```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38204-38210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15595]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029; FRL-9352-5]

Cyflufenamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
cyflufenamid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and 
discussed later in this document. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., c/o Nisso 
America, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 27, 2012. Objections and 
requests for

[[Page 38205]]

hearings must be received on or before August 27, 2012, and must be 
filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 
(see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029; FRL-9352-5, is 
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the OPP Docket in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm. 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is 
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional 
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Hulkower, Registration 
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 603-0683; email address: 
hulkower.samantha@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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029 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 
August 27, 2012. 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 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 a copy of your non-CBI objection or 
hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029, 
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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), Mail Code: 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL-8407-
4), 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 
8F7488) by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., c/o Nisso America, Inc., 45 Broadway, 
Suite 2120, New York, NY 10006. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 
180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide 
cyflufenamid, in or on cucurbit vegetables (crop group 9) at 0.05 parts 
per million (ppm); pome fruit (crop group 11), 0.05 ppm; apple, wet 
pomace, at 0.10 ppm; small fruit vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit 
(subgroup 13-07F) at 0.15 ppm; grape, raisin, at 0.30 ppm, and low 
growing berry (subgroup 13-07G), except cranberry, at 0.20 ppm. That 
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nippon Soda 
Co., Ltd., c/o Nisso America, Inc, the registrant, which is available 
in the docket, at http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments 
received in response to the notice of filing
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has 
slightly increased the tolerances for pome fruit (Crop Group 11), 0.05 
ppm to 0.06 ppm, and cucurbits (Crop Group 9), 0.05 to 0.07 ppm. 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. * * 
*''

[[Page 38206]]

    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 cyflufenamid including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyflufenamid 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. Cyflufenamid has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and 
inhalation routes of exposure. Though slightly irritating to the eye, 
cyflufenamid is not a skin irritant or sensitizer. In the mammalian 
toxicology database, the liver was the primary target organ for 
cyflufenamid toxicity. Across species, duration and gender, changes in 
weight, clinical chemistry and pathology indicated treatment-related 
perturbations in and adverse effects on liver function.
    Thyroid effects due to treatment with cyflufenamid, seen only in 
the rat, included increased follicular cell hypertrophy (as well as 
increased organ weight) and neoplastic thyroid follicular adenomas. 
Kidney effects related to treatment included increased kidney weight 
accompanied by tubular vacuolation and slight decreases in sodium and 
chloride concentrations.
    Treatment-related cardiotoxicity was noted in the rat and mouse 
feeding studies. Observed myocardial vacuolation and lipidosis may be 
attributed to decreased lipid metabolism; cyflufenamid caused an 
approximately 50% inhibition of carnitine palmitoyltransferase in both 
rat and mouse heart microsomal fractions in a non-guideline mechanistic 
study. Carnitine palmitoyltransferase is involved in the transport of 
long chain fatty acids into the mitochondrial matrix for oxidation. 
Fatty acid oxidation is an important source of energy for ATP 
production in the mitochondria.
    Cyflufenamid-induced brain vacuolation was specific to the dog and 
not associated with any apparent clinical sign of neurotoxicity. 
Supplementary studies investigating this phenomenon determined that 
vacuolation was due to myelin edema affecting the white matter of the 
cerebrum and thalamus. Furthermore, this brain lesion was partially 
reversed after a 13-week recovery period (following 90-day exposure) 
and fully reversed after a 26-week recovery period. This effect was not 
observed in any other species. A subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats 
showed no evidence of neurotoxicity.
    Effects on reproductive organs and/or parameters were noted in 
several subchronic studies at doses greater than the respective Lowest 
Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAELs). Decreased uterus and cervix 
weights, adrenal cortical hypertrophy and reduced quality and quantity 
of spermatozoa were observed in dogs. Leydig cell hypertrophy was 
observed in rats and mice. It is unclear what toxicological 
significance should be ascribed to these findings since they may be 
secondary to systemic toxicity or hepatic enzyme induction. Mating 
performance and fertility in the P/F0 generation were both 
unaffected by treatment with cyflufenamid in the 2-generation 
reproductive toxicity study in rats. Sex ratio, sexual maturation, 
estrous cyclicity, sperm quantity and quality, mating performance and 
fertility, gestation and viability indices in the F1 
generation were all unaffected by treatment.
    Cyflufenamid is classified as ``likely to be carcinogenic to 
humans.'' This was based on the presence of two tumor types in two 
species: Thyroid follicular cell tumors in male rats and liver tumors 
in male mice. There is no concern for mutagenicity or clastogenicity. 
The unit risk, Q1*, of cyflufenamid based upon male mouse 
liver combined adenoma and carcinoma tumor rates is 6.61 x 
10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 in human equivalents.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by cyflufenamid 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 ``Human Health Risk Assessment,'' 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0029.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the 
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to 
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) 
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified 
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with 
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a 
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe 
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes 
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the 
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of 
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the 
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyflufenamid used for 
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 below. No hazards were 
identified for acute dietary across all populations. For dermal short 
and intermediate term exposures no adverse effects were observed in the 
dermal toxicity study and there are no concerns for developmental or 
neurological toxicities, therefore no hazards are expected for these 
exposure scenarios.

[[Page 38207]]

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyflufenamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 4.4 mg/kg/day  cRfD = 0.044 mg/kg/  Combined Chronic Toxicity/
                                   UFA = 10x...........   day.                 Carcinogenicity Study in Rats
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.044 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 22 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day..                decreased body weight gain;
                                                                               increased thyroid/parathyroid
                                                                               weight, increased liver weight
                                                                               and centrilobular hepatocytic
                                                                               hypertrophy.
 
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 5 mg/kg/day..  LOC for MOE = 100..  Prenatal Developmental Study in
 30 days) and intermediate-term    UFA = 10x...........                        Rabbits Maternal
 (1 to 6 months).                  UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased body weight, body
                                                                               weight gain and food consumption.
 
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL= 5 mg/kg/day..  LOC for MOE = 100..  Prenatal Developmental Study in
 days) and intermediate-term (1    UFA = 10x...........                        Rabbits Maternal
 to 6 months).                     UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased body weight, body
                                                                               weight gain and food consumption.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Likely to be carcinogenic to humans. Quantification of cancer risk was
                                    recommended. The Q1* value is 6.61 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA =
  extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of
  the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to cyflufenamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyflufenamid in 
food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk 
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological 
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring 
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were 
identified in the toxicological studies for cyflufenamid; therefore, a 
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey 
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, 
this dietary assessment was based on average field trial residues for 
all proposed crops and 100% crop treated (CT). Empirical processing 
factors were used for apple juice and grape juice. A separate tolerance 
was set for grape, raisin; therefore, the processing factor for this 
commodity was set at 1. For all other processed commodities, Dietary 
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) version 7.81 default processing 
factors were assumed.
    iii. Cancer. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure 
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use PCT information in the dietary assessment for 
cyflufenamid. One-hundred PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data 
and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues 
in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been 
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after 
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, 
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels 
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for cyflufenamid in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of cyflufenamid. 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.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of 
cyflufenamid for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.14 parts per 
billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.68 ppb for ground water. Chronic 
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.03 ppb for 
surface water and 4.68 ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for 
cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.01 ppb for surface water and 
4.68 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For acute dietary risk assessment, no toxic effects attributable to 
a single exposure to cyflufenamid have been identified; therefore, an 
acute reference dose (aRfD) has not been established and an acute 
dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.
    For chronic and cancer dietary risk assessments, the ground water 
concentration value of 4.68 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,

[[Page 38208]]

indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Cyflufenamid is proposed to be registered for the following uses 
that could result in residential exposures: Mixing, loading, and 
applying a soluble concentrate formulation of cyflufenamid for 
treatment of ornamental plantings and trees. EPA assessed residential 
exposure using the following assumptions: Based on the use patterns, 
residential handlers could be exposed to cyflufenamid on a short-term 
basis. A short-term dermal endpoint was not identified; therefore, only 
short-term non-cancer inhalation risks and cancer risks for residential 
handlers were assessed.
    When determining the potential for residential post-application 
exposure, the Agency considers foliar residues, leaf to skin/hand 
residue transfer, children's hand-to-mouth residue transfer, and 
exposure time. In the case of cyflufenamid, potential exposure to 
adults and children would be negligible for the following reasons:
     Activities such as pruning/thinning ornamentals or playing 
in and around ornamentals when residues may be present on the day of 
the application are unlikely to co-occur;
     If present, leaf to skin residue transfer would be 
negligible because of the minimal frequency and duration of contact;
     Children young enough to exhibit hand-to-mouth behavior 
would not typically play in ornamental beds or trees.

Based on the frequency of application and unlikely potential for post-
application exposure, residential post-application risks were not 
quantitatively assessed; thus, there are no postapplication residential 
risk concerns for this use pattern.
    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 
cyflufenamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other 
substances, and cyflufenamid does not appear to produce a toxic 
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this 
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that cyflufenamid 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 no evidence of 
susceptibility following in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the 
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, and in the 2-
generation rat reproduction study. There are no residual uncertainties 
concerning pre- and postnatal toxicity and no neurotoxicity concerns.
    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 cyflufenamid is complete, with the 
exception of an acute neurotoxicity study (ACN, OPPTS 870.6200a). The 
absence of this study does not raise any uncertainties with regard to 
the safety of infants and children for the following reasons. First, no 
acute affects have been attributed to cyflufenamid. In an acute oral 
toxicity study, adverse effects were noted on the day of administration 
(limit dose) but not thereafter; clinical signs of piloerection, 
hunched posture, unsteady gait, pallid extremities, increased 
salivation, ungroomed appearance and abnormal respiration were observed 
in the majority of animals receiving 5,000 mg/kg and generally resolved 
by Day 2 of the study. Second, an acceptable, guideline subchronic 
neurotoxicity study is available and in it repeat exposure to doses up 
to approximately 500 mg/kg/day did not elicit any neurotoxic effects as 
assessed in the functional observational battery, motor activity, 
neurohistopathology or brain morphometrics. Third, cyflufenamid is not 
an apparently neurotoxic chemical based on clinical toxicity 
assessments incorporated within the developmental and chronic rat 
studies. In several short-term studies in rats (subacute and subchronic 
feeding, plaque-forming cell assay, one-generation pilot, developmental 
toxicity), no neurobehavioral signs were observed at the highest doses 
tested. While the relevant and reversible effect of brain vacuolation 
was observed in the subchronic dog study at approximately 70 mg/kg/day, 
it is observed in the absence of overt neurotoxicity and nowhere else 
in the toxicology database. Finally, based on this information, an 
acute neurotoxicity screening test is very unlikely to yield a point of 
departure less than the chronic NOAEL of 4.4 mg/kg/day if any adverse 
effects are observed at all. Even if the chronic point of departure was 
used in assessing acute risk, there would be no risk concern based on 
acute dietary exposure.
    ii. There is no indication that cyflufenamid is a neurotoxic 
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study 
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that cyflufenamid results in increased 
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal 
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction 
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The chronic dietary assessment assumed 100% crop treated for 
all commodities and utilized average field trial residues for all 
proposed crops, default and empirical processing factors. EPA made 
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water 
modeling used to assess exposure to cyflufenamid 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 cyflufenamid.

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

[[Page 38209]]

risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 
given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and 
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate 
food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure 
that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure 
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 
cyflufenamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
cyflufenamid from food and water will utilize 1% of the cPAD for all 
infants (-7.
    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 cyflufenamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate multiresidue methods test data for cyflufenamid were 
submitted. Acceptable recoveries of cyflufenamid from a non-fatty 
matrix (grape) were achieved under Protocol E. Acceptable recoveries 
from a fatty matrix (milk) were also achieved under Protocol F. EPA 
recommends that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) multiresidue methods 
be used as the primary enforcement method. The submitted data will be 
forwarded to the FDA for further evaluation.
    Adequate enforcement methodologies are available to enforce the 
tolerance expression. The LC/MS/MS method (Method 070276) was submitted 
for the determination of cyflufenamid residues in/on pome fruit, 
cucurbit vegetables, grapes, and strawberries. The proposed enforcement 
method (Method 070276) which monitors only one transition ion, in 
combination with the FDA multiresidue method meets the OPPTS Residue 
Chemistry Test Guidelines for acceptable tolerance enforcement methods 
(SOP Number ACB-019). An enforcement method for livestock commodities 
is not needed because tolerances for cyflufenamid residues of concern 
in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs are not required to support the 
proposed uses based on the results of the goat metabolism study and the 
calculated dietary burden.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not 
established a MRL for cyflufenamid. Cyflufenamid is not registered in 
Canada.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The EPA increased the proposed tolerance for pome fruit crop group 
11 from 0.05 ppm to 0.06 ppm and for cucurbit crop group 9 from 0.05 
ppm to 0.07 ppm. These changes were made by EPA based on North American 
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) tolerance calculation procedures according 
to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Guidance for Setting 
Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyflufenamid, 
in or on Apple, wet pomace, 0.10 ppm; Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-
07G, except cranberry, 0.20 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11, 0.06 ppm; 
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F, 
0.15 ppm; Grape, raisin, 0.30 ppm; Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9, 0.07 
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) 
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has 
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain 
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any 
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers,

[[Page 38210]]

and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter 
the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities 
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 
408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not 
have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States or 
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 
that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule 
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as 
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 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: June 15, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, 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 180.667 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.667  Cyflufenamid, tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the 
fungicide cyflufenamid, 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 
cyflufenamid, [N(Z)]-N-[[(cyclopropylmethoxy)amino][2,3- difluoro-6-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methylene]benzeneacetamide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, wet pomace...........................................        0.10
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry.......        0.20
Fruit, pome, group 11.......................................        0.06
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup        0.15
 13-07F.....................................................
Grape, raisin...............................................        0.30
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................        0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2012-15595 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```