaline phosphatase in males
and females; increases in alanine
aminotransferase in females; and
increases in liver weights in
males and females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days). A toxicity endpoint was not identified.
Systemic toxicity was not seen in 28-day dermal toxicity in rats at the limit
dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). There are no concerns for developmental or
reproductive toxicity or neurotoxicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 Inhalation study LOC for MOE = 30... Based on 28-day inhalation
days). NOAEL = 0.1 mg/kg/ toxicity study in rats.
day. A LOAEL was not established
UFA = 3x.\a\........ because the highest concentration
UFH = 10x........... tested (0.1 mg/L) did not
FQPA SF = 1x........ demonstrate any adverse portal of
HEC = 0.05 mg/L..... entry or systemic effects.
HED = 7.2 mg/kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on data
showing lack of treatment-related increase in tumor incidence in the rat and
mouse carcinogenicity studies. Mutagenic concern was not reported in the
mutagenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. HEC = human equivalent concentration. HED = human
equivalent dose. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/
kilogram/day.
mg/L = milligram/Liter. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. PAD = population-
adjusted dose. POD = point of departure. RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation
from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
population (intraspecies).
\a\ The magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on the methodology used to calculate risk. The reference
concentration (RfC) methodology takes into consideration the pharmacokinetic (PK) differences, but not the
pharmacodynamic (PD) differences. Consequently, the UF for interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3x (to
account for the PD differences).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
cyantraniliprole 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for cyantraniliprole;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the 2003-2008 food
consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a
somewhat refined chronic (food and drinking water) dietary assessment
assuming average field trial residues for all crops (except crop
subgroup 1A which used tolerance levels). Tolerance-level residues were
used to cover residues in all livestock commodities except liver and
meat byproducts for which higher anticipated residue calculations were
used. For processed commodities, input values included combined average
residues of parent and the metabolite with relevant processing factors.
It was assumed that 100% crop treated (PCT) for all crops.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that cyantraniliprole does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of
pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will
issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for cyantraniliprole in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical,
[[Page 6830]]
and fate/transport characteristics of cyantraniliprole. 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) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyantraniliprole for
acute exposures are estimated to be 43.14 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 6.33 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments EDWCs are also estimated to be 24.45 ppb for
surface water and 6.33 for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. An acute dietary risk
assessment was not conducted since no acute toxicological effects were
found. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 24.45 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyantraniliprole is
proposed for use on the following sites that could result in
residential exposures: indoor crack/crevice application, turfgrass,
golf courses, and ornamentals including both outdoors and in interior
plantscapes. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions: Residential exposure may occur by the dermal, oral, and
inhalation routes of exposures. However, since dermal hazard has not
been identified for cyantraniliprole, the only exposures of concern are
handler inhalation (for adults), and post-application incidental oral
(for children). Residential handler exposure is expected to be short-
term in duration. The turf and ornamental labels indicate that a
maximum of two applications are allowed per season. Thus, intermediate-
term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of
applications by homeowners. Post-application incidental oral exposures
for children may occur for short- and intermediate-term durations due
to the persistence of cyantraniliprole. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures
may be found at https://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/residential-exposure-sop.html.
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
cyantraniliprole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and cyantraniliprole does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyantraniliprole 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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10x, or uses a different additional
SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
susceptibility in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits.
The developmental toxicity study in rats is tested up to the limit dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day). In the rabbit developmental toxicity study decrease
in fetal body weight is seen at a dose higher than that resulting in
maternal effects. In the reproductive toxicity study, increased
incidence of thyroid follicular epithelium hypertrophy/hyperplasia
occurs in F1 parental animals (offspring of P0
generation) at 14 mg/kg/day which is lower than that for the parental
(P0) generation (110 mg/kg/day). A clear NOAEL (1.4 mg/kg/
day) is established for F1 parental animals, and the PODs
selected for risk assessment from the dog studies (1 or 3 mg/kg/day)
are protective of the effect (thyroid effect) seen in the F1
parental animals. In addition, the submitted data support the
conclusion that the effects on the thyroid are secondary to effects on
the liver.
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 1. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for cyantraniliprole is complete.
ii. There is no indication that cyantraniliprole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there is no evidence that
cyantraniliprole results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats
or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and average field trial residues. The field trial data were
validated against the appropriate guideline criteria and found
acceptable. The field trial data reflect the maximum residues that are
likely to occur on food commodities when cyantraniliprole is used
according to label directions at the maximum allowed application rate
and minimum allowed interval from treatment to harvest. These are farm
gate residues and do not reflect decreases in residues that may occur
during transport and storage prior to consumption. No corrections were
made for the percentage of crops treated, that is, it was assumed that
100% of all crops for which there is a cyantraniliprole tolerance will
be treated. Therefore, the data are considered unlikely to
underestimate actual dietary exposure to cyantraniliprole. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to cyantraniliprole in drinking water.
In addition, the residential exposure assessment is based on the
updated 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) employing
surrogate study data, including conservative exposure assumptions based
on day 0 dermal/oral contact to turf and surfaces treated at the
maximum application rate. These data are reliable and are not expected
to underestimate risks to adults or children. The Residential SOPs are
based upon reasonable ``worst-case'' assumptions are not expected to
underestimate risk.
[[Page 6831]]
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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
cyantraniliprole is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyantraniliprole from food and water will utilize 50% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old (the population group receiving the greatest
exposure) and 22% of the general U.S. population.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Cyantraniliprole is proposed for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to cyantraniliprole. Residential
exposure estimates of all possible scenarios are not of concern. Short-
term inhalation MOEs range from 22,000 to 220,000,000. Furthermore,
these calculated risk estimates are highly conservative because the
inhalation exposure POD is based on an exposure duration of 24 hours
per day.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 290 for children
1-2 years old (the population group receiving the greatest exposure)
and 22,000 for adults. Because EPA's LOC for cyantraniliprole is a MOE
of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). For adults, intermediate-term exposure is not expected for the
residential exposure pathway. Therefore, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure
estimate. For children 1 to <2 years old, the short-term aggregate risk
is protective of the intermediate-term duration.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, cyantraniliprole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to cyantraniliprole residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate residue analytical method data have been submitted.
Validation data have been provided for the proposed enforcement
methods. Methods for measuring cyantraniliprole include the European
Union (EU) multi-residue method DFG S19 (LC/MS/MS module, Dupont-21328)
and the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) LC/MS/MS 1187 and
1552 methods. These methods utilize two mass ion transitions so
confirmatory methods are not required. EU Method DFG S19 has been
independently validated with a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01
ppm for parent cyantraniliprole in cereals and dry products, matrices
with high water content, acidic matrices, and fatty products. NAFTA
method 1187 has been independently validated with an LOQ of 0.01 ppm
for parent cyantraniliprole in almonds, onions, tomato paste, and sun
dried tomatoes. NAFTA method 1552 has been independently validated with
an LOQ of 0.01 ppm for parent cyantraniliprole in milk, muscle, and
kidney. Note that cyantraniliprole is not recovered using the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) multi-residue methods.
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 United Nations
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. Currently there are no
Codex MRLs for cyantraniliprole.
C. Response to Comments
The Agency did not receive any public comments on the May 23, 2012
Federal Register Notice of Filing.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
Based on the residue data provided and using the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) statistical calculation
procedures, EPA is revising the tolerance levels for the following
plant commodities: Almond hulls; Brassica head and stem vegetables
(subgroup 5A); fruit, pome (group 11-10); fruit, stone; nut, tree
(group 14-12); oilseed (group 20); vegetable, cucurbit (group 9); and
vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) (group 4).
The proposed tolerance for citrus oil was lowered from 4 ppm to 2.4
ppm, consistent with the results from application of the median
processing factor to the highest average field trials (HAFT) for
oranges. EPA is not establishing tolerances for the processed
commodities citrus raw peel and potato wet peel. The processing studies
do not show a concentration of residue in these commodities relative to
the raw agricultural commodities (RAC); therefore, the tolerances on
RAC are sufficient to cover residues in these processed commodities.
EPA is not establishing separate tolerances for liver of cattle,
goat, horse, and sheep; hog fat, liver, meat, and meat byproducts; and
milk fat. The livestock commodity tolerances are derived from
consideration of the maximum reasonably balanced livestock diets and
the livestock feeding studies. A tolerance value of 0.01 ppm is
appropriate for liver (of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep), which is
covered by the meat byproducts tolerance. The dietary exposures of hogs
and poultry do not indicate a need for tolerances (residues are not
anticipated), and there is no indication of significant
[[Page 6832]]
concentration of cyantraniliprole in milk fat relative to milk.
With the exception of the proposed tolerance for leaves of root and
tuber vegetables, EPA is revising all of the proposed tolerances for
inadvertent residues (with a plantback interval (PBI) of 30 days) based
on available residue data and use of the OECD statistical calculation
procedures. For some crop groups, more than one tolerance was proposed
for various components of the group (e.g., crop group 16 which includes
forage, fodder, and straw of cereal grains); however, only one
tolerance is possible per group, and the tolerance is based on the
member commodity with the highest residue levels.
EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of August 22, 2012
(77 FR 50617) (FRL-9354-3) that revised some crop grouping regulations.
As part of that action, EPA expanded and revised the previously
existing tree nut crop group 14. Changes to crop group 14 included
adding pistachios plus a number of other nuts, revising the taxonomic
names for several commodities, and naming the new crop group tree nut
group 14-12. The representative commodities remain the same as previous
almond and pecan. That final rule became effective on October 22, 2012.
EPA indicated in the August 22, 2012 final rule as well as the earlier
proposed rule published in the Federal Register of November 9, 2011 (76
FR 69693) (FRL-8887-8) that, for existing petitions for which a Notice
of Filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these
petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA has
assessed and is establishing a tolerance for cyantraniliprole on tree
nuts crop group 14-12.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-
6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on almond, hulls at 8.0 ppm;
Brassica head and stem (subgroup 5A) at 3.0 ppm; Brassica leafy
vegetables (subgroup 5B) at 30 ppm; bushberry (subgroup 13-07B) at 4.0
ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; cherry (subgroup 12-12A) at 6.0 ppm; citrus,
oil at 2.4 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 10 ppm; fruit, citrus (group
10-10) at 0.70 ppm; fruit, pome (group 11-10) at 1.5 ppm; goat, fat at
0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm;
horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts
at 0.01 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree (group 14-12) at 0.04 ppm;
oilseed (group 20) at 1.5 ppm; onion, bulb (subgroup 3-07A) at 0.04
ppm; onion, green (subgroup 3-07B) at 8.0 ppm; peach (subgroup 12-12B)
at 1.5 ppm; plum (subgroup 12-12C) at 0.50 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm;
sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; vegetable,
cucurbit (group 9) at 0.40 ppm; vegetable, fruiting (group 8-10) at 2.0
ppm; vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) (group 4) at 20 ppm; vegetable,
tuberous and corm (subgroup 1C) at 0.15 ppm. In addition, indirect or
inadvertent tolerances for cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-
pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-
pyrazole-5-carboxamide), including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the following commodities: Animal feed, nongrass (group 18) at
0.20 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw (group 16) at 0.50
ppm; grass forage, fodder and hay (group 17) at 0.50 ppm; peanut, hay
at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, foliage of legume (group 7) at 0.70 ppm;
vegetable, leaves of root and tuber vegetables (group 2) at 0.04 ppm;
vegetable, root (subgroup 1A) at 0.02 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
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 FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 24, 2014.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
[[Page 6833]]
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 new Sec. 180.672 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 180.672 Cyantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues
of the insecticide cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-
N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
commodities in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified in the following table is to be determined by
measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on the commodity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls.............................................. 8.0
Brassica head and stem (subgroup 5A)....................... 3.0
Brassica leafy vegetables (subgroup 5B).................... 30
Bushberry (subgroup 13-07B)................................ 4.0
Cattle, fat................................................ 0.01
Cattle, meat............................................... 0.01
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................... 0.01
Cherry (subgroup 12-12A)................................... 6.0
Citrus, oil................................................ 2.4
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................... 10
Fruit, citrus (group 10-10)................................ 0.70
Fruit, pome (group 11-10).................................. 1.5
Goat, fat.................................................. 0.01
Goat, meat................................................. 0.01
Goat, meat byproducts...................................... 0.01
Horse, fat................................................. 0.01
Horse, meat................................................ 0.01
Horse, meat byproducts..................................... 0.01
Milk....................................................... 0.01
Nut, tree (group 14-12).................................... 0.04
Oilseed (group 20)......................................... 1.5
Onion, bulb (subgroup 3-07A)............................... 0.04
Onion, green (subgroup 3-07B).............................. 8.0
Peach (subgroup 12-12B).................................... 1.5
Plum (subgroup 12-12C)..................................... 0.50
Sheep, fat................................................. 0.01
Sheep, meat................................................ 0.01
Sheep, meat byproducts..................................... 0.01
Vegetable, cucurbit (group 9).............................. 0.40
Vegetable, fruiting (group 8-10)........................... 2.0
Vegetable, leafy (except Brassica) (group 4)............... 20
Vegetable, tuberous and corm (subgroup 1C)................. 0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established
for indirect or inadvertent tolerances for residues of
cyantraniliprole, 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-N-[4-cyano-2-methyl-
6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on commodities in the following
table. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in the following
table is to be determined by measuring only cyantraniliprole in or on
the commodity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass (group 18)........................... 0.20
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw (group 16)......... 0.50
Grass forage, fodder and hay (group 17).................... 0.50
Peanut, hay................................................ 0.01
Vegetable, foliage of legume (group 7)..................... 0.70
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber vegetables (group 2)... 0.04
Vegetable, root (subgroup 1A).............................. 0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-02210 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P