Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances, 68150-68159 [2021-25091]
Download as PDF
68150
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
paragraph (d)(4) of this section to be cut
in one harvest operation where the
responsible official determines that
larger harvest openings are necessary to
help achieve desired ecological
conditions in the plan area. If so,
standards for exceptions shall include
the particular conditions under which
the larger size is permitted and must set
a maximum size permitted under those
conditions.
(ii) Plan components may allow for
size limits exceeding those established
in paragraphs (d)(4) introductory text
and (d)(4)(i) of this section on an
individual timber sale basis after 60
days public notice and review by the
regional forester.
(iii) The plan maximum size for
openings to be cut in one harvest
operation shall not apply to the size of
openings harvested as a result of natural
catastrophic conditions such as fire,
insect and disease attack, or windstorm
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(F)(iv)).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 23, 2021.
Meryl Harrell,
Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources
& Environment.
[FR Doc. 2021–25947 Filed 11–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 380
[Docket No. 19–CRB–0005–WR (2021–2025)
COLA (2022)]
Cost of Living Adjustment to Royalty
Rates for Webcaster Statutory License
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB),
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule; cost of living
adjustment.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Royalty Judges
announce a cost of living adjustment
(COLA) in the royalty rates that
commercial and noncommercial
noninteractive webcasters pay for
eligible transmissions pursuant to the
statutory licenses for the public
performance of and for the making of
ephemeral reproductions of sound
recordings.
DATES:
Effective date: January 1, 2022.
Applicability dates: These rates are
applicable to the period January 1, 2022,
through December 31, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Blaine, (202) 707–7658,
crb@loc.gov.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
Sections
112(e) and 114(f) of the Copyright Act,
title 17 of the United States Code, create
statutory licenses for certain digital
performances of sound recordings and
the making of ephemeral reproductions
to facilitate transmission of those sound
recordings. On October 27, 2021, the
Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges)
adopted final regulations governing the
rates and terms of copyright royalty
payments under those licenses for the
license period 2021–2025 for
performances of sound recordings via
eligible transmissions by commercial
and noncommercial noninteractive
webcasters. See 86 FR 59452.
Pursuant to those regulations, at least
25 days before January 1 of each year
from 2022 to 2025, the Judges shall
publish in the Federal Register notice of
a COLA applicable to the royalty fees for
performances of sound recordings via
eligible transmissions by commercial
and noncommercial noninteractive
webcasters. 37 CFR 380.10.
The adjustment in the royalty fee
shall be based on a calculation of the
percentage increase in the CPIU from
the CPIU published in November 2020
(260.229), according to the formula: For
subscription performances, (1 +
(Cy¥260.229)/260.229) × $0.0026; for
nonsubscription performances, (1 +
(Cy¥260.229)/260.229) $0.0021; for
performances by a noncommercial
webcaster in excess of 159,140 ATH per
month, (1 + (Cy¥260.229)/260.229) ×
$0.0021; where Cy is the CPI-U
published by the Secretary of Labor
before December 1 of the preceding
year. The adjusted rate shall be rounded
to the nearest fourth decimal place. 37
CFR 380.10(c). The CPIU published by
the Secretary of Labor from the most
recent index published before December
1, 2021, is 276.589.1 Applying the
formula in 37 CFR 380.10(c) and
rounding to the nearest fourth decimal
place results in an increase in the rates
for 2022.
The 2022 rate for eligible
transmissions of sound recordings by
commercial webcasters is $0.0028 per
subscription performance and $0.0022
per nonsubscription performance.
Application of the increase to rates for
noncommercial webcasters results in a
2022 rate of $0.0022 per performance for
all digital audio transmissions in excess
of 159,140 ATH in a month on a
channel or station.
As provided in 37 CFR 380.10(d), the
royalty fee for making ephemeral
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 This
CPI-U was announced on November 10,
2021, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its
Consumer Price Index News Release—Consumer
Price Index, available at https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/cpi.htm at Table 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
recordings under section 112 of the
Copyright Act to facilitate digital
transmission of sound recordings under
section 114 of the Copyright Act is
included in the section 114 royalty fee
and comprises 5% of the total fee.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 380
Copyright; Sound recordings.
Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Judges amend part 380 of title 37 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 380—RATES AND TERMS FOR
TRANSMISSIONS BY ELIGIBLE
NONSUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND
NEW SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND
FOR THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL
REPRODUCTIONS TO FACILITATE
THOSE TRANSMISSIONS
1. The authority citation for part 380
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 114(f),
804(b)(3).
2. Section 380.10 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 380.10 Royalty fees for the public
performance of sound recordings and the
making of ephemeral recordings.
(a) Royalty fees. For the year 2022,
Licensees must pay royalty fees for all
Eligible Transmissions of sound
recordings at the following rates:
(1) Commercial webcasters: $0.0028
per Performance for subscription
services and $0.0022 per Performance
for nonsubscription services.
(2) Noncommercial webcasters:
$1,000 per year for each channel or
station and $0.0022 per Performance for
all digital audio transmissions in excess
of 159,140 ATH in a month on a
channel or station.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 23, 2021.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2021–26062 Filed 11–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0352 and EPA–HQ–
OPP–2019–0560; FRL–8945–01–OCSPP]
Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of bifenthrin in
or on multiple commodities which are
identified and discussed later in this
document. The Interregional Project
Number 4 (IR–4) and FMC Corporation
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
December 1, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before January 31, 2022 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 dockets for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0352 and
EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–0560, are 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.
Due to the public health concerns
related to COVID–19, the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is
closed to visitors with limited
exceptions. The staff continues to
provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the
latest status information on EPA/DC
services and docket access, visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
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:
SUMMARY:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
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 Publishing Office’s eCFR 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 numbers EPA–HQ–
OPP–2016–0352 and EPA–HQ–OPP–
2019–0560 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
January 31, 2022. 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 numbers EPA–HQ–OPP–
2016–0352 and EPA–HQ–OPP–2019–
0560, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68151
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets. 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 October 18,
2016 (81 FR 71668) (FRL–9952–19),
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 6E8482) by IR–4,
Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide bifenthrin, (2methyl [1,1′-biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or
on apple, wet pomace at 1.3 parts per
million (ppm); avocado at 0.50 ppm;
berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G at
3.0 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 4–16B at 15 ppm; caneberry
subgroup 13–07A at 1.0 ppm; fruit,
citrus, group 10–10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit,
pome, group 11–10, except mayhaw, at
0.70 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F
at 0.20 ppm; nut, tree, group 14–12 at
0.05 ppm; peach, subgroup 12–12B at
0.70 ppm; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–
10B at 0.50 ppm; pomegranate at 0.50
ppm; and tomato, subgroup 8–10A at
0.15 ppm. The October 18, 2016,
Federal Register document and the
Notice of Filing in docket number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2016–0352 identified the
requested tolerance for tomato subgroup
8–10A as 0.30 ppm. However, IR–4’s
submitted petition identified a tolerance
of 0.15 ppm for tomato subgroup 8–10A.
When there is a discrepancy between a
tolerance in the submitted Notice of
Filing and the submitted petition, EPA
uses the tolerance in the petition as the
petitioned-for tolerance, which is 0.15
ppm for tomato subgroup 8–10A.
Additionally, the petition requested,
upon approval of the above tolerances,
to remove the existing tolerances in 40
CFR 180.442(a) in or on Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B at 3.5 ppm;
caneberry, subgroup 13A at 1.0 ppm;
eggplant 0.05 ppm; fruit, citrus, group
10 at 0.05 ppm; grape at 0.20 ppm;
groundcherry at 0.5 ppm; nut, tree,
group 14 at 0.05 ppm; okra at 0.50 ppm;
pear at 0.5 ppm; pepino at 0.5 ppm;
pepper, bell at 0.5 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm;
strawberry at 3.0 ppm; tomato at 0.15
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
68152
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
ppm; and turnip, greens at 3.5 ppm.
Finally, the petition requested upon
approval of the above tolerances, to
remove the existing time-limited
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442(b) in or
on, apple at 0.5 ppm; nectarine at 0.5
ppm; and peach at 0.5 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by FMC Corporation
and Makhteshim Agan of North
America, Inc. (ADAMA), the registrants,
which is available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
In the Federal Register of February
11, 2020 (85 FR 7708) (FRL–10005–02),
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 8F8704) by FMC
Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19104. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the bifenthrin, (2-methyl
[1,1′-biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2-chloro3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or
on sunflower (crop subgroup 20B) at
0.01 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
FMC Corporation, the registrant, which
is available in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petitions, EPA is
establishing some tolerances that vary
from what was requested. The reasons
for these changes are explained in Unit
IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
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 bifenthrin
including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action.
EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks
associated with bifenthrin 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 predominant effects seen in most
of the bifenthrin experimental
toxicology studies were behavioral
changes characteristic of Type I
pyrethroids, such as muscle tremors,
which are consistent with its mode-ofaction (MOA) to activate sodium
channels. Additional effects seen in one
or more studies included: muscle
twitching, decreased grip strength,
altered landing foot splay, depressed
respiration, increased grooming counts,
loss of muscle coordination, staggered
gait, exaggerated hind limb flexion, and
convulsions at high doses. Decreased
body weight and food consumption
were also noted in repeat-dosing dietary
studies.
In developmental toxicity studies
involving rats and rabbits, maternal
toxicity was observed (neurological
effects) while no developmental effects
of biological significance were observed.
In the 2-generation reproduction dietary
study in the rat, tremors were noted
only in females of both generations,
with one parental generation rat
observed to have clonic convulsions,
and no observed effects in the offspring.
A developmental neurotoxicity study
was also conducted. Clinical signs of
neurotoxicity were observed in both the
adults and offspring at the same dose
levels; therefore, there is no indication
of increased qualitative or quantitative
susceptibility in the young.
Bifenthrin is classified as a Group C—
‘‘possible human carcinogen,’’ based on
an increased incidence of urinary
bladder tumors in mice. However, EPA
has determined that quantification of
risk using a non-linear approach (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
reference dose (RfD)) will adequately
account for all chronic toxicity,
including potential carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to bifenthrin
for the following reasons. First, the
bladder tumors may not be uncommon
in mice and are not likely to be
malignant. Second, these tumors were
observed only in male mice at the
highest dose. Third, no evidence of
carcinogenicity was observed in
bifenthrin carcinogenicity studies in
rats. Finally, there is a low concern for
mutagenicity based on the overall
results of the available mutagenicity
tests of bifenthrin.
A complete discussion of the
toxicological profile for bifenthrin and
the Agency’s cancer conclusion as well
as specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by bifenthrin as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found in the
documents titled ‘‘Bifenthrin: Revised
Human Health Risk Assessment for the
Requested Section 3 Registration of
Bifenthrin on Pome Fruit Group 11–10
(except Mayhaw), Peach Subgroup 12–
12B, Avocado, Pomegranate, Brassica
Leafy Greens Subgroup 4–16B; and Crop
Group Conversions/Expansions for
Tomato Subgroup 8–10A, Pepper/
Eggplant Subgroup 8–10B, Small Vine
Climbing Fruit Subgroup 13–07F, Low
Growing Berry Subgroup 13–07G, Citrus
Fruit Group 10 to Citrus Fruit Group
10–10, Caneberry Subgroup 13A to
Caneberry Subgroup 13–07A, and Tree
Nut Group 14 to Tree Nut Group 14–12’’
(hereinafter ‘‘Bifenthrin Multiple Crop
Human Health Risk Assessment’’) and
‘‘Bifenthrin. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed New Use
on Sunflower Crop Subgroup 20B’’ in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–
0352 in regulations.gov.
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/
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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://
www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for bifenthrin used for human
risk assessment can be found in the
Bifenthrin Multiple Crop Human Health
Risk Assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to bifenthrin, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing
bifenthrin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from
bifenthrin 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
bifenthrin. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used 2003–2008 food
consumption data from the United
States Department of Agriculture’s
(USDA’s) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in
America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, the acute
assessment was refined using
distributions and point estimates
derived from pesticide data program
(PDP) monitoring data, field trial data,
percent crop treated (PCT) data, and
empirical processing factors.
ii. Chronic exposure. A chronic
dietary endpoint has not been selected
for bifenthrin because repeated
exposure does not result in a POD lower
than that resulting from acute exposure;
therefore, the acute dietary risk
assessment is protective of chronic
dietary risk. However, since there are
residential uses of bifenthrin, a refined
chronic dietary exposure assessment
was conducted to calculate average
(food and drinking water) exposure
estimates representing background
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
dietary exposure to support the
bifenthrin aggregate risk assessment.
The assessment was refined using point
estimates derived from PDP monitoring
data, field trial data, PCT data, and
empirical processing factors.
iii. Cancer. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has determined that the
acute reference dose (RfD) will
adequately account for all repeated
exposure/chronic toxicity, including
potential carcinogenicity, which could
result from exposure to bifenthrin. A
separate cancer exposure assessment
was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA
to use available data and information on
the anticipated residue levels of
pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have
been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified, or
left in effect, demonstrating that the
levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section
408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states
that the Agency may use data on the
actual percent of food treated for
assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, and the exposure
estimate does not understate exposure
for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide
for periodic evaluation of any estimates
used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F),
EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The acute dietary assessment used the
following maximum PCT estimates:
Almonds: 40%, artichoke: 65%, green
beans (fresh & succulent): 60%,
blueberries (all bushberries): 35%,
broccoli: 25%, Brussel sprouts: 5%,
cabbage: 50%, caneberries: 55%, canola:
25%, cantaloupes: 55%, carrots: 5%,
cauliflower: 2.5%, celery: 45%, citrus
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68153
(all others): 2.5%, corn: 10%, cotton:
20%, cucumbers: 35%, dry beans/peas:
5%, eggplant: 45%, grapefruit: 2.5%,
grapes, juice: 10%, grapes, table: 2.5%,
grapes, wine: 5%, hazelnuts: 5%,
honeydews: 90%, kumquat: 2.5%,
lemons: 2.5%, lettuce; 15%, lima beans:
40%, lime: 2.5%, okra: 45%, onions:
5%, oranges, 10%, peanuts: 20%, pears:
2.5%, green peas (fresh & succulent):
50%, pecans: 20%, peppers (all); 30%,
pistachios: 55%, potatoes: 15%,
pummelo: 2.5%, pumpkins: 25%,
soybeans: 10%, spinach: 15%, squash:
25%, strawberries: 70%, sweet corn:
50%, tangerines: 2.5%, tomatoes: 45%,
walnuts: 25%, and watermelons: 20%.
The acute dietary assessment also used
the following maximum PCT estimates
for some of the new uses: apples: 55%,
avocados: 50%, nectarines: 65%,
peaches: 35%, and pomegranates: 60%.
The following average PCT estimates
for bifenthrin were used to refine the
chronic dietary risk assessment for the
following crops: Almonds: 25%,
artichoke: 30%, green beans (fresh &
succulent): 55%, blueberries (all
bushberries): 10%, broccoli: 15%,
Brussel sprouts: 1%, cabbage: 30%,
caneberries: 45%, canola: 10%,
cantaloupes: 50%, carrots: 2.5%,
cauliflower: 1%, celery: 10%, citrus (all
others): 1%, corn: 5%, cotton: 15%,
cucumbers: 20%, dry beans/peas: 2.5%,
eggplant: 25%, grapefruit: 1%, grapes,
juice: 2.5%, grapes, table: 1%, grapes,
wine: 2.5%, hazelnuts: 1%, honeydews:
25%, kumquat: 1%, lemons: 1%,
lettuce; 10%, lima beans: 20%, lime:
1%, okra: 25%, onions: 2.5%, oranges,
1%, peanuts: 10%, pears: 1%, green
peas (fresh & succulent): 30%, pecans:
10%, peppers (all); 20%, pistachios:
35%, potatoes: 10%, pummelo: 1%,
pumpkins: 15%, soybeans: 5%, spinach:
2.5%, squash: 20%, strawberries: 55%,
sweet corn: 40%, tangerines: 1%,
tomatoes: 25%, walnuts: 15%, and
watermelons: 15%. The chronic dietary
assessment also used the following
maximum PCT estimates for some of the
new uses: apples: 50%, avocados: 50%,
nectarines: 65%, peaches: 35%, and
pomegranates: 60%.
A default of 100% CT was used for all
livestock and game commodities,
freshwater finfish, and all other
registered uses where no maximum/
average PCT estimates were available.
All other commodities included for
depicting food handling establishment
(FHE) uses were refined with the upper
bound estimate of 4.65% for nonfumigant treatments made in FHEs.
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
68154
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
proprietary market surveys, and
California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop
combination for the most recent 10
years. EPA uses an average PCT for
chronic dietary risk analysis and a
maximum PCT for acute dietary risk
analysis. The average PCT figure for
each existing use is derived by
combining available public and private
market survey data for that use,
averaging across all observations, and
rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average
PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%.
In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the
average PCT value, respectively. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of
available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and
rounded up to the nearest multiple of
5%, except where the maximum PCT is
less than 2.5%, in which case, the
Agency uses less than 2.5% as the
maximum PCT.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated
is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations are taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which bifenthrin may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for bifenthrin in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of bifenthrin.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/aboutwater-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
EPA used the limit of solubility as the
drinking water input, i.e., the maximum
possible residues that could occur in
drinking water based on the chemical
properties of the compound. EPA used
the modeled EDWCs directly in the
dietary exposure model to account for
the contribution of bifenthrin residues
in drinking water as follows: 0.014 ppb
was used in the acute assessment and
0.014 ppb was used in the chronic
assessment.
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). Bifenthrin
is currently registered for the following
uses that could result in residential
exposures: Lawns/turf, indoor
environments, gardens/trees, pets (dog
shampoo), termiticide and indoor/
outdoor surface treatment for various
residential and commercial premises.
EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions. There
is the potential for residential handler
and post-application exposures from the
use of bifenthrin. These exposures were
assessed using the 2012 Residential
SOPs and submitted chemical-specific
residue data [bifenthrin-specific turf
transferable residue (TTR; liquid and
granular) and dislodgeable foliar residue
(DFR; liquid) data are available]. EPA
did not quantitatively assess the outdoor
residential handler uses in/around
home foundations, outdoor impervious
surfaces, wood piles/structures and
fence posts. Residential handler
exposure assessments were performed
for adult homeowners applying
bifenthrin ready-to-use products
(aerosol, hose-end sprayers and dog
shampoos); mixing/loading/applying
liquid concentrates; loading/applying
granular formulations and applying dust
formulations. The application rates for
these uses that were quantitatively
assessed are equal to or higher than
those outdoor uses and thus are
protective of the outdoor uses. Dermal
and inhalation risk estimates were
combined in this assessment because
the toxicological effects for these
exposure routes were the same. A total
aggregate risk index (ARI) was used
because the levels of concern (LOCs) for
dermal exposure (100) and inhalation
exposure (30) are different. ARIs of less
than 1 are risk estimates of concern. The
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ARIs were calculated as follows.
Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) = 1÷
[(Dermal LOC ÷ Dermal MOE) +
(Inhalation LOC ÷ Inhalation MOE)]. All
exposures are short-term in nature.
There are no dermal or inhalation risk
estimates of concern for residential
handlers for the registered uses of
bifenthrin.
Post-application exposure was
assessed for broadcast applications to
turf, gardens/trees, indoor environments
(carpets and hard floor) and treated pets.
Residential post-application exposures
are expected to be short-, intermediateor long-term in duration. Because the
single dose and repeat dosing bifenthrin
studies show that repeat exposures do
not result in lower points of departure,
the residential assessments are
conducted as a series of acute exposures
and the same endpoint is used
regardless of duration. Therefore, the
acute/single day residential postapplication assessments are protective
of expected longer-term exposures.
Dermal and incidental oral risk
estimates were combined because the
toxicological effects for these exposure
routes were similar [combined Margin
of Exposure (MOE) approach used since
LOCs are the same].
There were some residential postapplication risk estimates of concern
identified previously in Registration
Review. Specifically, dermal postapplication risks were identified for a
liquid formulation product with a
maximum application rate of 2.3 lb ai/
A, and risks were identified for episodic
ingestion of granules at application rates
greater than 0.34 lb ai/A. As a result,
during Registration Review, some
bifenthrin labels were amended or
canceled to address these risk concerns.
The product label for the liquid
formulation with the high application
rate of 2.3 lb ai/A, which was canceled
as of July 2021 (EPA Reg. #279–3152),
was never commercialized. Because that
product was never sold or distributed,
there are no exposures from that
product for consideration in the
aggregate risk assessment. In addition,
25 granular products were either
canceled or amended to require
watering in of the product after
application when application rates were
greater than 0.34 lb ai/A. Although these
label changes reduce the risks from
ingestion of granules, that use is not
included in the aggregate assessment
because it is considered an episodic
event and not a routine behavior.
The following residential exposure
scenarios were selected for aggregation
and represent the worst-case risk
estimates: Adults contacting treated
gardens (dermal exposure); children 1 to
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
<2 years old contacting treated turf
(dermal and incidental oral exposure at
the 0.23 lb ai/A rate); children 6 to <11
years old contacting treated gardens
(dermal exposure); and children 11 to
16 years old golfing on treated turf
(dermal exposure).
Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticidescience-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/
standard-operating-proceduresresidential-pesticide.
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.’’
The Agency has determined that the
pyrethroids and pyrethrins share a
common mechanism of toxicity (https://
www.regulations.gov; EPA–HQ–OPP–
2008–0489–0006). As explained in that
document, the members of this group
share the ability to interact with voltagegated sodium channels ultimately
leading to neurotoxicity. In 2011, after
establishing a common mechanism
grouping for the pyrethroids and
pyrethrins, the Agency conducted a
cumulative risk assessment (CRA)
which is available at https://
www.regulations.gov; EPA–HQ–OPP–
2011–0746. In that document, the
Agency concluded that cumulative
exposures to pyrethroids (based on
pesticidal uses registered at the time the
assessment was conducted) did not
present risks of concern. For
information regarding EPA’s efforts to
evaluate the risk of exposure to this
class of chemicals, refer to https://
www.epa.gov/ingredients-usedpesticide-products/pyrethrins-andpyrethroids.
Since the 2011 CRA, for each new
pyrethroid and pyrethrin use, the
Agency has conducted a screen to
evaluate any potential impacts on the
CRA prior to registration of that use. A
new turf use for the pyrethroid, taufluvalinate, was assessed after
completion of the cumulative, which
did impact the worst-case non-dietary
risk estimates identified in the 2011
CRA for the turf scenario (Memo,
DeLeon, H., D450820, 12/16/2019).
However, the overall finding (i.e., that
the pyrethroid cumulative risk is below
the Agency’s level of concern) did not
change upon registration of this new
use.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
To account for the additional uses
requiring tolerances in this rule, the
Agency has conducted an additional
screen, taking into account all
previously approved uses and these
proposed new uses. The additional uses
will not significantly impact the
cumulative assessment because dietary
exposures make a minor contribution to
total pyrethroid exposure relative to
residential exposures in the 2011
cumulative risk assessment. Therefore,
the results of the 2011 CRA are still
valid and there are no cumulative risks
of concern for the pyrethroids/
pyrethrins.
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.
Bifenthrin has been evaluated for
potential developmental effects in the
rat (following gavage and dietary
administration) and in the rabbit (gavage
administration). Maternal toxicity
included neurological effects (tremors in
rats and rabbits; head and forelimb
twitching in rabbits). There were no
developmental effects of biological
significance in either species. The
registrant submitted a Developmental
Neurotoxicity (DNT) study, which
establishes a clear NOAEL for the adult
and offspring toxicity. The NOAEL in
adults and offspring is similar in
magnitude, and the LOAELs are based
on the clinical signs of neurotoxicity
(dams had tremors and convulsions,
offspring had increased grooming
counts). Based on targeted testing in the
DNT study for common endpoints for
bifenthrin, there was no increase in
sensitivity in rat pups. However, the
Agency has reviewed existing
pyrethroid data and concludes that the
DNT is not a particularly sensitive study
for comparing the sensitivity of young
and adult animals to pyrethroids. Some
literature studies indicated
susceptibility for other pyrethroids, but
in context, these studies were
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68155
conducted at relatively high doses,
which may not reflect environmental
exposures. The reproductive toxicity of
bifenthrin was examined in a 2generation reproduction dietary study in
the rat. Tremors were noted only in
females of both generations, with one
parental generation rat observed to have
clonic convulsions, and no observed
effects in the offspring. Overall, there is
no indication of increased juvenile
sensitivity specifically to bifenthrin.
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 bifenthrin
is complete.
ii. Like other pyrethroids, bifenthrin
causes clinical signs of neurotoxicity
from interaction with sodium channels.
These effects are adequately assessed by
the available guideline and nonguideline studies. Bifenthrin is a Type
I pyrethroid, and neurotoxic effects
characteristic of Type I pyrethroids were
observed in adults in most of the
bifenthrin toxicity database.
Specifically, muscle tremors and
decreased motor activity were observed
in adults in guideline studies
throughout the bifenthrin toxicology
database, and hind-limb flexion was
observed in adults the dermal study. For
these reasons, the tremors seen in
juveniles in the 2-generation
reproduction study are not considered
age-dependent effects.
iii. There was no evidence that
bifenthrin resulted in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits
in the prenatal developmental studies or
in young rats in the 2-generation
reproduction study. Previously,
however, EPA retained a FQPA safety
factor of 3X to account for concerns
about pharmacokinetic (PK) differences
between adults and children. The
Agency has re-evaluated the need for an
FQPA Safety Factor for human health
risk assessments for pyrethroid
pesticides based on a review of the
available guideline and literature
studies as well as data from the Council
for the Advancement of Pyrethroid
Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA)
program. That recent data, including
human physiologically based
pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models as well
as in vivo and in vitro data on protein
binding, enzyme ontogeny, and
metabolic clearance, support the
conclusion that the PK contribution to
the FQPA safety factor can be reduced
to 1X for all populations.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
68156
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Although the acute dietary exposure
estimates are refined, the exposure
estimates will not underestimate risk for
the established and proposed uses of
bifenthrin since the residue levels used
are based on either monitoring data
reflecting actual residues found in the
food supply, or on high-end residues
from field trials which reflect the use
patterns which would result in highest
residues in foods. Furthermore,
processing factors used were either
those measured in processing studies, or
default high-end factors representing the
maximum concentration of residue into
a processed commodity. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions to
assess exposure to bifenthrin in
drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well
as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by bifenthrin.
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
bifenthrin will occupy 15% of the aPAD
for infants (<1 year old), the population
group receiving the greatest exposure.
The acute aggregate risk assessment
combines exposures to bifenthrin in
food and drinking water only and is
equivalent to the acute dietary
assessment. There are no acute aggregate
risks estimates of concern.
2. Chronic risk. The chronic (food and
drinking water) exposure assessment for
bifenthrin was conducted solely for the
purpose of obtaining an average dietary
exposure estimate for use in the
aggregate assessment. The population
subgroup with the highest average
dietary exposure estimate is children 1
to 2 years old (0.000189 mg/kg/day).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
exposure level). Bifenthrin is currently
registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the
Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to
bifenthrin.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 520 for adults (treated
gardens). The short-term aggregate
assessment for children 1 to less than 2
years old resulted in an MOE of 170
(treated turf at 0.23 lb ai/A). The shortterm aggregate assessment for children 6
to less than 11 years old and children
11 to 16 years old resulted in MOEs of
1,600 (treated gardens) and 7,600
(golfing), respectively. Because EPA’s
level of concern for bifenthrin is an
MOE of 100 or lower, these MOEs are
not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
While there is potential intermediateterm residential exposure, because the
single dose and repeat dosing bifenthrin
studies show that repeat exposures do
not result in lower points of departure,
the residential assessments are
conducted as a series of acute exposures
and the same endpoint is used
regardless of duration. Therefore, the
short-term aggregate assessment is
considered protective of any
intermediate-term exposures.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. EPA has concluded that the
acute reference dose (RfD) will
adequately account for all repeated
exposures, including carcinogenicity,
which could result from exposure to
bifenthrin.
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 bifenthrin
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(gas chromatography with an electron
capture detector (GC/ECD) analyses for
determining bifenthrin residues in both
plant and livestock commodities) is
available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 any
MRLs for bifenthrin in or on apple, wet
pomace; avocado; fruit, pome, group
11–10; peach, or pomegranate. The
following U.S. tolerances being
established are harmonized with the
Codex MRLs, which are identified in
parentheses: Caneberry subgroup 13–
07A at 1 ppm (blackberry, dewberries
and raspberries); fruit, citrus, group 10–
10 at 0.05 ppm (citrus fruit); and nut,
tree, group 14–12 at 0.05 ppm (tree
nuts). The U.S. tolerance for pepper/
eggplant subgroup 8–10B at 0.5 ppm is
harmonized with the Codex MRL on
pepper. It is not possible to harmonize
with the Codex MRLs of all
commodities in the subgroup, including
eggplant at 0.3 ppm and dried chili
peppers at 5 ppm.
The Codex has established an MRL for
bifenthrin in or on grape at 0.3 ppm.
The Agency is establishing the tolerance
in or on fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F
at 0.3 ppm (rather than at 0.2 ppm, the
existing U.S. tolerance on grape) to
harmonize with the Codex MRL on
grape.
The Canadian MRL for bifenthrin in
or on pear is 0.9 ppm and there are no
Codex MRLs for the commodities in the
pome fruit crop group. EPA is
establishing the U.S. tolerance for fruit,
pome, group 11–10, except mayhaw at
0.9 ppm (rather than at the request level
of 0.70 ppm based on submitted residue
data and the existing U.S. tolerance for
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
pear) to harmonize with the Canadian
MRL.
EPA is establishing the tolerance for
tomato subgroup 8–10A at 0.3 ppm
(rather than at 0.15 ppm, the existing
U.S. tolerance on tomato) to harmonize
with the Codex MRL of 0.3 ppm in/on
tomato. Additionally, EPA is
establishing the tolerance for Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B at 4 ppm
(rather than at 3.5 ppm, the existing U.S.
tolerance on Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B) to harmonize with the
Codex MRL of 4 ppm in/on mustard
greens.
It is not possible to harmonize the
U.S. tolerance for Berry, low growing,
subgroup 13–07G at 3 ppm with the
Codex MRL for strawberry at 1 ppm.
Reducing the U.S. tolerance would put
U.S. growers at risk of having violative
residues despite legal use of the
pesticide according to the label.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
EPA is establishing the tolerance at
different levels than requested for:
Apple, wet pomace; avocado; berry, low
growing, subgroup 13–07G; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B; caneberry
subgroup 13–07A; fruit, pome, group
11–10, except mayhaw; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13–07F; peach subgroup 12–
12B; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–10B;
pomegranate; sunflower (crop subgroup
20B) and tomato subgroup 8–10A.
All trailing zeroes have been removed
from the proposed tolerances to be
consistent with Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Rounding Class
Practice. In addition, the proposed
apple, wet pomace tolerance of 1.3 ppm
has been established at 1.5 ppm because
the value determined is rounded
following the OECD rounding class
practice.
To harmonize with the applicable
international MRLs, the tolerances for
fruit, pome, group 11–10, except
mayhaw; fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–
07F; and tomato subgroup 8–10A were
established at higher limits than what
was proposed.
The petitioner withdrew the change to
the use pattern that would have
necessitated the change to the tolerance
for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–
16B from 3.5 ppm to 15 ppm. EPA is
establishing the tolerance for Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B at 4 ppm,
based on the crop group conversion of
the established tolerance on Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B and adjusting
it to harmonize with the Codex MRL for
mustard greens.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
The commodity definition for
sunflower (crop subgroup 20B) has been
revised to sunflower subgroup 20B and
the proposed tolerance at 0.01 has been
established at 0.05 based on the current
enforcement method limit of
quantitation (LOQ).
D. International Trade Considerations
In this rule, EPA is establishing a
lower tolerance for bifenthrin residues
in or on groundcherry than the current
tolerance. The current tolerance for
groundcherry is 0.5 ppm, but
groundcherry is a commodity in the
proposed crop group expansion from
tomato to tomato subgroup 8–10A, for
which EPA is establishing a new
tolerance in this rulemaking at 0.3 ppm.
As a result, EPA intends for the
allowable residues on groundcherry to
be reduced. As discussed in EPA’s crop
grouping rulemaking, EPA has
determined that groundcherry is similar
to tomatoes and appropriately
categorized in subgroup 8–10A. See 72
FR 69150 (Dec. 7, 2007). Based on
residue data supporting the 0.3 ppm
tolerance for subgroup 8–10A and the
similarity of groundcherry to tomatoes,
EPA concludes that it is appropriate to
reduce the tolerance on groundcherry as
well.
In accordance with the World Trade
Organization’s (WTO) Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of the changes to these tolerances
in order to satisfy its obligations under
the Agreement. In addition, the SPS
Agreement requires that Members
provide a ‘‘reasonable interval’’ between
the publication of a regulation subject to
the Agreement and its entry into force
to allow time for producers in exporting
Member countries to adapt to the new
requirement. Accordingly, EPA is
establishing an expiration date for the
existing tolerance to allow this tolerance
to remain in effect for a period of six
months after the effective date of this
final rule. After the six-month period
expires, this tolerance will be reduced
or revoked, as indicated in the
regulatory text, and allowable residues
on groundcherry must conform to the
tolerance for subgroup 8–10A.
This reduction in tolerance level is
not discriminatory; the same food safety
standard contained in the FFDCA
applies equally to domestically
produced and imported foods. The new
tolerance level is supported by available
residue data.
V. Conclusion
Tolerances are established for
residues of bifenthrin, (2-methyl [1,1′biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2-chloro-
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68157
3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or
on apple, wet pomace at 1.5 ppm;
avocado at 0.5 ppm; berry, low growing,
subgroup 13–07G at 3 ppm; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B at 4 ppm;
caneberry subgroup 13–07A at 1 ppm;
fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 0.05 ppm;
fruit, pome; group 11–10, except
mayhaw at 0.9 ppm; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13–07F at 0.3 ppm; nut, tree,
group 14–12 at 0.05 ppm; peach
subgroup 12–12B at 0.7 ppm; pepper/
eggplant subgroup 8–10B at 0.5 ppm;
pomegranate at 0.5 ppm; sunflower
subgroup 20B at 0.05 ppm; and tomato
subgroup 8–10A at 0.3 ppm.
The following tolerances are removed
as unnecessary due to the establishment
of the above tolerances: Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B at 3.5 ppm;
caneberry subgroup 13A at 1.0 ppm;
eggplant at 0.05 ppm; fruit, citrus, group
10 at 0.05 ppm; grape at 0.2 ppm; nut,
tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; okra at 0.50
ppm; pear at 0.5 ppm; pepino at 0.5
ppm; pepper, bell at 0.5 ppm; pepper,
nonbell at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05
ppm; strawberry at 3.0 ppm; tomato at
0.15 ppm; and turnip, greens at 3.5
ppm.
Additionally, the following Section 18
time-limited tolerances are removed as
unnecessary due to the establishment of
the above permanent tolerances: Apple
at 0.5 ppm; avocado at 0.50 ppm;
nectarine at 0.5 ppm; peach at 0.5 ppm;
and pomegranate at 0.50 ppm.
Finally, EPA is setting a six-month
expiration date for the current
groundcherry tolerance at 0.5 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to petitions 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 action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action 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), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order
13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
68158
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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 action 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 action. In
addition, this action does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (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
(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: November 10, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR
chapter I as follows:
PART 180—TOLERANCES AND
EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE
CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Amend § 180.442 by:
a. In the table in paragraph (a)(1)
i. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodities: ‘‘Apple, wet pomace’’;
‘‘Avocado’’; ‘‘Berry, low growing,
subgroup 13–07G’’; ‘‘Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4–16B’’;
■ ii Removing the commodities:
‘‘Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B’’;
‘‘Caneberry subgroup 13A’’;
■
■
■
iii. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Caneberry subgroup 13–
07A’’;
■ iv. Removing the commodities
‘‘Eggplant’’; ‘‘Fruit, citrus, group 10’’;
■ v. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodities ‘‘Fruit, citrus, group 10–
10’’; ‘‘Fruit, pome, group 11–10, except
mayhaw’’; ‘‘Fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–
07F’’;
■ vi. Removing the commodity ‘‘Grape’’;
■ vii. Revising the entry for
‘‘Groundcherry’’
■ viii. Removing the commodity ‘‘Nut,
tree, group 14’’;
■ ix. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Nut, tree, group 14–12’’;
■ x. Removing the commodity ‘‘Okra’’;
■ xi. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Peach subgroup 12–12B’’
■ xii. Removing the commodities
‘‘Pear’’; ‘‘Pepino’’; ‘‘Pepper, bell’’;
‘‘Pepper, nonbell’’;
■ xiii. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Pepper/eggplant subgroup
8–10B’’;
■ xiv. Removing the commodity
‘‘Pistachio’’
■ xv, Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Pomegranate’’;
■ xvi. Removing the commodity
‘‘Strawberry’’;
■ xvii. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Sunflower subgroup 20B’’;
■ xviii. Removing the commodity
‘‘Tomato’’;
■ xix. Adding in alphabetical order the
commodity ‘‘Tomato subgroup 8–10A’’;
and
■ xx. Removing the commodity
‘‘Turnip, greens’’.
■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b).
The additions and revisions read as
follows.
■
§ 180.442 Bifenthrin; tolerances for
residues.
(a)(1) * * *
Parts per
million
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
*
Apple, wet pomace ..............................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Avocado ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G ................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B ............................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Caneberry subgroup 13–07A ..............................................................................................................................................................
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
1.5
0.5
3
4
1
68159
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 228 / Wednesday, December 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
*
Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ....................................................................................................................................................................
Fruit, pome, group 11–10, except mayhaw .........................................................................................................................................
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F ..................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Groundcherry 2 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Nut, tree, group 14–12 ........................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Peach subgroup 12–12B .....................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8–10B .......................................................................................................................................................
Pomegranate .......................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sunflower subgroup 20B .....................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Tomato subgroup 8–10A .....................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.05
0.9
0.3
0.5
0.05
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.3
*
1There
2
*
are no U.S. registrations.
This tolerance expires on June 1, 2022.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–25091 Filed 11–30–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 272
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0261; FRL–9240–
02–R6]
Louisiana: Incorporation by Reference
of Approved State Hazardous Waste
Management Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rule codifies in the
regulations the prior approval of
Louisiana’s hazardous waste
management program and incorporates
by reference authorized provisions of
the State’s statutes and regulations. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
uses the regulations entitled ‘‘Approved
State Hazardous Waste Management
Programs’’ to provide notice of the
authorization status of State programs
and to incorporate by reference those
provisions of the State statutes and
regulations that are authorized and that
EPA will enforce under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA
previously provided notices and
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Nov 30, 2021
Jkt 256001
opportunity for comments on the
Agency’s decisions to authorize the
State of Louisiana program and the EPA
is not now reopening the decisions, nor
requesting comments, on the Louisiana
authorizations as previously published
in the Federal Register documents
specified in Section I.C of this final rule
document.
DATES: This regulation is effective
January 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference as of January
3, 2022, in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2020–0261. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some of
the information is not publicly
available. e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov. For alternative
access to docket materials, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alima Patterson, EPA Region 6 Regional
Authorization/Codification Coordinator,
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RCRA Permit Section (LCR–RP), Land,
Chemicals and Redevelopment Division,
EPA Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Suite
500, Dallas, Texas 75270, phone
number: (214) 665–8533, email address:
patterson.alima@epa.gov. The EPA
Region 6 office is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID–19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Incorporation by reference
A. What is codification?
Codification is the process of placing
a State’s statutes and regulations that
comprise the State’s authorized
hazardous waste management program
into the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as
amended, allows the EPA to authorize
State hazardous waste management
programs to operate in lieu of the
Federal hazardous waste management
regulatory program. The EPA codifies its
authorization of State programs in 40
CFR part 272 and incorporates by
reference State statutes and regulations
that the EPA will enforce under sections
3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other
applicable statutory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of
State authorized programs in the CFR
should substantially enhance the
public’s ability to discern the current
status of the authorized State program
and State requirements that can be
E:\FR\FM\01DER1.SGM
01DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 228 (Wednesday, December 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68150-68159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25091]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0560; FRL-8945-01-OCSPP]
Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68151]]
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
bifenthrin in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. The Interregional Project Number 4
(IR-4) and FMC Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective December 1, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 31, 2022
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 dockets for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
0560, are 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.
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
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:
[email protected].
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
Publishing 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 numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0560 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 January 31, 2022. 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 numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2019-0560, 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/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. 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 October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71668) (FRL-
9952-19), 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
6E8482) by IR-4, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the insecticide bifenthrin, (2-methyl [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)
methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on apple, wet pomace at 1.3
parts per million (ppm); avocado at 0.50 ppm; berry, low growing,
subgroup 13-07G at 3.0 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at
15 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1.0 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-
10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw, at 0.70 ppm;
fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at
0.20 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm; peach, subgroup 12-12B at
0.70 ppm; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 0.50 ppm; pomegranate at
0.50 ppm; and tomato, subgroup 8-10A at 0.15 ppm. The October 18, 2016,
Federal Register document and the Notice of Filing in docket number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 identified the requested tolerance for tomato
subgroup 8-10A as 0.30 ppm. However, IR-4's submitted petition
identified a tolerance of 0.15 ppm for tomato subgroup 8-10A. When
there is a discrepancy between a tolerance in the submitted Notice of
Filing and the submitted petition, EPA uses the tolerance in the
petition as the petitioned-for tolerance, which is 0.15 ppm for tomato
subgroup 8-10A.
Additionally, the petition requested, upon approval of the above
tolerances, to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442(a) in
or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 3.5 ppm; caneberry,
subgroup 13A at 1.0 ppm; eggplant 0.05 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at
0.05 ppm; grape at 0.20 ppm; groundcherry at 0.5 ppm; nut, tree, group
14 at 0.05 ppm; okra at 0.50 ppm; pear at 0.5 ppm; pepino at 0.5 ppm;
pepper, bell at 0.5 ppm; pepper, non-bell at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05
ppm; strawberry at 3.0 ppm; tomato at 0.15
[[Page 68152]]
ppm; and turnip, greens at 3.5 ppm. Finally, the petition requested
upon approval of the above tolerances, to remove the existing time-
limited tolerances in 40 CFR 180.442(b) in or on, apple at 0.5 ppm;
nectarine at 0.5 ppm; and peach at 0.5 ppm. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation and Makhteshim Agan
of North America, Inc. (ADAMA), the registrants, which is available in
the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received
in response to the notice of filing.
In the Federal Register of February 11, 2020 (85 FR 7708) (FRL-
10005-02), 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
8F8704) by FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.442 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the bifenthrin, (2-methyl [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-
yl) methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on sunflower (crop subgroup 20B)
at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petitions, EPA is
establishing some tolerances that vary from what was requested. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with 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 bifenthrin including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with bifenthrin 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 predominant effects seen in most of the bifenthrin experimental
toxicology studies were behavioral changes characteristic of Type I
pyrethroids, such as muscle tremors, which are consistent with its
mode-of-action (MOA) to activate sodium channels. Additional effects
seen in one or more studies included: muscle twitching, decreased grip
strength, altered landing foot splay, depressed respiration, increased
grooming counts, loss of muscle coordination, staggered gait,
exaggerated hind limb flexion, and convulsions at high doses. Decreased
body weight and food consumption were also noted in repeat-dosing
dietary studies.
In developmental toxicity studies involving rats and rabbits,
maternal toxicity was observed (neurological effects) while no
developmental effects of biological significance were observed. In the
2-generation reproduction dietary study in the rat, tremors were noted
only in females of both generations, with one parental generation rat
observed to have clonic convulsions, and no observed effects in the
offspring. A developmental neurotoxicity study was also conducted.
Clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in both the adults and
offspring at the same dose levels; therefore, there is no indication of
increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in the young.
Bifenthrin is classified as a Group C--``possible human
carcinogen,'' based on an increased incidence of urinary bladder tumors
in mice. However, EPA has determined that quantification of risk using
a non-linear approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD)) will adequately
account for all chronic toxicity, including potential carcinogenicity,
that could result from exposure to bifenthrin for the following
reasons. First, the bladder tumors may not be uncommon in mice and are
not likely to be malignant. Second, these tumors were observed only in
male mice at the highest dose. Third, no evidence of carcinogenicity
was observed in bifenthrin carcinogenicity studies in rats. Finally,
there is a low concern for mutagenicity based on the overall results of
the available mutagenicity tests of bifenthrin.
A complete discussion of the toxicological profile for bifenthrin
and the Agency's cancer conclusion as well as specific information on
the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
bifenthrin 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 in the documents titled ``Bifenthrin: Revised
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Requested Section 3 Registration
of Bifenthrin on Pome Fruit Group 11-10 (except Mayhaw), Peach Subgroup
12-12B, Avocado, Pomegranate, Brassica Leafy Greens Subgroup 4-16B; and
Crop Group Conversions/Expansions for Tomato Subgroup 8-10A, Pepper/
Eggplant Subgroup 8-10B, Small Vine Climbing Fruit Subgroup 13-07F, Low
Growing Berry Subgroup 13-07G, Citrus Fruit Group 10 to Citrus Fruit
Group 10-10, Caneberry Subgroup 13A to Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, and
Tree Nut Group 14 to Tree Nut Group 14-12'' (hereinafter ``Bifenthrin
Multiple Crop Human Health Risk Assessment'') and ``Bifenthrin. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Sunflower Crop
Subgroup 20B'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0352 in
regulations.gov.
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/
[[Page 68153]]
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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bifenthrin used for
human risk assessment can be found in the Bifenthrin Multiple Crop
Human Health Risk Assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to bifenthrin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing bifenthrin tolerances in 40 CFR
180.442. EPA assessed dietary exposures from bifenthrin 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 bifenthrin. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, the acute assessment was refined using
distributions and point estimates derived from pesticide data program
(PDP) monitoring data, field trial data, percent crop treated (PCT)
data, and empirical processing factors.
ii. Chronic exposure. A chronic dietary endpoint has not been
selected for bifenthrin because repeated exposure does not result in a
POD lower than that resulting from acute exposure; therefore, the acute
dietary risk assessment is protective of chronic dietary risk. However,
since there are residential uses of bifenthrin, a refined chronic
dietary exposure assessment was conducted to calculate average (food
and drinking water) exposure estimates representing background dietary
exposure to support the bifenthrin aggregate risk assessment. The
assessment was refined using point estimates derived from PDP
monitoring data, field trial data, PCT data, and empirical processing
factors.
iii. Cancer. As discussed in Unit III.A., EPA has determined that
the acute reference dose (RfD) will adequately account for all repeated
exposure/chronic toxicity, including potential carcinogenicity, which
could result from exposure to bifenthrin. A separate cancer exposure
assessment was not conducted.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The acute dietary assessment used the following maximum PCT
estimates: Almonds: 40%, artichoke: 65%, green beans (fresh &
succulent): 60%, blueberries (all bushberries): 35%, broccoli: 25%,
Brussel sprouts: 5%, cabbage: 50%, caneberries: 55%, canola: 25%,
cantaloupes: 55%, carrots: 5%, cauliflower: 2.5%, celery: 45%, citrus
(all others): 2.5%, corn: 10%, cotton: 20%, cucumbers: 35%, dry beans/
peas: 5%, eggplant: 45%, grapefruit: 2.5%, grapes, juice: 10%, grapes,
table: 2.5%, grapes, wine: 5%, hazelnuts: 5%, honeydews: 90%, kumquat:
2.5%, lemons: 2.5%, lettuce; 15%, lima beans: 40%, lime: 2.5%, okra:
45%, onions: 5%, oranges, 10%, peanuts: 20%, pears: 2.5%, green peas
(fresh & succulent): 50%, pecans: 20%, peppers (all); 30%, pistachios:
55%, potatoes: 15%, pummelo: 2.5%, pumpkins: 25%, soybeans: 10%,
spinach: 15%, squash: 25%, strawberries: 70%, sweet corn: 50%,
tangerines: 2.5%, tomatoes: 45%, walnuts: 25%, and watermelons: 20%.
The acute dietary assessment also used the following maximum PCT
estimates for some of the new uses: apples: 55%, avocados: 50%,
nectarines: 65%, peaches: 35%, and pomegranates: 60%.
The following average PCT estimates for bifenthrin were used to
refine the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following crops:
Almonds: 25%, artichoke: 30%, green beans (fresh & succulent): 55%,
blueberries (all bushberries): 10%, broccoli: 15%, Brussel sprouts: 1%,
cabbage: 30%, caneberries: 45%, canola: 10%, cantaloupes: 50%, carrots:
2.5%, cauliflower: 1%, celery: 10%, citrus (all others): 1%, corn: 5%,
cotton: 15%, cucumbers: 20%, dry beans/peas: 2.5%, eggplant: 25%,
grapefruit: 1%, grapes, juice: 2.5%, grapes, table: 1%, grapes, wine:
2.5%, hazelnuts: 1%, honeydews: 25%, kumquat: 1%, lemons: 1%, lettuce;
10%, lima beans: 20%, lime: 1%, okra: 25%, onions: 2.5%, oranges, 1%,
peanuts: 10%, pears: 1%, green peas (fresh & succulent): 30%, pecans:
10%, peppers (all); 20%, pistachios: 35%, potatoes: 10%, pummelo: 1%,
pumpkins: 15%, soybeans: 5%, spinach: 2.5%, squash: 20%, strawberries:
55%, sweet corn: 40%, tangerines: 1%, tomatoes: 25%, walnuts: 15%, and
watermelons: 15%. The chronic dietary assessment also used the
following maximum PCT estimates for some of the new uses: apples: 50%,
avocados: 50%, nectarines: 65%, peaches: 35%, and pomegranates: 60%.
A default of 100% CT was used for all livestock and game
commodities, freshwater finfish, and all other registered uses where no
maximum/average PCT estimates were available. All other commodities
included for depicting food handling establishment (FHE) uses were
refined with the upper bound estimate of 4.65% for non-fumigant
treatments made in FHEs.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS),
[[Page 68154]]
proprietary market surveys, and California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the chemical/crop
combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an average PCT for
chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk
analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by
combining available public and private market survey data for that use,
averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%,
except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than 1% or
less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use less than 1% or
less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the most
recent 10 years of available public and private market survey data for
the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except
where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses
less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
are taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for
evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several
regional groups. Use of consumption information in EPA's risk
assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows
the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is
exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency.
Other than the data available through national food consumption
surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the
regional consumption of food to which bifenthrin may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for bifenthrin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of bifenthrin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
EPA used the limit of solubility as the drinking water input, i.e.,
the maximum possible residues that could occur in drinking water based
on the chemical properties of the compound. EPA used the modeled EDWCs
directly in the dietary exposure model to account for the contribution
of bifenthrin residues in drinking water as follows: 0.014 ppb was used
in the acute assessment and 0.014 ppb was used in the chronic
assessment.
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). Bifenthrin is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Lawns/turf, indoor environments, gardens/trees,
pets (dog shampoo), termiticide and indoor/outdoor surface treatment
for various residential and commercial premises.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions.
There is the potential for residential handler and post-application
exposures from the use of bifenthrin. These exposures were assessed
using the 2012 Residential SOPs and submitted chemical-specific residue
data [bifenthrin-specific turf transferable residue (TTR; liquid and
granular) and dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR; liquid) data are
available]. EPA did not quantitatively assess the outdoor residential
handler uses in/around home foundations, outdoor impervious surfaces,
wood piles/structures and fence posts. Residential handler exposure
assessments were performed for adult homeowners applying bifenthrin
ready-to-use products (aerosol, hose-end sprayers and dog shampoos);
mixing/loading/applying liquid concentrates; loading/applying granular
formulations and applying dust formulations. The application rates for
these uses that were quantitatively assessed are equal to or higher
than those outdoor uses and thus are protective of the outdoor uses.
Dermal and inhalation risk estimates were combined in this assessment
because the toxicological effects for these exposure routes were the
same. A total aggregate risk index (ARI) was used because the levels of
concern (LOCs) for dermal exposure (100) and inhalation exposure (30)
are different. ARIs of less than 1 are risk estimates of concern. The
ARIs were calculated as follows. Aggregate Risk Index (ARI) = 1/
[(Dermal LOC / Dermal MOE) + (Inhalation LOC / Inhalation MOE)]. All
exposures are short-term in nature. There are no dermal or inhalation
risk estimates of concern for residential handlers for the registered
uses of bifenthrin.
Post-application exposure was assessed for broadcast applications
to turf, gardens/trees, indoor environments (carpets and hard floor)
and treated pets. Residential post-application exposures are expected
to be short-, intermediate- or long-term in duration. Because the
single dose and repeat dosing bifenthrin studies show that repeat
exposures do not result in lower points of departure, the residential
assessments are conducted as a series of acute exposures and the same
endpoint is used regardless of duration. Therefore, the acute/single
day residential post-application assessments are protective of expected
longer-term exposures. Dermal and incidental oral risk estimates were
combined because the toxicological effects for these exposure routes
were similar [combined Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach used since
LOCs are the same].
There were some residential post-application risk estimates of
concern identified previously in Registration Review. Specifically,
dermal post-application risks were identified for a liquid formulation
product with a maximum application rate of 2.3 lb ai/A, and risks were
identified for episodic ingestion of granules at application rates
greater than 0.34 lb ai/A. As a result, during Registration Review,
some bifenthrin labels were amended or canceled to address these risk
concerns. The product label for the liquid formulation with the high
application rate of 2.3 lb ai/A, which was canceled as of July 2021
(EPA Reg. #279-3152), was never commercialized. Because that product
was never sold or distributed, there are no exposures from that product
for consideration in the aggregate risk assessment. In addition, 25
granular products were either canceled or amended to require watering
in of the product after application when application rates were greater
than 0.34 lb ai/A. Although these label changes reduce the risks from
ingestion of granules, that use is not included in the aggregate
assessment because it is considered an episodic event and not a routine
behavior.
The following residential exposure scenarios were selected for
aggregation and represent the worst-case risk estimates: Adults
contacting treated gardens (dermal exposure); children 1 to
[[Page 68155]]
<2 years old contacting treated turf (dermal and incidental oral
exposure at the 0.23 lb ai/A rate); children 6 to <11 years old
contacting treated gardens (dermal exposure); and children 11 to 16
years old golfing on treated turf (dermal exposure).
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
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.''
The Agency has determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins share
a common mechanism of toxicity (https://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0489-0006). As explained in that document, the members of this
group share the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels
ultimately leading to neurotoxicity. In 2011, after establishing a
common mechanism grouping for the pyrethroids and pyrethrins, the
Agency conducted a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) which is available
at https://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746. In that document,
the Agency concluded that cumulative exposures to pyrethroids (based on
pesticidal uses registered at the time the assessment was conducted)
did not present risks of concern. For information regarding EPA's
efforts to evaluate the risk of exposure to this class of chemicals,
refer to https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/pyrethrins-and-pyrethroids.
Since the 2011 CRA, for each new pyrethroid and pyrethrin use, the
Agency has conducted a screen to evaluate any potential impacts on the
CRA prior to registration of that use. A new turf use for the
pyrethroid, tau-fluvalinate, was assessed after completion of the
cumulative, which did impact the worst-case non-dietary risk estimates
identified in the 2011 CRA for the turf scenario (Memo, DeLeon, H.,
D450820, 12/16/2019). However, the overall finding (i.e., that the
pyrethroid cumulative risk is below the Agency's level of concern) did
not change upon registration of this new use.
To account for the additional uses requiring tolerances in this
rule, the Agency has conducted an additional screen, taking into
account all previously approved uses and these proposed new uses. The
additional uses will not significantly impact the cumulative assessment
because dietary exposures make a minor contribution to total pyrethroid
exposure relative to residential exposures in the 2011 cumulative risk
assessment. Therefore, the results of the 2011 CRA are still valid and
there are no cumulative risks of concern for the pyrethroids/
pyrethrins.
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. Bifenthrin has been
evaluated for potential developmental effects in the rat (following
gavage and dietary administration) and in the rabbit (gavage
administration). Maternal toxicity included neurological effects
(tremors in rats and rabbits; head and forelimb twitching in rabbits).
There were no developmental effects of biological significance in
either species. The registrant submitted a Developmental Neurotoxicity
(DNT) study, which establishes a clear NOAEL for the adult and
offspring toxicity. The NOAEL in adults and offspring is similar in
magnitude, and the LOAELs are based on the clinical signs of
neurotoxicity (dams had tremors and convulsions, offspring had
increased grooming counts). Based on targeted testing in the DNT study
for common endpoints for bifenthrin, there was no increase in
sensitivity in rat pups. However, the Agency has reviewed existing
pyrethroid data and concludes that the DNT is not a particularly
sensitive study for comparing the sensitivity of young and adult
animals to pyrethroids. Some literature studies indicated
susceptibility for other pyrethroids, but in context, these studies
were conducted at relatively high doses, which may not reflect
environmental exposures. The reproductive toxicity of bifenthrin was
examined in a 2-generation reproduction dietary study in the rat.
Tremors were noted only in females of both generations, with one
parental generation rat observed to have clonic convulsions, and no
observed effects in the offspring. Overall, there is no indication of
increased juvenile sensitivity specifically to bifenthrin.
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 bifenthrin is complete.
ii. Like other pyrethroids, bifenthrin causes clinical signs of
neurotoxicity from interaction with sodium channels. These effects are
adequately assessed by the available guideline and non-guideline
studies. Bifenthrin is a Type I pyrethroid, and neurotoxic effects
characteristic of Type I pyrethroids were observed in adults in most of
the bifenthrin toxicity database. Specifically, muscle tremors and
decreased motor activity were observed in adults in guideline studies
throughout the bifenthrin toxicology database, and hind-limb flexion
was observed in adults the dermal study. For these reasons, the tremors
seen in juveniles in the 2-generation reproduction study are not
considered age-dependent effects.
iii. There was no evidence that bifenthrin resulted in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. Previously, however, EPA retained a FQPA safety factor of 3X to
account for concerns about pharmacokinetic (PK) differences between
adults and children. The Agency has re-evaluated the need for an FQPA
Safety Factor for human health risk assessments for pyrethroid
pesticides based on a review of the available guideline and literature
studies as well as data from the Council for the Advancement of
Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) program. That recent data,
including human physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models as
well as in vivo and in vitro data on protein binding, enzyme ontogeny,
and metabolic clearance, support the conclusion that the PK
contribution to the FQPA safety factor can be reduced to 1X for all
populations.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases.
[[Page 68156]]
Although the acute dietary exposure estimates are refined, the exposure
estimates will not underestimate risk for the established and proposed
uses of bifenthrin since the residue levels used are based on either
monitoring data reflecting actual residues found in the food supply, or
on high-end residues from field trials which reflect the use patterns
which would result in highest residues in foods. Furthermore,
processing factors used were either those measured in processing
studies, or default high-end factors representing the maximum
concentration of residue into a processed commodity. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions to assess exposure to bifenthrin
in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to
assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by bifenthrin.
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 bifenthrin will occupy 15% of the aPAD for infants (<1 year old),
the population group receiving the greatest exposure. The acute
aggregate risk assessment combines exposures to bifenthrin in food and
drinking water only and is equivalent to the acute dietary assessment.
There are no acute aggregate risks estimates of concern.
2. Chronic risk. The chronic (food and drinking water) exposure
assessment for bifenthrin was conducted solely for the purpose of
obtaining an average dietary exposure estimate for use in the aggregate
assessment. The population subgroup with the highest average dietary
exposure estimate is children 1 to 2 years old (0.000189 mg/kg/day).
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). Bifenthrin is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to bifenthrin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 520 for adults
(treated gardens). The short-term aggregate assessment for children 1
to less than 2 years old resulted in an MOE of 170 (treated turf at
0.23 lb ai/A). The short-term aggregate assessment for children 6 to
less than 11 years old and children 11 to 16 years old resulted in MOEs
of 1,600 (treated gardens) and 7,600 (golfing), respectively. Because
EPA's level of concern for bifenthrin is an MOE of 100 or lower, these
MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). While there is potential intermediate-term residential
exposure, because the single dose and repeat dosing bifenthrin studies
show that repeat exposures do not result in lower points of departure,
the residential assessments are conducted as a series of acute
exposures and the same endpoint is used regardless of duration.
Therefore, the short-term aggregate assessment is considered protective
of any intermediate-term exposures.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has concluded
that the acute reference dose (RfD) will adequately account for all
repeated exposures, including carcinogenicity, which could result from
exposure to bifenthrin.
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 bifenthrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with an
electron capture detector (GC/ECD) analyses for determining bifenthrin
residues in both plant and livestock commodities) is 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: [email protected].
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 any MRLs for bifenthrin in or on
apple, wet pomace; avocado; fruit, pome, group 11-10; peach, or
pomegranate. The following U.S. tolerances being established are
harmonized with the Codex MRLs, which are identified in parentheses:
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 1 ppm (blackberry, dewberries and
raspberries); fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.05 ppm (citrus fruit);
and nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.05 ppm (tree nuts). The U.S. tolerance
for pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 0.5 ppm is harmonized with the
Codex MRL on pepper. It is not possible to harmonize with the Codex
MRLs of all commodities in the subgroup, including eggplant at 0.3 ppm
and dried chili peppers at 5 ppm.
The Codex has established an MRL for bifenthrin in or on grape at
0.3 ppm. The Agency is establishing the tolerance in or on fruit,
small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.3
ppm (rather than at 0.2 ppm, the existing U.S. tolerance on grape) to
harmonize with the Codex MRL on grape.
The Canadian MRL for bifenthrin in or on pear is 0.9 ppm and there
are no Codex MRLs for the commodities in the pome fruit crop group. EPA
is establishing the U.S. tolerance for fruit, pome, group 11-10, except
mayhaw at 0.9 ppm (rather than at the request level of 0.70 ppm based
on submitted residue data and the existing U.S. tolerance for
[[Page 68157]]
pear) to harmonize with the Canadian MRL.
EPA is establishing the tolerance for tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.3
ppm (rather than at 0.15 ppm, the existing U.S. tolerance on tomato) to
harmonize with the Codex MRL of 0.3 ppm in/on tomato. Additionally, EPA
is establishing the tolerance for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-
16B at 4 ppm (rather than at 3.5 ppm, the existing U.S. tolerance on
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B) to harmonize with the Codex MRL of
4 ppm in/on mustard greens.
It is not possible to harmonize the U.S. tolerance for Berry, low
growing, subgroup 13-07G at 3 ppm with the Codex MRL for strawberry at
1 ppm. Reducing the U.S. tolerance would put U.S. growers at risk of
having violative residues despite legal use of the pesticide according
to the label.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA is establishing the tolerance at different levels than
requested for: Apple, wet pomace; avocado; berry, low growing, subgroup
13-07G; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; caneberry subgroup 13-
07A; fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; peach subgroup 12-
12B; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B; pomegranate; sunflower (crop
subgroup 20B) and tomato subgroup 8-10A.
All trailing zeroes have been removed from the proposed tolerances
to be consistent with Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Rounding Class Practice. In addition, the proposed
apple, wet pomace tolerance of 1.3 ppm has been established at 1.5 ppm
because the value determined is rounded following the OECD rounding
class practice.
To harmonize with the applicable international MRLs, the tolerances
for fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw; fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; and tomato subgroup
8-10A were established at higher limits than what was proposed.
The petitioner withdrew the change to the use pattern that would
have necessitated the change to the tolerance for Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B from 3.5 ppm to 15 ppm. EPA is establishing the
tolerance for Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 4 ppm, based on
the crop group conversion of the established tolerance on Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 5B and adjusting it to harmonize with the Codex
MRL for mustard greens.
The commodity definition for sunflower (crop subgroup 20B) has been
revised to sunflower subgroup 20B and the proposed tolerance at 0.01
has been established at 0.05 based on the current enforcement method
limit of quantitation (LOQ).
D. International Trade Considerations
In this rule, EPA is establishing a lower tolerance for bifenthrin
residues in or on groundcherry than the current tolerance. The current
tolerance for groundcherry is 0.5 ppm, but groundcherry is a commodity
in the proposed crop group expansion from tomato to tomato subgroup 8-
10A, for which EPA is establishing a new tolerance in this rulemaking
at 0.3 ppm. As a result, EPA intends for the allowable residues on
groundcherry to be reduced. As discussed in EPA's crop grouping
rulemaking, EPA has determined that groundcherry is similar to tomatoes
and appropriately categorized in subgroup 8-10A. See 72 FR 69150 (Dec.
7, 2007). Based on residue data supporting the 0.3 ppm tolerance for
subgroup 8-10A and the similarity of groundcherry to tomatoes, EPA
concludes that it is appropriate to reduce the tolerance on
groundcherry as well.
In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of the changes to these tolerances in order to satisfy its
obligations under the Agreement. In addition, the SPS Agreement
requires that Members provide a ``reasonable interval'' between the
publication of a regulation subject to the Agreement and its entry into
force to allow time for producers in exporting Member countries to
adapt to the new requirement. Accordingly, EPA is establishing an
expiration date for the existing tolerance to allow this tolerance to
remain in effect for a period of six months after the effective date of
this final rule. After the six-month period expires, this tolerance
will be reduced or revoked, as indicated in the regulatory text, and
allowable residues on groundcherry must conform to the tolerance for
subgroup 8-10A.
This reduction in tolerance level is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods. The new tolerance level is
supported by available residue data.
V. Conclusion
Tolerances are established for residues of bifenthrin, (2-methyl
[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on apple, wet pomace at 1.5
ppm; avocado at 0.5 ppm; berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 3 ppm;
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 4 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-
07A at 1 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome;
group 11-10, except mayhaw at 0.9 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing,
except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.3 ppm; nut, tree, group
14-12 at 0.05 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.7 ppm; pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8-10B at 0.5 ppm; pomegranate at 0.5 ppm; sunflower subgroup
20B at 0.05 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.3 ppm.
The following tolerances are removed as unnecessary due to the
establishment of the above tolerances: Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
5B at 3.5 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13A at 1.0 ppm; eggplant at 0.05 ppm;
fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.05 ppm; grape at 0.2 ppm; nut, tree, group
14 at 0.05 ppm; okra at 0.50 ppm; pear at 0.5 ppm; pepino at 0.5 ppm;
pepper, bell at 0.5 ppm; pepper, nonbell at 0.5 ppm; pistachio at 0.05
ppm; strawberry at 3.0 ppm; tomato at 0.15 ppm; and turnip, greens at
3.5 ppm.
Additionally, the following Section 18 time-limited tolerances are
removed as unnecessary due to the establishment of the above permanent
tolerances: Apple at 0.5 ppm; avocado at 0.50 ppm; nectarine at 0.5
ppm; peach at 0.5 ppm; and pomegranate at 0.50 ppm.
Finally, EPA is setting a six-month expiration date for the current
groundcherry tolerance at 0.5 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to petitions 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 action has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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), nor is it considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action
[[Page 68158]]
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 action 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(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 (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: November 10, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD
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. Amend Sec. 180.442 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (a)(1)
0
i. Adding in alphabetical order the commodities: ``Apple, wet pomace'';
``Avocado''; ``Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G''; ``Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B'';
0
ii Removing the commodities: ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B'';
``Caneberry subgroup 13A'';
0
iii. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Caneberry subgroup
13-07A'';
0
iv. Removing the commodities ``Eggplant''; ``Fruit, citrus, group 10'';
0
v. Adding in alphabetical order the commodities ``Fruit, citrus, group
10-10''; ``Fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw''; ``Fruit, small,
vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F'';
0
vi. Removing the commodity ``Grape'';
0
vii. Revising the entry for ``Groundcherry''
0
viii. Removing the commodity ``Nut, tree, group 14'';
0
ix. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Nut, tree, group 14-
12'';
0
x. Removing the commodity ``Okra'';
0
xi. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Peach subgroup 12-
12B''
0
xii. Removing the commodities ``Pear''; ``Pepino''; ``Pepper, bell'';
``Pepper, nonbell'';
0
xiii. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8-10B'';
0
xiv. Removing the commodity ``Pistachio''
0
xv, Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Pomegranate'';
0
xvi. Removing the commodity ``Strawberry'';
0
xvii. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Sunflower subgroup
20B'';
0
xviii. Removing the commodity ``Tomato'';
0
xix. Adding in alphabetical order the commodity ``Tomato subgroup 8-
10A''; and
0
xx. Removing the commodity ``Turnip, greens''.
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraph (b).
The additions and revisions read as follows.
Sec. 180.442 Bifenthrin; tolerances for residues.
(a)(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Apple, wet pomace....................................... 1.5
* * * * * * *
Avocado................................................. 0.5
* * * * * * *
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G..................... 3
* * * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B.................. 4
* * * * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A............................... 1
[[Page 68159]]
* * * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10.............................. 0.05
Fruit, pome, group 11-10, except mayhaw................. 0.9
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 0.3
subgroup 13-07F........................................
* * * * * * *
Groundcherry \2\........................................ 0.5
* * * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12.................................. 0.05
* * * * * * *
Peach subgroup 12-12B................................... 0.7
* * * * * * *
Pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B.......................... 0.5
Pomegranate............................................. 0.5
* * * * * * *
Sunflower subgroup 20B.................................. 0.05
* * * * * * *
Tomato subgroup 8-10A................................... 0.3
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no U.S. registrations.
\2\ This tolerance expires on June 1, 2022.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-25091 Filed 11-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P