### 76304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, Wilderness

areas.

Dated: November 22, 2011. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: **PART 52—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
**Subpart P—Indiana**

■ 2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraphs (v)(4) and (w)(4) to read as follows:

**§ 52.776 Control strategy: Particulate**
**matter.**
* * * * *

(v) * * *(4) The Chicago-Gary-Lake County, ILIN nonattainment area (Lake and Porter Counties), as submitted on April 3, 2008, and supplemented on March 6, 2009. The maintenance plan establishes 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets for Lake and Porter Counties of 2,915.19 tons per year for NO X and 132.70 tons per year for primary PM 2.5 .

(w) * * * (4) Indiana’s 2005 NO X , primary PM 2.5 , and SO 2 emissions inventory satisfies the emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for Lake and Porter Counties.

**PART 81—[AMENDED]**

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follow:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

■ 4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN in the table entitled ‘‘Indiana PM 2.5 (Annual NAAQS)’’ to read as follows:

**§ 81.315 Indiana.**
* * * * *



### I NDIANA

### —PM 2.5 [Annual NAAQS]

Designated area Designation 1

Date 2Type

******* Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN: February 6, 2012 ...................................................................... Attainme nt. Lake County Porter County

*******

1 Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.

2 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–31131 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1026; FRL–9325–2]**

**Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of saflufenacil in or on Banana; Coffee, green bean; and Mango. BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective December 7, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 6, 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 :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– OPP–2010–1026. 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 :**  Kathryn Montague, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–1243; email address: montague.kathryn@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).


### 76305 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

• 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–2010–1026 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 6, 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 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–2010–1026, 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). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805. II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6465) (FRL–8858–7), 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 0E7806) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709–3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.649 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide saflufenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on Banana, whole fruit; Coffee, green bean; and Mango, fruit at 0.03 parts per million (ppm). Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum of saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6- dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2 H )- pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N -[[methyl(1- methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its metabolites N -[2-chloro-5-(2,6- dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-1 (2 H )-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N’

- isopropylsulfamide and N -[4-chloro-2- fluoro-5-( { [(isopropylamino) sulfonyl]amino } carbonyl)phenyl]urea, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on the commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF 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 modified the commodity terms for Banana and Mango. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D. III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.’’ This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *

Consistent with 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 saflufenacil including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks associated with saflufenacil 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.

Saflufenacil has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is slightly irritating to the eye but is neither a dermal irritant nor sensitizer.

Short-term, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs identified the hematopoietic system as the target organ of saflufenacil. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibition in the mammalian species may result in disruption of heme synthesis which in turn causes anemia. In these studies, decreased hematological parameters (red blood cells (RBC), hematocrit (Ht), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC)) were seen at about the same dose level across species, except in the case of the dog, where the effects were seen at a slightly higher dose. These effects occurred around the same dose level from the


### 76306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

short- through long-term exposures without increasing in severity. Effects were also seen in the liver (increased weight, centrilobular fatty change, and lymphoid infiltrate) in mice, the spleen (increased spleen weight and extramedullary hematopoiesis) in rats, and in both these organs (increased iron storage in the liver and extramedullary hematopoiesis in the spleen) in dogs. No dermal toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats.

Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of increased incidence of tumors at the tested doses. Saflufenacil is weakly clastogenic in the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay in V79 cells in the presence of S9 activation; however, the response was not evident in the absence of S9 activation. It is neither mutagenic in bacterial cells nor clastogenic in rodents in vivo. Saflufenacil is classified as ‘‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.’’

Increased fetal and offspring susceptibility to saflufenacil were observed in the developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. Developmental effects such as decreased fetal body weights and increased skeletal variations occurred at doses that were not maternally toxic in the developmental study in rats, indicating increased quantitative susceptibility. In rabbits, developmental effects such as increased liver porphyrins were observed at doses that were not maternally toxic, indicating increased quantitative susceptibility. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring effects such as increased number of stillborn pups, decreased viability and lactation indices, decreased pre-weaning body weight and/or body-weight gain, and changes in hematological parameters were observed at a dose resulting in less severe maternal toxicity (decreased food intake, body weight/weight gain and changes in hematological parameters and organ weights indicative of anemia), indicating increased qualitative susceptibility.

There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the toxicity database for saflufenacil. In the acute neurotoxicity study, a decrease in motor activity was observed on the first day of dosing at the limit dose in males only. The finding was not accompanied by any other neuropathological changes and was considered a reflection of a mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-specific neurotoxic effect. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study, systemic toxicity (anemia), but no evidence of neurotoxicity, was seen in males and females.

There is no evidence of immunotoxity in the saflufenacil database. The increase in spleen weight seen only in rats in the 90-day oral toxicity study is attributable to an increased clearance of defective RBCs (i.e., defective hemoglobin synthesis) and is thus an indication of toxicity to the hematopoietic system rather than to the immune system. In a 28-day immunotoxicity study in rats, saflufenacil failed to induce toxicity specific to the immune system at the highest dose tested, indicating that saflufenacil does not directly target the immune system at the dose levels being used for risk assessment.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by saflufenacil as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http:// www.regulations.gov in the document Saflufenacil. Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Tolerances for Residues in/on Imported Coffee, Banana, and Mango at page 19 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–1026. 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 (U/SF) 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 safemargin of exposure (MOE). For nonthreshold 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 saflufenacil used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27256) (FRL–8872–7).
C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to saflufenacil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing saflufenacil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.649. EPA assessed dietary exposures from saflufenacil 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 saflufenacil. 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). The unrefined assessment assumed 100% crop treated (CT), Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) TM 7.81 defaultconcentration factors, and tolerancelevel residues for all commodities, except cottonseed; sunflower subgroup 20B; soybean, seed; vegetable, legume, subgroup 6C, pea and bean (except soybean); and rapeseed subgroup 20A, for which the tolerance levels were multiplied by a correction factor to account for a metabolite of concern which is not included in the tolerance expression.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998 CSFII. Chronic dietary exposure was assessed using the same food residue assumptions as in the acute dietary exposure assessment discussed in unit III.C.1.i.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that saflufenacil does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for saflufenacil in drinking water. These


### 76307 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/ transport characteristics of saflufenacil. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model/Ground Water (PRZM/GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of saflufenacil for acute exposures are estimated to be 37.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 180 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 23.8 ppb for surface water and 173 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 180 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 173 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used inthis 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). Saflufenacil is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider ‘‘available information’’ concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’

EPA has not found saflufenacil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and saflufenacil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that saflufenacil 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 (10 ×) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10 × , or uses a different additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The pre- and postnatal toxicity database for saflufenacil includes rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, a 2- generation reproduction toxicity study in rats, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats, and a 28- day immunotoxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A. there was evidence of quantitative susceptibility of fetuses to saflufenacil exposure in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and evidence of qualitative susceptibility of offspring in the rat reproduction study.

An analysis was performed to determine the degree of concern for the effects observed in the developmental and reproduction toxicity studies when considered in the context of all available toxicity data, and to identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional uncertainty factors (UFs) to be used in the risk assessment of saflufenacil. The degree of concern is low and there are no residual uncertainties for the increased susceptibility since:

i. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects seen in the 2- generation reproduction study;

ii. Dose-response relationships for the effects of concern are well characterized;

iii. None of the effects in the developmental or reproduction studies were attributable to a single exposure and, therefore, are not of concern for acute risk assessment; and

iv. The dose used to evaluate chronic dietary risks is lower than the NOAELS for fetal/offspring effects in the developmental and reproduction studies and is, therefore, protective of the developmental and offspring effects observed in these studies.

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 saflufenacil is complete.

ii. There is no indication that saflufenacil is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative and qualitative susceptibility of offspring in the developmental and reproduction studies for saflufenacil, the degree of concern is low and the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk assessment of saflufenacil.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to saflufenacil in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by saflufenacil. 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 saflufenacil will occupy <1% of the aPAD for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups including infants and children.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to saflufenacil from food and water will utilize 31% of the cPAD for infants less than 1 year


### 76308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for saflufenacil.

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).

A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, saflufenacil is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for saflufenacil.

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).

An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, saflufenacil is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-termrisk is assessed based on intermediateterm residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for saflufenacil.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, saflufenacil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to saflufenacil residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC– MS/MS)) 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: 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.

The Codex has not established a MRL for saflufenacil.
C. Response to Comments

An anonymous citizen objected to the presence of any pesticide residues on food. The Agency understands the commenter’s concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned completely. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of FFDCA contemplates that tolerances greater than zero may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen’s comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA’s implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

EPA has revised the proposed commodity terms as follows to agree with the Agency’s Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary: ‘‘Banana, whole fruit’’ was changed to ‘‘Banana;’’ ‘‘Mango, fruit’’ was changed to ‘‘Mango’’.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, as set forth in the regulatory text. 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,


### 76309 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

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: November 21, 2011.
Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

**PART 180—[AMENDED]**

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

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

■ 2. Section 180.649 is amended by alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

**§ 180.649 Saflufenacil; tolerances for residues.** 

(a) General. (1) * * * Commodity Parts per million

* * * * * Banana 1 ................................... 0.03 Coffee, green bean 1 ................. 0.03

* * * * * Mango 1 ..................................... 0.03

* * * * *

1 No U.S. registration as of December 7, 2011.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2011–31394 Filed 12–6–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 180**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0845; FRL–8885–8]**

**Isoxaflutole; Pesticide Tolerances**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of isoxaflutole in or on Soybean, seed and Grain, aspirated fractions. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

**DATES :**  This regulation is effective December 7, 2011. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before February 6, 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 :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– OPP–2010–0845. 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 :**  Kathryn V. Montague, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 305–1243; email address: montague.kathryn@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. To access the harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’ C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those