Fluopyram; Pesticide Tolerances, 75059-75065 [2014-29480]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Service continues to encourage mailers
to use one of the various merchandise
return services products for return
merchandise, instead of using Business
Reply Mail, which is primarily intended
for use with letter and flat sized pieces.
The Postal Service currently offers a
Merchandise Return Service (MRS) webtool (API) interface that permits all
mailers to create their MRS labels with
the required IMpb. The Postal Service
will continue to consider additional
enhancements for all return services to
make it easier for companies of all sizes
to do business with us.
DMM 505.1 applicable to all other mail
shapes.
Noncompliant Mailpieces: The Postal
Service will assess a per-piece IMpb
non-compliance fee on all BRM parcels
not bearing an IMpb and returned using
Priority Mail. The proposed effective
date for the per-piece fee on First-Class
Mail parcels being returns using BRM
would be predicated on the Postal
Service filing a notice with, and
receiving approval from, the Postal
Regulatory Commission. Thus, the noncompliance fee starts immediately with
Priority Mail pieces only.
III. Features of the Final Rule
The Postal Service continues to
enhance its operational capability to
scan IMpbs, encoded with routing and
tracking information, via automated
mail processing equipment and
Intelligent Mail scanning devices, and to
provide tracking information to the
mailers. Full implementation of the
Postal Service’s package visibility
strategy relies on the availability of
piece-level information provided
through the widespread use of IMpb.
Recent changes to mailing standards
now require the use of IMpb on all
commercial parcels (excluding parcels
paid for using BRM service). The Postal
Service now advances its package
visibility strategy by requiring a unique
IMpb on cartons, parcels, or Priority
Mail pieces of any shape, preprinted or
with labels affixed to be returned using
BRM service.
For the purposes of this requirement,
a BRM carton is defined as a parcelshaped mailpiece with a BRM label
either printed directly on the mailpiece
or affixed by the end user prior to
mailing. BRM permit holders would not
be required to submit shipping
manifests to support these mailpieces.
BRM labels would be required to use a
unique Mailer ID (MID) for BRM parcels
and a concatenated IMpb construct that
includes the ZIP+4®routing code. The
barcodes must be unique for 180 days.
BRM cartons and parcels will use IMpb
service type codes for Merchandise
Return Service for Priority Mail or FirstClass Mail®, based on the product used.
The Postal Service will provide an
exception process—for mailers of small
BRM cartons and parcels lacking
sufficient label space to apply an IMpb
barcode meeting the 3⁄4-inch height
requirement—to submit barcodes of at
least 1⁄2-inch in height for USPS testing
and approval. This exception process
will be administered by the National
Customer Service Center (NCSC), as part
of the normal package barcode approval
process. At this time, no other changes
would be made to the BRM standards in
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
Administrative practice and
procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 39 CFR part 111 is amended
as follows:
PART 111—[AMENDED]
75059
must also bear an IMpb prepared under
708.5.0 and meet the technical
standards in the Parcel Labeling Guide
available on RIBBS.
*
*
*
*
*
1.8 Format Elements
1.8.1 General
[Revise the text of the first and second
sentences of 1.8.1 to read as follows:]
Except for BRM labels for parcels as
provided under 1.7.10, all pieces of
BRM are subject to these format
elements. For all other BRM pieces, an
Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) is not
required, except for QBRM prices; if an
IMb is used, it must be printed and
placed as provided under 1.9 and as
shown in Exhibit 1.8.1. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2014–29479 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
part 111 continues to read as follows:
■
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301–
307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101,
401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–
3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632,
3633, and 5001.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
2. Revise the following sections of
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM), as follows:
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0662; FRL–9918–99]
■
Mailing Standards of the United States
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual
(DMM)
*
*
*
*
*
505 Return Services
1.0 Business Reply Mail (BRM)
*
*
*
*
*
1.4 General Information
1.4.1 Description
[Insert a new fourth sentence in 1.4.1
to read as follows:]
* * * All BRM labels intended for
use on cartons, mailpieces meeting the
physical characteristics of a parcel in
DMM 201, or a Priority Mail item of any
shape, must meet the standards under
1.7.10.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
1.7 Mailpiece Characteristics
*
*
*
*
*
[Insert new 1.7.10 to read as follows:]
1.7.10 Labels for Parcels
BRM labels intended for use on
cartons, mailpieces meeting the physical
standards of a parcel under DMM 201,
or a Priority Mail item of any shape,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Part 180
Fluopyram; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of fluopyram in
or on multiple commodities that are
identified and discussed later in this
document. Bayer CropScience requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
December 17, 2014, except for the
amendment to § 180.661 in amendatory
instruction number 3, which is effective
June 17, 2015. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before February 17, 2015, 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–2013–0662, 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), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
75060
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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:
Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main 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
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/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test
guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to https://
www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test
Methods and Guidelines.’’
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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–2013–0662 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before February 17, 2015. 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–
2013–0662, 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,
2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL–9910–29),
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 3F8190) by Bayer
CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W.
Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.661 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide fluopyram, N-[2-[3-chloro5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, including
its metabolites and degradates in or on
the following commodities: Beef,
byproducts at 0.70 parts per million
(ppm); beef, fat at 0.10 ppm; beef, meat
at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, group
16 at 1.5 ppm; cotton, gin by-products
at 0.80 ppm; cotton, seed at 0.01 ppm;
egg at 0.15 ppm; grain, cereal group 15,
except rice at 0.03 ppm; grain, cereal,
fodder, hay and straw, group 16 at 2.0
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ppm; hog, fat at 0.05 ppm; hog, meat at
0.10 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.70
ppm; milk at 0.10 ppm; peanuts at 0.09
ppm; poultry, fat at 0.10 ppm; poultry,
meat at 0.10 ppm; poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.20 ppm; and soybean,
seed at 0.04 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received on the notice
of filing. EPA’s response to these
comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA is issuing
some tolerances that vary from the
fluopyram tolerances as requested. The
reasons for these changes are explained
in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue . . .’’
Consistent with 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 fluopyram
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with fluopyram 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
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
Decreased body weight and liver
effects were the common and frequent
findings in the fluopyram subchronic
and chronic oral toxicity studies in rats,
mice, and dogs, and they appeared to be
the most sensitive effects. Liver effects
were characterized by increased liver
weight, hepatocellular hypertrophy,
hepatocellular vacuolation, increased
mitosis and hepatocellular necrosis.
Thyroid effects were found at dose
levels similar to those that produced
liver effects in rats and mice; these
effects consisted of follicular cell
hypertrophy, increased thyroid weight
and hyperplasia at dose levels greater
than or equal to 100 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Changes in
thyroid hormone levels were also seen
in a subchronic toxicity study. In male
mice, there was an increased incidence
of thyroid adenomas.
Although increased liver tumors were
observed in female rats in the
carcinogenicity study, EPA has
concluded that fluopyram is ‘‘Not Likely
to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ at doses
that do not induce cellular proliferation
in the liver or thyroid glands. This
classification was based on convincing
evidence that non-genotoxic modes of
action for liver tumors in rats and
thyroid tumors in mice have been
established and that the carcinogenic
effects have been demonstrated as a
result of a mode of action dependent on
activation of the CAR/PXR receptors.
Moreover, fluopyram is not genotoxic or
mutagenic.
Fluopyram is not a developmental
toxicant, nor did it adversely affect
reproductive parameters. No evidence of
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility
was observed in developmental studies
in rats and rabbits or in a multigeneration study in rats.
In an acute neurotoxicity study,
transient decreased motor activity was
seen only on the day of treatment, but
no other findings demonstrating
neurotoxicity were observed. In
addition, no neurotoxicity was observed
in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in
the presence of other systemic adverse
effects. Fluopyram did not produce
treatment-related effects on the immune
system.
Fluopyram has low acute toxicity via
the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes
of exposure. Fluopyram is not a skin or
eye irritant or sensitizer under the
conditions of the murine lymph node
assay.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by fluopyram 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 document
entitled ‘‘Fluopyram: Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use
as a Soil/In-Furrow Treatment for
Cotton and Peanut, and as a Seed
Treatment to Cotton and Soybean, Plus
a Proposal for Amended Inadvertent
Tolerances for the Crop Group 15 Cereal
Grains and Crop Group 16 Forage,
Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains’’ in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–
0662.
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
75061
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.
The details for selecting toxicity
endpoints and points of departure for
various exposure scenarios can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov in the
document entitled ‘‘Fluopyram: Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
New Use as a Soil/In-Furrow Treatment
for Cotton and Peanut, and as a Seed
Treatment to Cotton and Soybean, Plus
a Proposal for Amended Inadvertent
Tolerances for the Crop Group 15 Cereal
Grains and Crop Group 16 Forage,
Fodder, and Straw of Cereal Grains’’ in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–
0662.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for fluopyram used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUOPYRAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
An endpoint attributable to a single dose exposure has not been identified for this subpopulation.
Acute dietary (General population including infants and
children).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (Females 13–50
years of age).
NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Acute RfD = 0.50
mg/kg/day.
aPAD = 0.50 mg/kg/
day
Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats.
LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on decreased motor and locomotor activity in females. The LOAEL in males was 125 mg/
kg/day.
Chronic dietary (All populations)
NOAEL = 1.2 mg/kg/
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Chronic RfD = 0.012
mg/kg/day.
cPAD = 0.012 mg/
kg/day
Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity in Rats.
LOAEL = 6.0 mg/kg/day based on follicular cell hypertrophy in
the thyroid, and increased liver weight with gross pathological and histopathological findings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
75062
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR FLUOPYRAM FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation).
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not induce cellular proliferation in the
liver or thyroid glands.
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c =
chronic). 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).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluopyram, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
fluopyram tolerances in 40 CFR
180.661. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from fluopyram in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single
exposure. Such effects were identified
for fluopyram. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) 2003–2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey/What We
Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA included
tolerance residue levels, the assumption
of 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
processing factors (empirical and
default).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 2003–2008 NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food,
EPA included average field-trial residue
levels, the assumption of 100 PCT, and
processing factors (empirical and
default).
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluopyram does not pose
a cancer risk to humans at doses that do
not induce cellular proliferation in the
liver or thyroid glands. The chronic RfD
is derived using the NOAEL of 1.2
mg/kg/day as the ‘‘point of departure’’
which is below the dose of 11
mg/kg/day that caused cell proliferation
in the liver (i.e., a key event in tumor
formation) and the subsequent liver
tumors at a higher dose (89 mg/kg/day).
Therefore, the Agency believes the
chronic assessment will be protective of
any cancer risk; therefore, a separate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
dietary exposure assessment for the
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT
information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for fluopyram. Tolerance level residues
or average field-trial residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for fluopyram in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of fluopyram.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of fluopyram
for acute exposures are estimated to be
19.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 87.5 ppb for ground water.
The chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 4.9 ppb
for surface water and 76.8 ppb for
ground water. Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were
directly entered into the dietary
exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration
value of 87.5 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration of value 76.8 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).
Fluopyram is not registered for any
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 fluopyram to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and fluopyram does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluopyram 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 safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
The available developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits and the multigeneration reproduction in rats
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrate no evidence of increased
susceptibility in the developing or
young animals, which were exposed
during prenatal or postnatal periods.
Decreased fetal body weight was
observed at levels equal to or greater
than the maternal LOAEL in both rat
and rabbit developmental studies.
Likewise, body-weight effects were seen
in offspring at levels equal to the
parental LOAEL in the rat 2-generation
reproductive toxicity study.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for fluopyram
is complete.
ii. The fluopyram toxicology database
did not demonstrate evidence of
neurotoxicity. Although transient
decreases in motor and locomotor
activities in the acute neurotoxicity
study on the day of treatment and
limited use of hind-limbs and reduced
motor activity in the rat chronic/
carcinogenicity study were seen, there
were no other associated
neurobehavioral or histopathology
changes found in other studies in the
fluopyram toxicity database. The effects
seen in the chronic/carcinogenicity
study were in the presence of increased
mortality and morbidity such as general
pallor and appearance. Therefore, the
reduced motor activity and limited use
of hind-limbs seen in these two studies
were judged to be the consequence of
the systemic effects and not direct
neurotoxicity. Therefore, there is no
need for a developmental neurotoxicity
study or additional uncertainty factors
(UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that
fluopyram results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The acute and chronic dietary exposure
assessment was performed using
tolerance level residues or average fieldtrial residues for all crops. Both acute
and chronic assessments assumed 100
PCT and incorporated empirical or
default processing factors. The dietary
exposure assessment also assumed that
all drinking water will contain
fluopyram at the highest EDWC levels
modeled by the Agency for ground or
surface water. Residential exposures are
not expected. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to fluopyram in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by fluopyram.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
fluopyram will occupy 4.4% of the
aPAD for children 1–2 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to fluopyram from
food and water will utilize 38% of the
cPAD for all infants, the population
group receiving the greatest exposure.
There are no residential uses for
fluopyram. Based on the explanation in
Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of fluopyram is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Because there are no
residential uses, short-term residential
exposures are not likely to occur, and
therefore fluopyram is not expected to
pose a short-term aggregate risk.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Because there are no residential uses,
intermediate-term residential exposures
are not likely to occur, and therefore
fluopyram is not expected to pose an
intermediate-term aggregate risk.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A. and the lack
of a chronic risk, fluopyram is not
expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
75063
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to fluopyram
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The German multi-residue method
DFG Method S 19, a gas
chromatography with mass selective
detection (GC/MSD) method, is
adequate for the enforcement of
tolerances for fluopyram residues in or
on crop commodities, and a high
performance liquid chromatography
method with tandem mass spectrometry
detection (HPLC/MS/MS), Method
01079, is adequate for the enforcement
of tolerances for residues of fluopyram
and its metabolite, AE C656948benzamide, in livestock commodities.
The validated limit of quantitation
(LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for each analyte in
each matrix. The enforcement methods
for plant commodities (DFG Method
S19) and livestock commodities
(Method 01079) are deemed adequate as
enforcement methods. Adequate HPLC/
MS/MS methods were used for data
collection for crop and livestock
commodities. Thus, adequate
enforcement methodologies (DFG
Method S 19 and Method 01079) are
available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
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. As required by FFDCA section
408(b)(4), EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex) in its
tolerance decisions. 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 MRL for peanut is 0.03
mg/kg, which is lower than the U.S.
tolerance as amended for peanuts at
0.09 ppm. The U.S. peanut tolerance
cannot be harmonized at 0.03 because
following the approved label directions
could result in residues above 0.03 ppm.
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
75064
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
There are Codex MRLs for the
livestock commodities that are higher
than the U.S. tolerances for livestock
commodities. The lowering of the
tolerances for the cereal grains (group
15), and cereal grains forages, stovers,
and straws (group 16), all as rotational
crops, resulted in considerably less
fluopyram in the livestock diets than
under the previous tolerances. As a
result, the tolerances for the livestock
commodities were lowered. Calculated
values were adjusted slightly to
harmonize with Canada for all livestock
commodity tolerances/MRLs but could
not be harmonized with Codex MRLs,
which are generally higher (5X–60X),
because they are based on a different
residue definition, do not reflect the
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) plant commodity use patterns,
and do not consider the Maximum
Reasonably Based Diet.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Response to Comments
Two comments were received in
response to the notice of filing of Bayer
CropScience’s application. Both
commenters objected to the increase of
chemical residues generally and one
commenter expressed additional
concerns about the carcinogenic effects
of chemicals in general on humans. The
Agency understands the commenters’
concerns regarding toxic chemicals and
their potential effects on humans.
Pursuant to its authority under the
FFDCA, and as discussed further in this
preamble, EPA conducted a
comprehensive assessment of
fluopyram, which included an
assessment on the carcinogenic
potential of fluopyram. Based on its
assessment of the available data, the
Agency has concluded that fluopyram is
not likely to be a carcinogen and that
there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate
exposure to residues of fluopyram.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA is establishing tolerances for
cotton gin byproducts and for cereal
grain forage group 16 that differ from
the petitioned-for tolerances. The
petitioned-for tolerances differ from the
tolerances for cotton gin byproducts and
for cereal grain forage group 16. The
petition requested a tolerance of 0.80
ppm for cotton gin byproducts, but
based on residue data provided and
using the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
statistical calculation, EPA is
establishing a tolerance level of 0.70
ppm. The petition also requested two
different tolerances for the cereal grain
forage, fodder, stover, and straw group
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
16: 1.5 ppm for forage and 2.0 ppm for
hay, fodder, and straw. Only one
tolerance is possible for the group, so
the Agency is establishing the tolerance
at 2.0 ppm to cover residues within that
crop group.
EPA is establishing tolerances for fat,
meat, and meat byproducts of cattle,
hog, and poultry; egg; and milk lower
than the petition requested based on a
recalculation of the livestock dietary
burdens and adjusted upwards to
harmonize with Canada. The Agency is
revising the commodity terms to ‘‘cattle,
fat’’; ‘‘cattle, meat’’; and ‘‘cattle, meat
byproducts’’ to be consistent with the
food commodity vocabulary used for
tolerances.
E. Trade Considerations
A few of the tolerance actions result
in reductions of existing tolerance
levels; therefore, EPA is delaying the
effective date of the following tolerance
actions for 6 months to allow a
reasonable interval for producers in
exporting member countries of the
World Trade Organization’s Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement
to adapt to the requirements of these
modified tolerances. The tolerance
actions subject to the 6-month delay are
effective June 17, 2015 are as follows:
Modifying tolerances in § 180.661(a)(2)
for cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat
at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at
0.40 ppm; egg at 0.06 ppm; hog, fat at
0.02 ppm; hog, meat at 0.02 ppm; hog,
meat byproducts at 0.03 ppm; milk at
0.06 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm;
poultry, meat at 0.03 ppm; and poultry,
meat byproducts at 0.10 ppm; modifying
tolerances in § 180.661(d) for grain,
cereal, group 15, except rice at 1.5 ppm
to grain, cereal, except rice, group 15 at
0.03 ppm; establishing tolerances in
§ 180.661(d) for grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16 at 2.0 ppm;
and removing tolerances from
§ 180.661(d) for grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16, except rice;
forage at 4.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16, except rice;
hay, straw and stover at 7.0 ppm; and
soybean, seed at 0.10 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of fluopyram, N-[2-[3chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2pyridinyl]ethyl]-2(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, including
its metabolites and degradates in or on
the following commodities: Cattle, fat at
0.05 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.05 ppm;
cattle, meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm;
cotton, gin byproducts at 0.70 ppm;
cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm; egg
at 0.06 ppm; grain, cereal, except rice,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
group 15 at 0.03 ppm; grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 2.0
ppm; hog, fat at 0.02 ppm; hog, meat at
0.02 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.03
ppm; milk at 0.06 ppm; peanuts at 0.09
ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm; poultry,
meat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.10; and soybean, seed at
0.04 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 tolerances in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of 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
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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: December 9, 2014.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting 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. In § 180.661 (effective December 17,
2014):
■ a. Add alphabetically ‘‘Cotton, gin byproducts’’; ‘‘Cotton, undelinted seed’’;
and ‘‘Soybean, seed’’ to the table in
paragraph (a)(1).
■ b. Revise the entry for ‘‘Peanut’’ in the
table in paragraph (a)(1).
■ c. Remove the entries ‘‘Cotton, gin
byproducts’’ and ‘‘Cotton, undelinted
seed,’’ in the table in paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as
follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 180.661 Fluopyram; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:46 Dec 16, 2014
Jkt 235001
*
0.70
0.01
*
*
*
*
Peanut ......................................
*
0.09
*
*
*
*
Soybean, seed ..........................
*
0.04
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 180.661 (effective June 17,
2015):
■ a. Revise in the table in paragraph
(a)(2) the following entries listed in the
table below.
■ b. Add alphabetically ‘‘Grain, cereal,
except rice, group 15’’ and ‘‘Grain,
cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group
16’’ to the table in paragraph (d).
■ c. Remove the entries ‘‘Grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16,
except rice; forage’’; ‘‘Grain, cereal,
forage, fodder and straw, group 16,
except rice; hay, straw and stover’’; and
‘‘Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice’’ in
the table in paragraph (d).
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
§ 180.661 Fluopyram; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
Parts per
million
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts ...........
Egg ...........................................
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.06
*
0.02
0.02
0.03
*
*
*
*
Milk ...........................................
Poultry, fat ................................
Poultry, meat ............................
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
*
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.10
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
*
Parts per
million
*
*
*
*
Grain, cereal, except rice,
group 15 ................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder
and straw, group 16 ..............
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
*
*
Commodity
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–29480 Filed 12–16–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0352; FRL–9919–35]
*
*
Commodity
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
Cotton, gin byproducts .............
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
*
*
*
*
Hog, fat .....................................
Hog, meat .................................
Hog, meat byproducts ..............
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
Parts per
million
Commodity
75065
*
0.03
2.0
Natamycin; Amendment to an
Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the biochemical
pesticide natamycin in or on
pineapples. DSM Food Specialties B.V.
submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), requesting an amendment to
the exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance. This regulation eliminates
the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of
natamycin in or on pineapple.
DATES: This regulation is effective
December 17, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before February 17, 2015, 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–2014–0352, 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), West William
Jefferson Clinton 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:
Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17DER1.SGM
17DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75059-75065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29480]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0662; FRL-9918-99]
Fluopyram; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluopyram in or on multiple commodities that are identified and
discussed later in this document. Bayer CropScience requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective December 17, 2014, except for the
amendment to Sec. 180.661 in amendatory instruction number 3, which is
effective June 17, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be
received on or before February 17, 2015, 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-2013-0662, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room
[[Page 75060]]
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: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main 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 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. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0662 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
February 17, 2015. 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-2013-0662, 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, 2014 (79 FR 29729) (FRL-9910-
29), 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
3F8190) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.661 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide fluopyram, N-[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-
pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, including its
metabolites and degradates in or on the following commodities: Beef,
byproducts at 0.70 parts per million (ppm); beef, fat at 0.10 ppm;
beef, meat at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, group 16 at 1.5 ppm;
cotton, gin by-products at 0.80 ppm; cotton, seed at 0.01 ppm; egg at
0.15 ppm; grain, cereal group 15, except rice at 0.03 ppm; grain,
cereal, fodder, hay and straw, group 16 at 2.0 ppm; hog, fat at 0.05
ppm; hog, meat at 0.10 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.70 ppm; milk at
0.10 ppm; peanuts at 0.09 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.10 ppm; poultry, meat
at 0.10 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.20 ppm; and soybean, seed at
0.04 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
issuing some tolerances that vary from the fluopyram tolerances as
requested. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
.''
Consistent with 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 fluopyram including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluopyram 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
[[Page 75061]]
concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Decreased body weight and liver effects were the common and
frequent findings in the fluopyram subchronic and chronic oral toxicity
studies in rats, mice, and dogs, and they appeared to be the most
sensitive effects. Liver effects were characterized by increased liver
weight, hepatocellular hypertrophy, hepatocellular vacuolation,
increased mitosis and hepatocellular necrosis. Thyroid effects were
found at dose levels similar to those that produced liver effects in
rats and mice; these effects consisted of follicular cell hypertrophy,
increased thyroid weight and hyperplasia at dose levels greater than or
equal to 100 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Changes in thyroid
hormone levels were also seen in a subchronic toxicity study. In male
mice, there was an increased incidence of thyroid adenomas.
Although increased liver tumors were observed in female rats in the
carcinogenicity study, EPA has concluded that fluopyram is ``Not Likely
to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' at doses that do not induce cellular
proliferation in the liver or thyroid glands. This classification was
based on convincing evidence that non-genotoxic modes of action for
liver tumors in rats and thyroid tumors in mice have been established
and that the carcinogenic effects have been demonstrated as a result of
a mode of action dependent on activation of the CAR/PXR receptors.
Moreover, fluopyram is not genotoxic or mutagenic.
Fluopyram is not a developmental toxicant, nor did it adversely
affect reproductive parameters. No evidence of qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility was observed in developmental studies in
rats and rabbits or in a multi-generation study in rats.
In an acute neurotoxicity study, transient decreased motor activity
was seen only on the day of treatment, but no other findings
demonstrating neurotoxicity were observed. In addition, no
neurotoxicity was observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in the
presence of other systemic adverse effects. Fluopyram did not produce
treatment-related effects on the immune system.
Fluopyram has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. Fluopyram is not a skin or eye irritant
or sensitizer under the conditions of the murine lymph node assay.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluopyram as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document entitled ``Fluopyram: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Use as a Soil/In-Furrow Treatment for
Cotton and Peanut, and as a Seed Treatment to Cotton and Soybean, Plus
a Proposal for Amended Inadvertent Tolerances for the Crop Group 15
Cereal Grains and Crop Group 16 Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal
Grains'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0662.
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.
The details for selecting toxicity endpoints and points of
departure for various exposure scenarios can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled ``Fluopyram: Human Health
Risk Assessment for Proposed New Use as a Soil/In-Furrow Treatment for
Cotton and Peanut, and as a Seed Treatment to Cotton and Soybean, Plus
a Proposal for Amended Inadvertent Tolerances for the Crop Group 15
Cereal Grains and Crop Group 16 Forage, Fodder, and Straw of Cereal
Grains'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0662.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluopyram used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluopyram for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 An endpoint attributable to a single dose exposure has not been identified
years of age). for this subpopulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population NOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day Acute RfD = 0.50 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats.
including infants and children). UFA = 10x........... kg/day. LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x........... aPAD = 0.50 mg/kg/ decreased motor and locomotor
FQPA SF = 1x........ day. activity in females. The LOAEL in
males was 125 mg/kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 1.2 mg/kg/ Chronic RfD = 0.012 Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity
day. mg/kg/day. in Rats.
UFA = 10x........... cPAD = 0.012 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 6.0 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x........... day. follicular cell hypertrophy in
FQPA SF = 1x........ the thyroid, and increased liver
weight with gross pathological
and histopathological findings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75062]]
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not
induce cellular proliferation in the liver or thyroid glands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). 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).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluopyram, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing fluopyram tolerances in 40 CFR
180.661. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluopyram in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for fluopyram. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA included tolerance residue levels, the assumption of 100
percent crop treated (PCT), and processing factors (empirical and
default).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA included average field-
trial residue levels, the assumption of 100 PCT, and processing factors
(empirical and default).
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluopyram does not pose a cancer risk to humans at doses
that do not induce cellular proliferation in the liver or thyroid
glands. The chronic RfD is derived using the NOAEL of 1.2 mg/kg/day as
the ``point of departure'' which is below the dose of 11 mg/kg/day that
caused cell proliferation in the liver (i.e., a key event in tumor
formation) and the subsequent liver tumors at a higher dose (89 mg/kg/
day). Therefore, the Agency believes the chronic assessment will be
protective of any cancer risk; therefore, a separate dietary exposure
assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for fluopyram. Tolerance level residues or average field-trial residues
and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluopyram in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluopyram. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fluopyram
for acute exposures are estimated to be 19.4 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 87.5 ppb for ground water. The chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.9 ppb for surface
water and 76.8 ppb for ground water. Modeled estimates of drinking
water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure
model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value
of 87.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 76.8
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). Fluopyram 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 fluopyram
to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
fluopyram does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has assumed that fluopyram 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
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the multi-generation
reproduction in rats
[[Page 75063]]
demonstrate no evidence of increased susceptibility in the developing
or young animals, which were exposed during prenatal or postnatal
periods. Decreased fetal body weight was observed at levels equal to or
greater than the maternal LOAEL in both rat and rabbit developmental
studies. Likewise, body-weight effects were seen in offspring at levels
equal to the parental LOAEL in the rat 2-generation reproductive
toxicity study.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for fluopyram is complete.
ii. The fluopyram toxicology database did not demonstrate evidence
of neurotoxicity. Although transient decreases in motor and locomotor
activities in the acute neurotoxicity study on the day of treatment and
limited use of hind-limbs and reduced motor activity in the rat
chronic/carcinogenicity study were seen, there were no other associated
neurobehavioral or histopathology changes found in other studies in the
fluopyram toxicity database. The effects seen in the chronic/
carcinogenicity study were in the presence of increased mortality and
morbidity such as general pallor and appearance. Therefore, the reduced
motor activity and limited use of hind-limbs seen in these two studies
were judged to be the consequence of the systemic effects and not
direct neurotoxicity. Therefore, there is no need for a developmental
neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account
for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that fluopyram results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute and chronic dietary exposure assessment was
performed using tolerance level residues or average field-trial
residues for all crops. Both acute and chronic assessments assumed 100
PCT and incorporated empirical or default processing factors. The
dietary exposure assessment also assumed that all drinking water will
contain fluopyram at the highest EDWC levels modeled by the Agency for
ground or surface water. Residential exposures are not expected. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure to fluopyram in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by fluopyram.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fluopyram will occupy 4.4% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluopyram from food and water will utilize 38% of the cPAD for all
infants, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There
are no residential uses for fluopyram. Based on the explanation in Unit
III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential
exposure to residues of fluopyram is not expected.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there
are no residential uses, short-term residential exposures are not
likely to occur, and therefore fluopyram is not expected to pose a
short-term aggregate risk.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because there are no residential uses, intermediate-term
residential exposures are not likely to occur, and therefore fluopyram
is not expected to pose an intermediate-term aggregate risk.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A. and the lack of a chronic risk, fluopyram 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 fluopyram residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The German multi-residue method DFG Method S 19, a gas
chromatography with mass selective detection (GC/MSD) method, is
adequate for the enforcement of tolerances for fluopyram residues in or
on crop commodities, and a high performance liquid chromatography
method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (HPLC/MS/MS), Method
01079, is adequate for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of
fluopyram and its metabolite, AE C656948-benzamide, in livestock
commodities. The validated limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.01 ppm for
each analyte in each matrix. The enforcement methods for plant
commodities (DFG Method S19) and livestock commodities (Method 01079)
are deemed adequate as enforcement methods. Adequate HPLC/MS/MS methods
were used for data collection for crop and livestock commodities. Thus,
adequate enforcement methodologies (DFG Method S 19 and Method 01079)
are available to enforce the tolerance expression.
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. As required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(4), EPA considers the international maximum
residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission
(Codex) in its tolerance decisions. 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 MRL for peanut is 0.03 mg/kg, which is lower than the
U.S. tolerance as amended for peanuts at 0.09 ppm. The U.S. peanut
tolerance cannot be harmonized at 0.03 because following the approved
label directions could result in residues above 0.03 ppm.
[[Page 75064]]
There are Codex MRLs for the livestock commodities that are higher
than the U.S. tolerances for livestock commodities. The lowering of the
tolerances for the cereal grains (group 15), and cereal grains forages,
stovers, and straws (group 16), all as rotational crops, resulted in
considerably less fluopyram in the livestock diets than under the
previous tolerances. As a result, the tolerances for the livestock
commodities were lowered. Calculated values were adjusted slightly to
harmonize with Canada for all livestock commodity tolerances/MRLs but
could not be harmonized with Codex MRLs, which are generally higher
(5X-60X), because they are based on a different residue definition, do
not reflect the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) plant
commodity use patterns, and do not consider the Maximum Reasonably
Based Diet.
C. Response to Comments
Two comments were received in response to the notice of filing of
Bayer CropScience's application. Both commenters objected to the
increase of chemical residues generally and one commenter expressed
additional concerns about the carcinogenic effects of chemicals in
general on humans. The Agency understands the commenters' concerns
regarding toxic chemicals and their potential effects on humans.
Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, and as discussed further in
this preamble, EPA conducted a comprehensive assessment of fluopyram,
which included an assessment on the carcinogenic potential of
fluopyram. Based on its assessment of the available data, the Agency
has concluded that fluopyram is not likely to be a carcinogen and that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to residues of fluopyram.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA is establishing tolerances for cotton gin byproducts and for
cereal grain forage group 16 that differ from the petitioned-for
tolerances. The petitioned-for tolerances differ from the tolerances
for cotton gin byproducts and for cereal grain forage group 16. The
petition requested a tolerance of 0.80 ppm for cotton gin byproducts,
but based on residue data provided and using the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) statistical calculation,
EPA is establishing a tolerance level of 0.70 ppm. The petition also
requested two different tolerances for the cereal grain forage, fodder,
stover, and straw group 16: 1.5 ppm for forage and 2.0 ppm for hay,
fodder, and straw. Only one tolerance is possible for the group, so the
Agency is establishing the tolerance at 2.0 ppm to cover residues
within that crop group.
EPA is establishing tolerances for fat, meat, and meat byproducts
of cattle, hog, and poultry; egg; and milk lower than the petition
requested based on a recalculation of the livestock dietary burdens and
adjusted upwards to harmonize with Canada. The Agency is revising the
commodity terms to ``cattle, fat''; ``cattle, meat''; and ``cattle,
meat byproducts'' to be consistent with the food commodity vocabulary
used for tolerances.
E. Trade Considerations
A few of the tolerance actions result in reductions of existing
tolerance levels; therefore, EPA is delaying the effective date of the
following tolerance actions for 6 months to allow a reasonable interval
for producers in exporting member countries of the World Trade
Organization's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement to adapt
to the requirements of these modified tolerances. The tolerance actions
subject to the 6-month delay are effective June 17, 2015 are as
follows: Modifying tolerances in Sec. 180.661(a)(2) for cattle, fat at
0.05 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.40
ppm; egg at 0.06 ppm; hog, fat at 0.02 ppm; hog, meat at 0.02 ppm; hog,
meat byproducts at 0.03 ppm; milk at 0.06 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03
ppm; poultry, meat at 0.03 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; modifying tolerances in Sec. 180.661(d) for grain, cereal, group
15, except rice at 1.5 ppm to grain, cereal, except rice, group 15 at
0.03 ppm; establishing tolerances in Sec. 180.661(d) for grain,
cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 2.0 ppm; and removing
tolerances from Sec. 180.661(d) for grain, cereal, forage, fodder and
straw, group 16, except rice; forage at 4.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage,
fodder and straw, group 16, except rice; hay, straw and stover at 7.0
ppm; and soybean, seed at 0.10 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluopyram, N-
[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, including its metabolites and degradates in
or on the following commodities: Cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat
at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.40 ppm; cotton, gin
byproducts at 0.70 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm; egg at
0.06 ppm; grain, cereal, except rice, group 15 at 0.03 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16 at 2.0 ppm; hog, fat at 0.02
ppm; hog, meat at 0.02 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.03 ppm; milk at
0.06 ppm; peanuts at 0.09 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat
at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.10; and soybean, seed at
0.04 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 tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of 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
[[Page 75065]]
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: December 9, 2014.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting 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. In Sec. 180.661 (effective December 17, 2014):
0
a. Add alphabetically ``Cotton, gin by-products''; ``Cotton, undelinted
seed''; and ``Soybean, seed'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Revise the entry for ``Peanut'' in the table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
c. Remove the entries ``Cotton, gin byproducts'' and ``Cotton,
undelinted seed,'' in the table in paragraph (d).
The additions and revision read as follows:
Sec. 180.661 Fluopyram; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Parts per
Commodity million
* * * * *
Cotton, gin byproducts..................................... 0.70
Cotton, undelinted seed.................................... 0.01
* * * * *
Peanut..................................................... 0.09
* * * * *
Soybean, seed.............................................. 0.04
* * * * *
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 180.661 (effective June 17, 2015):
0
a. Revise in the table in paragraph (a)(2) the following entries listed
in the table below.
0
b. Add alphabetically ``Grain, cereal, except rice, group 15'' and
``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16'' to the table in
paragraph (d).
0
c. Remove the entries ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group
16, except rice; forage''; ``Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw,
group 16, except rice; hay, straw and stover''; and ``Grain, cereal,
group 15, except rice'' in the table in paragraph (d).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 180.661 Fluopyram; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
Parts per
Commodity million
Cattle, fat................................................ 0.05
Cattle, meat............................................... 0.05
Cattle, meat byproducts.................................... 0.40
Egg........................................................ 0.06
* * * * *
Hog, fat................................................... 0.02
Hog, meat.................................................. 0.02
Hog, meat byproducts....................................... 0.03
* * * * *
Milk....................................................... 0.06
Poultry, fat............................................... 0.03
Poultry, meat.............................................. 0.03
Poultry, meat byproducts................................... 0.10
* * * * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
Parts per
Commodity million
* * * * *
Grain, cereal, except rice, group 15....................... 0.03
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16.......... 2.0
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-29480 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P