Fenpropidin; Pesticide Tolerances, 8091-8096 [2014-02936]
Download as PDF
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 14, 2014.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 27, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart G—Colorado
2. Section 52.332 is amended by
adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.332
Matter.
Control strategy: Particulate
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Revisions to the Colorado State
Implementation Plan, PM10 Revised
Maintenance Plan for Telluride, as
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission on November 19,
2009, State effective on December 30,
2009, and submitted by the Governor’s
designee on March 31, 2010. The
revised maintenance plan satisfies all
applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
[FR Doc. 2014–02841 Filed 2–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8091
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0454; FRL–9904–31]
Fenpropidin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fenpropidin in
or on banana. Syngenta, Crop
Protection, LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
February 11, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before April 14, 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–2012–0454, 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:
SUMMARY:
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
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
8092
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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).
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD 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–2012–0454 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 14, 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–
2012–0454, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
follow the instructions at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
contacts.htm.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for fenpropidin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with fenpropidin follows.
II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of December
19, 2012 (77 FR 75082) (FRL–9372–6),
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 2E7980) by
Syngenta, LLC, P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419–8300. The
petition requested that EPA establish
import tolerances for residues of the
fungicide fenpropidin, in or on banana,
unbagged fruit at 9.0 parts per million
(ppm) and banana, pulp from unbagged
fruit at 0.40 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
One comment was received in response
to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, tolerances for
banana, unbagged fruit have been
revised from 9.0 to 10 ppm. The reason
for this change is explained in Unit
IV.D.
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.
The nervous system, eye, stomach,
esophagus, and skin are the major target
organs for fenpropidin. The principal
toxic effects in laboratory animals
following oral exposure to fenpropidin
are irritant effects on the esophagus,
stomach, and skin, with peripheral parts
of the body (tail and ears) affected as
well. The skin lesions in the mouse
following oral exposure include dry
and/or flaky skin on tail, paws, and ears,
loss of tail tip; hyperkeratosis of tail,
ear, esophagus, subcutis, stomach,
dermatitis of ear and tail, and
hyperplasia of the nose. Skin lesions in
the rat following chronic oral exposure
include dry and flaky skin around
mouth, tail tip missing, pustules on tail,
and damaged or shortened tails. The
skin lesions in the dog following oral
exposure via capsules included
indurated and inelastic pads; scale
formation on external ear; reddening of
skin of thoracic, inguinal, and axillary
regions; hardened foot pads;
microscopic findings of acanthosis of
the epidermis and ear; hyperkeratosis of
footpad and ear; and skin inflammation
following chronic oral exposure. An
acute lethality study shows that
fenpropidin is not acutely toxic by the
oral route of exposure.
Clinical signs of neurotoxicity and
neuropathology are the other major
toxic effects observed following oral
exposure in the rat and dog, and the dog
is the most sensitive species for the
neurotoxic effects. In the rat 90-day
neurotoxicity study, hindpaw grip
strength was decreased in both sexes
and forepaw grip strength was
decreased in males during the
functional observational battery (FOB)
evaluations. Bilateral hindlimb
paralysis/paresis, which correlated with
the histopathological finding of
demyelination of the spinal cord,
cranial and spinal nerve roots, and
proximal peripheral nerve, was
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
Consistent with 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
observed in one female rat at the highest
dose tested. In dogs, paresis was
observed in one male dog that was
sacrificed on week 38, and
demyelination of the spinal cord was
observed in three of four male dogs at
the high dose.
In the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity
study in rats, benign pancreatic cell
adenomas were seen in high-dose male
rats. Tumors were not increased in the
mouse carcinogenicity study in either
sex or in the female rat. Mutagenicity is
not of concern. Although the rat study
showed that fenpropidin was associated
with benign pancreatic islet cell
adenomas in the male, the Agency
determined that quantification of risk
using a non-linear approach; i.e., the
chronic reference dose (RfD), for
fenpropidin will adequately account for
all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to fenpropidin. The
conclusion is based on the following
considerations: (i) The tumors found
were benign; (ii) the tumors are common
age-related tumors; (iii) the tumors
occurred in only one sex in one species;
(iv) fenpropidin is not mutagenic; and
(v) no carcinogenic response was seen
in either sex in the mouse.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by fenpropidin as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
‘‘Fenpropidin: Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support the Proposed
Tolerance for Imported Bananas’’ at
page 10 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2012–0454.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
8093
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD) and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for fenpropidin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the
following table.
SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FENPROPIDIN FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Point of
departure and
uncertainty/safety
factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Acute dietary (Females 13–49 years of
age).
NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.10 mg/
kg/day.
aPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/
day.
Developmental toxicity study (rabbit).
LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on [on increased fetal (litter) incidence of malformations (persistent truncus arteriosus, severely
malaligned sternebrae) and decreased male
fetal body weight in the absence of maternal
effects. (does dosed on GD 7–28).
Developmental neurotoxicity study (rat).
LOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day based on [decreased
brain weight, decreased radial thickness of
the cortex at level 3, and decreased vertical
height of the dentate hilus at level 3 in females on PND 72.
Rat chronic/carcinogenicity.
LOAEL = 11.8 mg/kg/day based on [decreased
body weight and body weight gains in females, clinical signs in males and females
(pustules on tail, missing tail tip, and dry,
flaky skin around mouth), and microscopic
liver lesions (centrilobular fat) in females.
Acute dietary (Infants and children) ............
NOAEL = 7 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.07 mg/
kg/day.
aPAD = 0.07 mg/kg/
day.
Chronic dietary (All populations) .................
NOAEL= 2.3 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic RfD = 0.023
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.023 mg/kg/
day.
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) ...............
Quantification of risk using a non-linear approach; i.e., RfD, for fenpropidin will adequately account
for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to fenpropidin.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of
extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animals to humans (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. cPAD = chronic population adjusted dose. RfD = reference dose. N/A = not applicable.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropidin, EPA assessed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
dietary exposures from fenpropidin in
food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8094
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
exposure. Such effects were identified
for fenpropidin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat In America (NHANES/
WWEIA) conducted from 2003–2008. As
to residue levels in food, EPA made the
following assumptions for the acute
exposure assessment: Residues will be
present in bananas at the highest field
trial value from banana pulp (the edible
portion of the fruit), 100 percent crop
treated (PCT), and Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM–FCID) Version 3.16.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA’s NHANES/WWEIA
conducted from 2003–2008 as well. As
to residue levels in food, EPA made the
following assumptions for the chronic
exposure assessment: Residues will be
present in bananas at the average field
trial values from banana pulp, 100 PCT,
and DEEM–FCID Version 3.16.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., the Agency
has concluded that a nonlinear RfD
approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to fenpropidin. Cancer risk
was assessed using the same exposure
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA used anticipated
residues in the dietary assessment for
fenpropidin. One hundred PCT and
field trial residues were assumed for all
food commodities. 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 proposed tolerance in or on
imported banana will not impact
residues in the U.S. drinking water.
Therefore, a drinking water assessment
was not needed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
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).
Fenpropidin is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found fenpropidin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and
fenpropidin does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that fenpropidin does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
The potential impact of in utero
fenpropidin exposure was investigated
in two developmental toxicity studies
(one in the rat and one in the rabbit), a
rat developmental neurotoxicity study
(DNT) and a two multi-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. In
the rat developmental toxicity study, a
quantitative susceptibility was
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
observed; asymmetrically shaped
sternebrae #5 occurred at the high dose
in the absence of maternal toxicity. In
the rabbit developmental study, a
quantitative susceptibility was noted
with an increase in fetal (litter)
incidence of malformations (persistent
truncus arteriosus and severely
malaligned sternebrae) in the absence of
maternal toxicity. A qualitative
susceptibility was noted in the rat
developmental neurotoxicity study
(DNT). In that study, the pup effects
were: Increased number of dead pups/
cannibalized pups; decreased brain
weight; decreased radial thickness of the
cortex (level 3); decreased male pup
body weight during the preweaning
period; and decreased vertical height of
the dentate hilus (level 3) in PND 72
females. At the same dose in the
maternal animals, the only adverse
effect observed was skin irritation
(scabbing and hair loss around the
mouth and forelimbs). Qualitative
susceptibility in the 2-generation
reproduction study was based on the
decrease in pup body weights and
delayed onset of sexual maturation
observed at the same dose that resulted
in decreased maternal body weight and
increased incidence/severity of cortical
fatty changes in adrenals. The apparent
enhanced sensitivity may be due to the
limited number of evaluations
conducted in dams in these studies
rather than a true sensitivity of the
young. Clear NOAELs were established
for the endpoints of concern, and these
are the basis for the acute dietary
endpoints for females 13+ and for
infants and children.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for
fenpropidin is complete.
ii. The level of concern for
neurotoxicity is low because there is a
developmental neurotoxicity study in
rats, the effects are well characterized,
the dose-response curve for these effects
are well characterized, and clear
NOAELs have been identified.
iii. Though there is evidence of
quantitative susceptibility in the rat and
rabbit developmental toxicity studies
and qualitative susceptibility in the 2generation reproduction study in rats
and the DNT in rats, the endpoints and
doses selected for risk assessment are
protective for these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on conservative
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
high-end assumptions in the dietary
exposure assessment, including the use
of 100 PCT assumptions and field trial
residues. This is an import tolerance;
therefore, there is no drinking water, no
residential, and no occupational
exposure.
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. Partially refined acute dietary
exposure assessments were performed
using individual points of departure
(PODs) for the two population
subgroups all infants and children, and
females 13–49 years old. Using the
exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute
dietary exposure to fenpropidin from
food will occupy 3% of the aPAD for
infants <1 year old and <1% of the
aPAD for females 13–49 years old, for
the populations at the 95th percentile of
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to fenpropidin
from food will utilize <1% of the cPAD
for children 1–2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses
for fenpropidin.
3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Since the petitioner is
proposing a tolerance in/on imported
banana and since fenpropidin is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure,
selection of incidental oral, dermal, and
inhalation point of departures for
assessment of residential exposure is
not required.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. In the chronic toxicity/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
carcinogenicity study in rats, benign
pancreatic cell adenomas were seen in
high-dose male rats. Tumors were not
increased in the mouse carcinogenicity
study in either sex or in the female rat.
Mutagenicity is not of concern.
Although the rat study showed that
fenpropidin was associated with benign
pancreatic islet cell adenomas in the
male, the Agency determined that
quantification of risk using a non-linear
approach; i.e., the chronic reference
dose (RfD), for fenpropidin will
adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to
fenpropidin. The conclusion is based on
the following considerations: (i) The
tumors found were benign; (ii) the
tumors are common age-related tumors;
(iii) the tumors occurred in only one sex
in one species; (iv) fenpropidin is not
mutagenic; and (v) no carcinogenic
response was seen in either sex in the
mouse.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to fenpropidin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(independent laboratory validation trial
(ILV) and liquid chromatography with
mass spectrometric (LC–MS/MS)
detection method (Method No. REM
164.09)) are available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755–5350; telephone
number: (410) 305–2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
8095
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established MRLs
for fenpropidin.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received from an
anonymous commenter objecting to
increasing the tolerances. The comment
contained no scientific data or evidence
to rebut the Agency’s conclusions that
no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to
fenpropidin residues.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-for
Tolerances
Based on the analysis of the residue
field trial data and Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) tolerance
calculator procedure, a banana tolerance
of 10 ppm for residues of fenpropidin is
appropriate. The Agency excluded
residue values from one of the field
trials. The study author reported that
samples from that field trial may have
been mislabeled as residues were higher
in the control samples; therefore, results
from this test were not used in the
tolerance calculations. A tolerance for
banana pulp is not required; tolerances
are to be established on the whole
banana fruit.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of fenpropidin, (1-[3-[4-(1,1dimethylethyl)phenyl]-2methylpropyl]piperidine), including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
banana at 10 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
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
8096
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:33 Feb 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 31, 2014.
Steven P. Bradbury,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Add § 180.676 to subpart C, to read
as follows:
■
§ 180.676 Fenpropidin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are
established for the residues of
fenpropidin, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below.
Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by
measuring only fenpropidin (1-[3-[4(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-2methylpropyl]piperidine).
Commodity
Parts per
million
Banana 1 ...............................
10
1 There are no U.S. registrations as of December 13, 2013.
(b) Section 18 tolerance. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2014–02936 Filed 2–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11FER1.SGM
11FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8091-8096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0454; FRL-9904-31]
Fenpropidin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fenpropidin in or on banana. Syngenta, Crop Protection, LLC requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective February 11, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 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-2012-0454, 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:
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
[[Page 8092]]
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-2012-0454 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 14, 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-2012-0454, 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.htm.
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 December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75082) (FRL-
9372-6), 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
2E7980) by Syngenta, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300.
The petition requested that EPA establish import tolerances for
residues of the fungicide fenpropidin, in or on banana, unbagged fruit
at 9.0 parts per million (ppm) and banana, pulp from unbagged fruit at
0.40 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, tolerances
for banana, unbagged fruit have been revised from 9.0 to 10 ppm. The
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with 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 fenpropidin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fenpropidin 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.
The nervous system, eye, stomach, esophagus, and skin are the major
target organs for fenpropidin. The principal toxic effects in
laboratory animals following oral exposure to fenpropidin are irritant
effects on the esophagus, stomach, and skin, with peripheral parts of
the body (tail and ears) affected as well. The skin lesions in the
mouse following oral exposure include dry and/or flaky skin on tail,
paws, and ears, loss of tail tip; hyperkeratosis of tail, ear,
esophagus, subcutis, stomach, dermatitis of ear and tail, and
hyperplasia of the nose. Skin lesions in the rat following chronic oral
exposure include dry and flaky skin around mouth, tail tip missing,
pustules on tail, and damaged or shortened tails. The skin lesions in
the dog following oral exposure via capsules included indurated and
inelastic pads; scale formation on external ear; reddening of skin of
thoracic, inguinal, and axillary regions; hardened foot pads;
microscopic findings of acanthosis of the epidermis and ear;
hyperkeratosis of footpad and ear; and skin inflammation following
chronic oral exposure. An acute lethality study shows that fenpropidin
is not acutely toxic by the oral route of exposure.
Clinical signs of neurotoxicity and neuropathology are the other
major toxic effects observed following oral exposure in the rat and
dog, and the dog is the most sensitive species for the neurotoxic
effects. In the rat 90-day neurotoxicity study, hindpaw grip strength
was decreased in both sexes and forepaw grip strength was decreased in
males during the functional observational battery (FOB) evaluations.
Bilateral hindlimb paralysis/paresis, which correlated with the
histopathological finding of demyelination of the spinal cord, cranial
and spinal nerve roots, and proximal peripheral nerve, was
[[Page 8093]]
observed in one female rat at the highest dose tested. In dogs, paresis
was observed in one male dog that was sacrificed on week 38, and
demyelination of the spinal cord was observed in three of four male
dogs at the high dose.
In the chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, benign
pancreatic cell adenomas were seen in high-dose male rats. Tumors were
not increased in the mouse carcinogenicity study in either sex or in
the female rat. Mutagenicity is not of concern. Although the rat study
showed that fenpropidin was associated with benign pancreatic islet
cell adenomas in the male, the Agency determined that quantification of
risk using a non-linear approach; i.e., the chronic reference dose
(RfD), for fenpropidin will adequately account for all chronic
toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to
fenpropidin. The conclusion is based on the following considerations:
(i) The tumors found were benign; (ii) the tumors are common age-
related tumors; (iii) the tumors occurred in only one sex in one
species; (iv) fenpropidin is not mutagenic; and (v) no carcinogenic
response was seen in either sex in the mouse.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenpropidin 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 ``Fenpropidin: Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support the Proposed Tolerance for Imported Bananas'' at
page 10 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0454.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD) and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenpropidin used for
human risk assessment is shown in the following table.
Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fenpropidin for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and toxicological
factors assessment effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49 years of NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day... Acute RfD = 0.10 mg/kg/ Developmental toxicity
age). UFA = 10x.............. day. study (rabbit).
UFH = 10x.............. aPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/day.. LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1x........... based on [on increased
fetal (litter)
incidence of
malformations
(persistent truncus
arteriosus, severely
malaligned sternebrae)
and decreased male
fetal body weight in
the absence of
maternal effects.
(does dosed on GD 7-
28).
Acute dietary (Infants and children). NOAEL = 7 mg/kg/day.... Acute RfD = 0.07 mg/kg/ Developmental
UFA = 10x.............. day. neurotoxicity study
UFH = 10x.............. aPAD = 0.07 mg/kg/day.. (rat).
FQPA SF = 1x........... LOAEL = 27 mg/kg/day
based on [decreased
brain weight,
decreased radial
thickness of the
cortex at level 3, and
decreased vertical
height of the dentate
hilus at level 3 in
females on PND 72.
Chronic dietary (All populations).... NOAEL= 2.3 mg/kg/day... Chronic RfD = 0.023 mg/ Rat chronic/
UFA = 10x.............. kg/day. carcinogenicity.
UFH = 10x.............. cPAD = 0.023 mg/kg/day. LOAEL = 11.8 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1x........... based on [decreased
body weight and body
weight gains in
females, clinical
signs in males and
females (pustules on
tail, missing tail
tip, and dry, flaky
skin around mouth),
and microscopic liver
lesions (centrilobular
fat) in females.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).... Quantification of risk using a non-linear approach; i.e., RfD, for
fenpropidin will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to fenpropidin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point derived from observed dose-response data and used
to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human
exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.
LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animals to
humans (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. cPAD = chronic population adjusted dose. RfD = reference dose. N/
A = not applicable.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenpropidin, EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fenpropidin 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
[[Page 8094]]
exposure. Such effects were identified for fenpropidin. In estimating
acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat In America (NHANES/WWEIA)
conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA made the
following assumptions for the acute exposure assessment: Residues will
be present in bananas at the highest field trial value from banana pulp
(the edible portion of the fruit), 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA conducted from 2003-2008 as well. As to residue levels in food,
EPA made the following assumptions for the chronic exposure assessment:
Residues will be present in bananas at the average field trial values
from banana pulp, 100 PCT, and DEEM-FCID Version 3.16.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., the
Agency has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for
assessing cancer risk to fenpropidin. Cancer risk was assessed using
the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA used anticipated
residues in the dietary assessment for fenpropidin. One hundred PCT and
field trial residues were assumed for all food commodities. 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 proposed tolerance in
or on imported banana will not impact residues in the U.S. drinking
water. Therefore, a drinking water assessment was not needed.
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). Fenpropidin is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found fenpropidin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fenpropidin does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fenpropidin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The potential impact of in
utero fenpropidin exposure was investigated in two developmental
toxicity studies (one in the rat and one in the rabbit), a rat
developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) and a two multi-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. In the rat developmental toxicity
study, a quantitative susceptibility was observed; asymmetrically
shaped sternebrae 5 occurred at the high dose in the absence
of maternal toxicity. In the rabbit developmental study, a quantitative
susceptibility was noted with an increase in fetal (litter) incidence
of malformations (persistent truncus arteriosus and severely malaligned
sternebrae) in the absence of maternal toxicity. A qualitative
susceptibility was noted in the rat developmental neurotoxicity study
(DNT). In that study, the pup effects were: Increased number of dead
pups/cannibalized pups; decreased brain weight; decreased radial
thickness of the cortex (level 3); decreased male pup body weight
during the preweaning period; and decreased vertical height of the
dentate hilus (level 3) in PND 72 females. At the same dose in the
maternal animals, the only adverse effect observed was skin irritation
(scabbing and hair loss around the mouth and forelimbs). Qualitative
susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction study was based on the
decrease in pup body weights and delayed onset of sexual maturation
observed at the same dose that resulted in decreased maternal body
weight and increased incidence/severity of cortical fatty changes in
adrenals. The apparent enhanced sensitivity may be due to the limited
number of evaluations conducted in dams in these studies rather than a
true sensitivity of the young. Clear NOAELs were established for the
endpoints of concern, and these are the basis for the acute dietary
endpoints for females 13+ and for infants and children.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for fenpropidin is complete.
ii. The level of concern for neurotoxicity is low because there is
a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, the effects are well
characterized, the dose-response curve for these effects are well
characterized, and clear NOAELs have been identified.
iii. Though there is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the
rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies and qualitative
susceptibility in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats and the
DNT in rats, the endpoints and doses selected for risk assessment are
protective for these effects.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on conservative
[[Page 8095]]
high-end assumptions in the dietary exposure assessment, including the
use of 100 PCT assumptions and field trial residues. This is an import
tolerance; therefore, there is no drinking water, no residential, and
no occupational exposure.
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. Partially refined acute dietary exposure assessments
were performed using individual points of departure (PODs) for the two
population subgroups all infants and children, and females 13-49 years
old. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute
exposure, the acute dietary exposure to fenpropidin from food will
occupy 3% of the aPAD for infants <1 year old and <1% of the aPAD for
females 13-49 years old, for the populations at the 95th percentile of
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fenpropidin from food will utilize <1% of the cPAD for children 1-2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There
are no residential uses for fenpropidin.
3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Since the petitioner is
proposing a tolerance in/on imported banana and since fenpropidin is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term and
intermediate-term residential exposure, selection of incidental oral,
dermal, and inhalation point of departures for assessment of
residential exposure is not required.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. In the chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats, benign pancreatic cell adenomas
were seen in high-dose male rats. Tumors were not increased in the
mouse carcinogenicity study in either sex or in the female rat.
Mutagenicity is not of concern. Although the rat study showed that
fenpropidin was associated with benign pancreatic islet cell adenomas
in the male, the Agency determined that quantification of risk using a
non-linear approach; i.e., the chronic reference dose (RfD), for
fenpropidin will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to fenpropidin. The
conclusion is based on the following considerations: (i) The tumors
found were benign; (ii) the tumors are common age-related tumors; (iii)
the tumors occurred in only one sex in one species; (iv) fenpropidin is
not mutagenic; and (v) no carcinogenic response was seen in either sex
in the mouse.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenpropidin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (independent laboratory validation
trial (ILV) and liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric (LC-MS/
MS) detection method (Method No. REM 164.09)) are available to enforce
the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email
address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 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.
The Codex has not established MRLs for fenpropidin.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received from an anonymous commenter objecting to
increasing the tolerances. The comment contained no scientific data or
evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusions that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to fenpropidin residues.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances
Based on the analysis of the residue field trial data and
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculator procedure, a banana tolerance of 10 ppm for residues of
fenpropidin is appropriate. The Agency excluded residue values from one
of the field trials. The study author reported that samples from that
field trial may have been mislabeled as residues were higher in the
control samples; therefore, results from this test were not used in the
tolerance calculations. A tolerance for banana pulp is not required;
tolerances are to be established on the whole banana fruit.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fenpropidin,
(1-[3-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-2-methylpropyl]piperidine),
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on banana at 10 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
[[Page 8096]]
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 31, 2014.
Steven P. Bradbury,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Add Sec. 180.676 to subpart C, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.676 Fenpropidin; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for the residues of
fenpropidin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only fenpropidin (1-
[3-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-2-methylpropyl]piperidine).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banana \1\............................................. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of December 13, 2013.
(b) Section 18 tolerance. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2014-02936 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P