```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5704-5711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1898]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125; FRL-8860-1]

Sulfentrazone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
sulfentrazone in or on multiple commodities. Additionally, this 
regulation deletes existing tolerances on commodities superseded by the 
establishment of crop subgroups. This regulation also deletes a time-
limited tolerance on bean, succulent seed without pod (lima bean and 
cowpea), as the tolerance expired on December 31, 2007. Interregional 
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 2, 2011. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 4, 2011, and 
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR 
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic 
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard 
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac 
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket 
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Nollen, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 305-7390; e-mail address: nollen.laura@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those 
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by 
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also 
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in 
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's 
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government 
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must 
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before 
April 4, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and 
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public 
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of 
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South 
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).

[[Page 5705]]

Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL-3854-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
7E7308) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.498 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the combined free and 
conjugated residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone, [N-[2,4-dichloro-5-
[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide] and its metabolites HMS [N-(2,4-dichloro-
5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide] and DMS [(N-2,4-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide] in or on food commodities Brassica, head 
and stem, subgroup 5A at 0.20 parts per million (ppm); Brassica, leafy 
greens, subgroup 5B at 0.35 ppm; melon, subgroup 9A at 0.10 ppm; 
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.05 ppm; okra at 0.05 ppm; pea, 
succulent at 0.05 ppm; flax at 0.05 ppm; strawberry at 0.05 ppm; and 
vegetable, tuberous and corn, subgroup 1C at 0.15 ppm. That notice 
referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by FMC 
Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. 
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
revised the proposed tolerance levels for several commodities. 
Additionally, the EPA has assessed several additional fruiting 
vegetable commodities in order to establish the revised and expanded 
fruiting vegetable group 8-10. EPA has also revised the tolerance 
expression for all established commodities to be consistent with 
current Agency policy. The reasons for these changes are explained in 
Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary 
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in 
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. 
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special 
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide 
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * 
*''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors 
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure for sulfentrazone including 
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. 
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sulfentrazone 
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.
    Sulfentrazone has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and 
inhalation routes of exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, but not a 
dermal irritant or sensitizer. Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies 
in rats, mice and dogs identified the hematopoietic system as the 
target of sulfentrazone. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibition in the 
mammalian species may result in disruption of heme synthesis. In these 
studies, disruption of heme synthesis was observed at about the same 
dose levels across species except in the case of mice, where the 
effects were seen at a slightly higher dose. The hematotoxicity 
occurred around the same dose level for short- through long-term 
exposure without increasing in severity.
    In the oral and dermal rat developmental toxicity studies, 
decreased fetal body weights and reduced/delayed skeletal ossifications 
were noted at doses that were not maternally toxic. In rabbits, 
developmental effects such as decreased pup viability were observed at 
a maternally toxic dose (clinical signs, abortions and decreased body 
weight gains). In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, 
offspring effects such as decreased body weights and decreased litter 
survival were observed at a maternally toxic dose (slightly decreased 
body weight gain).
    In the acute neurotoxicity study, an increased incidence of 
clinical signs (staggered gait, splayed hind limbs, and abdominal 
gripping), changes in functional observation battery (FOB) parameters, 
and decreased motor activity were observed; however, complete recovery 
was observed within 14 days and there was no evidence of 
neuropathology. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study, clinical signs 
of toxicity, increased motor activity, and/or decreased body weights, 
body weight gain, and food consumption were observed. There was no 
evidence of neuropathology in either study. In a published, non-
guideline developmental toxicity study in the rat (de Castro, et al., 
2007), several dose-dependent effects (delayed ear opening, decreased 
grip response and rearing frequency, and increased surface righting 
reflex reaction time) were reported in pups whose mothers were treated 
with sulfentrazone. However, this study had several shortcomings that 
limit its use for regulatory purposes.
    Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of 
increased incidence of tumor formation due to treatment with 
sulfentrazone. Therefore, the EPA classified sulfentrazone as ``not 
likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' The available mutagenicity 
studies indicate that sulfentrazone is weakly clastogenic in the in 
vitro mouse lymphoma assay in the absence of S9 activation; however, 
the response was not evident in the presence of S9 activation. 
Sulfentrazone is neither mutagenic in bacterial cells, nor clastogenic 
in male or female mice in vivo.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by sulfentrazone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: ``Sulfentrazone; REVISED Section 3 
Registration Request to Add New Uses on: Brassica, Head and Stem, 
Subgroup 5A; Brassica, Leafy Greens, Subgroup 5B; Melon, Subgroup 9A; 
Fruiting

[[Page 5706]]

Vegetable, Group 8 and Okra; Pea, Succulent; Flax; Strawberry; and 
Tuberous and Corm Vegetable, Subgroup 1C. Human-Health Risk 
Assessment.'' pp. 51-56 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0125.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to 
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is 
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to 
determine the dose at the NOAEL and the lowest dose at which adverse 
effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety 
factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe 
exposure level--generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose 
(PAD) (a = acute, c = chronic) 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 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    The doses and toxicological endpoints selected for several exposure 
scenarios including the acute dietary endpoints for females 13-49 years 
old, the chronic dietary endpoint, and the short- and intermediate-term 
inhalation endpoint have been revised since the last risk assessment 
based on a re-evaluation of the toxicology database. The updated 
endpoints are protective of sulfentrazone's developmental toxicity, 
which was the critical effect in the database and observed via both the 
oral and dermal routes of exposure.
    The acute dietary endpoint is based on increased gestation 
duration, reduced prenatal viability (fetal and litter), reduced litter 
size, increased number of stillborn pups, reduced postnatal survival 
(pups and litter), and pup body weight deficits throughout lactation in 
both generations of offspring observed in a 2-generation reproductive 
toxicity study in rats. The developmental effects were reported in the 
presence of mild maternal toxicity (slightly decreased body-weight 
gain, particularly in F1 females). It has been EPA's 
practice to consider various forms of developmental toxicity such as 
reduced prenatal viability, reduced litter size, and increased number 
of stillborn pups as single-dose effects and, therefore, relevant for 
the acute dietary (females aged 13-49) exposure scenario, in order to 
protect against potential exposure of pregnant females. It should be 
noted that the fetal body weight deficits and retardation in skeletal 
development (including decreased numbers of caudal vertebral and 
metacarpal ossification sites) reported in the oral rat prenatal 
developmental toxicity study were also evaluated for this acute dietary 
endpoint. However, it was concluded that such effects are unlikely due 
to a single dose event and are more appropriate for a repeated-exposure 
scenario. Furthermore, EPA has not traditionally considered delays in 
ossification (and related fetal body weight deficits) to be single dose 
effects.
    The chronic dietary endpoint is based on developmental toxicity 
(decreased fetal weights and delay in skeletal ossification) that was 
observed in the oral developmental toxicity study in the rat. This 
study provides the lowest NOAEL in the database, and the effects are 
similar to those observed in offspring (decreased body weight) at a 
slightly higher dose in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. In 
addition, choice of the developmental toxicity study in the rat 
protects against exposure of women throughout their entire lifespan, 
which includes their childbearing years.
    The short- and intermediate-term inhalation endpoints are based on 
developmental toxicity (decreased fetal weights, delay in skeletal 
ossification) that was observed in the oral developmental toxicity 
study in the rat. An oral study was chosen for this exposure scenario 
in the absence of an inhalation toxicity study. Assuming 100% 
absorption via the inhalation route, the oral developmental toxicity 
study protects pregnant women who might be exposed via inhalation 
against the critical effect observed in the sulfentrazone database, 
developmental toxicity.
    The endpoints for the other exposure scenarios remain the same. A 
summary of the toxicological endpoints for sulfentrazone used for human 
risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sulfentrazone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of
                                  departure and    RfD, PAD, LOC for
       Exposure/scenario           uncertainty/     risk assessment         Study and toxicological effects
                                  safety factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary.................  NOAEL = 14         Acute RfD = 0.14   2-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study--
(Females 13-49 years of age)..   milligrams/        mg/kg/day.         Rat, Offspring Toxicity LOAEL= 33 (M) and
                                 kilogram/day (mg/ aPAD = 0.14 mg/kg/  40 (F) mg/kg/day based on reduced
                                 kg/day).           day.               prenatal viability (fetal & litter),
                                UFA = 10x........                      reduced litter size, increased number of
                                UFH = 10x........                      stillborn pups, reduced pup and litter
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....                      postnatal survival and decreased pup body
                                                                       weights throughout lactation.
Acute dietary.................  NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/ Acute RfD = 2.5    Acute-Neurotoxicity Study--Rat, LOAEL =
(General population including    day.               mg/kg/day.         750 mg/kg/day based on increased
 infants and children).         UFA = 10x........  aPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/   incidence of clinical signs and FOB
                                UFH = 10x........   day.               parameters and decreased motor activity.
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....
Chronic dietary (All            NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.1  Prenatal Developmental Toxicity--Rat,
 populations).                   day.               mg/kg/day.         Developmental LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day, based
                                UFA = 10x........  cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/   upon decreased mean fetal weights, and
                                UFH = 10x........   day.               retardation in skeletal development
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....                      evidenced by an increased number of
                                                                       litters with any variation and by
                                                                       decreased number of caudal vertebral and
                                                                       metacarpal ossification sites.

[[Page 5707]]

 
Incidental oral short-term (1   NOAEL= 14 mg/kg/   LOC for MOE = 100  2-Generation Reproduction Study--Rat,
 to 30 days) and intermediate-   day.                                  LOAEL = 33 mg/kg/day based on decreased
 term (1 to 6 months).          UFA = 10x........                      pup body weights during lactation and
                                UFH = 10x........                      reduced postnatal survival in both
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....                      generations.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30      Dermal (or oral)   LOC for MOE = 100  Dermal Developmental Study--Rat, LOAEL =
 days) and intermediate-term.    study NOAEL =                         250 mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal
(1 to 6 months)...............   100 mg/kg/day.                        body weight; increased incidences of
                                UFA = 10x........                      fetal variations: hypoplastic or wavy
                                UFH = 10x........                      ribs, incompletely ossified lumbar
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....                      vertebral arches, and incompletely
                                                                       ossified ischia or pubes; and reduced
                                                                       number of thoracic vertebral and rib
                                                                       ossification sites.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30  Inhalation (or     LOC for MOE = 100  Prenatal Developmental Toxicity--Rat,
 days).                          oral) study                           Developmental LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day, based
                                 NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/                      upon decreased mean fetal weights, and
                                 day (inhalation                       retardation in skeletal development
                                 absorption rate                       evidenced by an increased number of
                                 = 100%).                              litters with any variation and by
                                UFA = 10x........                      decreased number of caudal vertebral and
                                UFH = 10x........                      metacarpal ossification sites.
                                FQPA SF = 1x.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal,              Sulfentrazone is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
 inhalation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
  study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
  SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to sulfentrazone, EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing sulfentrazone 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.498. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 
sulfentrazone 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 sulfentrazone. EPA performed separate acute risk assessments for 
females 13-49 years old and for the general population, including 
infants and children, based on different endpoints and aPADs. In 
estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption 
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by 
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-
level residues, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM)\TM\ (ver. 
7.81) default processing factors, and assumed 100 percent crop treated 
(PCT) for all commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level 
residues, DEEM\TM\ (ver. 7.81) default processing factors, and assumed 
100 PCT for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that sulfentrazone does not pose a cancer risk to humans. 
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing 
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use 
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment 
for sulfentrazone. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed 
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for sulfentrazone in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of sulfentrazone. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Sulfentrazone and 3-carboxylic acid sulfentrazone are the residues 
of concern in drinking water. Therefore, the First Index Reservoir 
Screening Tool (FIRST) model was used to estimate concentrations of 
sulfentrazone and 3-carboxylic acid sulfentrazone in surface water, and 
the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model was 
utilized to estimate concentrations in ground water. The estimated 
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sulfentrazone and 3-
carbyoxylic acid sulfentrazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 
35.8 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 26.0 ppb for ground 
water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, EDWCs are 
estimated to be 7.8 ppb for surface water and 26.0 ppb for ground 
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration value of 35.8 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 26.0 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and

[[Page 5708]]

flea and tick control on pets). Sulfentrazone is currently registered 
for the following use that could result in residential exposures: 
residential home lawns/turf and recreational turf, such as golf courses 
(application by professional applicators only). EPA assessed 
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Adults were 
assessed for potential short-term dermal and inhalation handler 
exposure from applying sulfentrazone to residential turf/home lawns and 
for short-term postapplication dermal exposure from contact with 
treated residential and recreational turf (home lawns and golf 
courses). Youths, ages 10-12 years old, were selected as a 
representative population to assess postapplication dermal exposure 
from contact with treated residential and recreational turf (home lawns 
and golf courses). Children, ages 3-6 years old, were selected as a 
representative population to assess for postapplication dermal and 
incidental oral (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion and 
episodic ingestion of granules) exposure to residential turf/home 
lawns. As short- and intermediate-term points of departure are the 
same, the short-term assessment is considered protective of 
intermediate-term exposures. For children, however, while all three 
incidental oral exposures were aggregated for short-term exposures, the 
intermediate-term postapplication exposure scenario included only the 
soil ingestion incidental oral pathway, as this is the only pathway 
assumed to potentially result in intermediate-term exposures. Chronic 
exposures are not expected and were not assessed.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic 
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative 
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances 
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found sulfentrazone to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and sulfentrazone does not appear 
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
sulfentrazone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which 
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the 
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA 
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants 
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal 
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity 
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This 
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety 
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default 
value of 10x, or uses a different additional safety factor when 
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different 
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of 
increased quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure in 
the oral and dermal rat developmental toxicity studies. Developmental 
effects, including decreased fetal body weights and reduced/delayed 
skeletal ossifications were observed at doses that were not maternally 
toxic. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring 
effects such as decreased body weights and decreased litter survival 
were observed at a slightly maternally toxic dose (slightly decreased 
body weight gain), indicating possible slightly increased qualitative 
susceptibility. Additionally, several dose-dependent effects were 
observed in rat pups whose mothers were treated with sulfentrazone in a 
published non-guideline rat developmental toxicity study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following 
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sulfentrazone is complete except for 
immunotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 require 
immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.7800) for pesticide 
registration. However, the existing data are sufficient for endpoint 
selection for exposure/risk assessment scenarios, and for evaluation of 
the requirements under the FQPA. The toxicology database for 
sulfentrazone does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects 
on the immune system; the overall weight of evidence is consistent with 
this chemical being a PPO inhibitor resulting in disruption of heme 
biosynthesis and subsequent effects on red blood cell dysfunction 
(e.g., anemia). Unlike white blood cells (leukocytes) which are cells 
of the immune system, red blood cells function to deliver oxygen to 
body tissues and are not involved in eliciting an immune response. 
Furthermore, there is no indication in the sulfentrazone database of 
any effect on leukocyte counts (an indicator of immune function). Thus, 
the overall weight of evidence indicates that this chemical does not 
directly target the immune system. Sulfentrazone also does not belong 
to a class of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or 
halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be 
immunotoxic. Based on the above considerations, EPA does not believe 
that conducting a functional immunotoxicity study will result in a 
lower point of departure than that currently used for overall risk 
assessment. Therefore, an additional database UF to account for 
potential immunotoxicity does not need to be applied.
    ii. The toxicity database for sulfentrazone does not trigger the 
need for a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. There are no 
indications in any of the studies available that the nervous system is 
a target for sulfentrazone. The FOB findings were very non-specific 
signs of toxicity (perianal staining, colored tears) and motor activity 
changes only occurred at higher doses following acute exposure with 
rapid reversibility, also indicating general toxicity rather than 
specific neurotoxicity. The lack of neuropathological findings further 
supports the non-specific nature of the signs observed. In addition, 
there is a literature DNT study available for sulfentrazone. The only 
reliable effects seen in this study involved effects on physical and 
reflex development, which are known to be affected by body weight. 
Therefore, these effects are likely secondary to the effects (including 
body weight deficits) reported in the 2-generation reproductive 
toxicity study. EPA employed an independent statistical method to 
evaluate the literature DNT in an effort to determine if these effects 
were consistent with effects observed in other guideline studies at 
these same dose levels. The results of that analysis indicate that the 
results of the literature DNT study are consistent with what was 
observed in the rat 2-generation

[[Page 5709]]

reproduction study and that the studies used for risk assessment (NOAEL 
of 10 mg/kg/day from the developmental toxicity study in rat and the 
NOAEL of 14 mg/kg/day from the 2-generation reproduction study), are 
protective of the observations made at [gteqt]25 mg/kg/day in the 
literature study for which a NOAEL was not attained. Based on the 
weight of evidence, there is no uncertainty related to developmental 
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility 
following in utero exposure in the oral and dermal developmental 
toxicity studies in rats and possible evidence of slightly increased 
qualitative susceptibility of offspring in the 2-generation rat 
reproduction study. However, concern is low because clear NOAELs have 
been identified for the effects noted in these studies and both of the 
developmental toxicity studies have been chosen for endpoint selection, 
thereby protecting the relevant human subpopulations from the noted 
effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based 
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative 
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to sulfentrazone 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 
sulfentrazone.

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 
aPAD and 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 sulfentrazone will occupy residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and 
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards 
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. There are no Codex, 
Canadian, or Mexican MRLs established for residues of sulfentrazone in 
or on the subject commodities.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing that had an 
objection to ``the manufacture or sale'' of sulfentrazone, citing the 
cruelty of animal testing as the main source of opposition. The Agency 
has received these same or similar comments from this commenter on 
numerous previous occasions. Please refer to the Federal Register of 70 
FR 1349 (January 7, 2005) and 70 FR 37683 (June 30, 2005) for the 
Agency's previous responses to these and other similar comments.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA revised 
the proposed tolerances for the following commodities: Brassica, leafy 
greens, subgroup 5B from 0.35 ppm to 0.40 ppm; melon, subgroup 9A from 
0.10 ppm to 0.15 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 from 0.05 ppm to 
0.15 ppm; okra from 0.05 ppm to 0.15 ppm; pea, succulent from 0.05 ppm 
to 0.15 ppm; flax from 0.05 ppm to 0.15 ppm; and strawberry from 0.05 
ppm to 0.15 ppm. EPA revised the tolerance levels based on analysis of 
the residue field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet 
in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide 
Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data.
    Additionally, EPA was petitioned for tolerances on fruiting 
vegetable group 8

[[Page 5710]]

and a separate tolerance on okra. In the Federal Register of December 
8, 2010 (75 FR 76284) (FRL-8853-8), EPA issued a final rule that 
revised the crop grouping regulations. As part of this action, EPA 
expanded and revised the existing fruiting vegetable crop group 8. 
Changes to crop group 8 included adding okra, cocona, African eggplant, 
pea eggplant, scarlet eggplant, goji berry, garden huckleberry, 
martynia, naranjilla, roselle, sunberry, bush tomato, currant tomato, 
and tree tomato; creating subgroups; revising the representative 
commodities; and naming the new crop group fruiting vegetable group 8-
10. EPA indicated in the December 8, 2010 final rule as well as the 
earlier January 6, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 807) (FRL-8801-2) that, 
for existing petitions for which a Notice of Filing had been published, 
the Agency would attempt to conform these petitions to the rule. 
Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA has assessed and is 
establishing a tolerance on fruiting vegetable group 8-10.
    Finally, the EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify 
(1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers 
metabolites and degradates of sulfentrazone not specifically mentioned; 
and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be 
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the 
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the combined 
residues of free and conjugated forms of sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-
dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its metabolites HMS (N-
(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-
1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS (N-(2,4-
dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, in or on Brassica, head and stem, 
subgroup 5A at 0.20 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 0.40 
ppm; melon, subgroup 9A at 0.15 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 
0.15 ppm; pea, succulent at 0.15 ppm; flax at 0.15 ppm; strawberry at 
0.15 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.15 ppm. 
Additionally, this regulation deletes existing individual tolerances in 
or on cabbage at 0.20 ppm and potato at 0.15 ppm, and further deletes 
the time-limited tolerance for bean, succulent seed without pod (lima 
bean and cowpea) at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of 
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any 
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any 
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in 
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, 
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any 
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to 
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.498 is amended as follows:
0
i. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1);
0
ii. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), remove the 
entries for ``Cabbage'' and ``Potato'' and add commodities to the 
table;
0
iii. Revise paragraph (b); and
0
iv. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (d), to read as follows:

Sec.  180.498  Sulfentrazone; tolerances for residues.

    (a)(1) General. Tolerances are established for the combined 
residues of the free and conjugated forms of sulfentrazone, including 
its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table 
below. Compliance with the tolerance levels

[[Page 5711]]

specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of 
sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its 
metabolite HMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, 
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone in or on 
the following commodities.
* * * * *
    (2) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the 
free and conjugated forms of sulfentrazone, including its metabolites 
and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance 
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by 
measuring only the sum of sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its metabolites HMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-
5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric 
equivalent of sulfentrazone in or on the following commodities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A........................        0.20
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B.........................        0.40
 
                                * * * * *
Flax........................................................        0.15
 
                                * * * * *
Melon, subgroup 9A..........................................        0.15
Pea, succulent..............................................        0.15
 
                                * * * * *
Strawberry..................................................        0.15
 
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.............................        0.15
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...................        0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are 
established for the combined residues of the free and conjugated forms 
of sulfentrazone, including its metabolites and degradates, in 
connection with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency 
exemptions granted by EPA. Compliance with the tolerance levels 
specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of 
sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its 
metabolites HMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) 
and DMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-
1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the 
stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone in or on the following 
commodities. These tolerances expire and are revoked on the dates 
specified in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Parts per         Expiration/
             Commodity                   million        revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flax, seed........................               0.20           12/31/13
Strawberry........................               0.60           12/31/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Tolerances are established 
for inadvertent and indirect combined residues of the free and 
conjugated forms of sulfentrazone, including its metabolites and 
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance 
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by 
measuring only the sum of sulfentrazone (N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide) and its metabolites HMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-
5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS (N-(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric 
equivalent of sulfentrazone in or on the following commodities when 
present therein as a result of the application of sulfentrazone to 
growing crops.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-1898 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```