Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31479 

§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and 

post-harvest; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

Ethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 107–21–1) ........... Without limitation ............. Encapsulating agent for pesticides being applied post-harvest as 

residual, and crack and crevice sprays in and around food 

and nonfood areas of residential and nonresidential structures, including food handling establishments. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. In § 180.920, the table is amended 

by adding alphabetically the following 

inert ingredient to read as follows: 

§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement 

of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

Ethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 107–21–1) .............. Without limitation ............ Pesticide inert ingredient as a solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze. 

*******

[FR Doc. 2011–13577 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0426; FRL–8873–5] 

Pyraflufen-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of pyraflufenethyl in or on multiple commodities 

which are identified and discussed later 

in this document. Nichino America, 

Inc., requested these tolerances under 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

1, 2011. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 1, 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–2010–0426. 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; e-mail 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://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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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–2010–0426 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 1, 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–2010–0426, 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 June 23, 

2010 (75 FR 35801) (FRL–8831–3), 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 0F7718) by 

Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New 

Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, 

Wilmington, DE 19808. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.585 be 

amended by establishing tolerances for 

residues of the herbicide, pyraflufenethyl, ethyl 2-chloro-5-(4-chloro-5- 

difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetate and its 

acid metabolite, E-1, 2-chloro-5-(4- 

chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1-methyl-1Hpyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxyacetic 

acid, expressed in terms of the parent, 

in or on almond hulls at 0.02 parts per 

million (ppm); nuts, tree, group 14 at 

0.01 ppm; pistachio at 0.01 ppm; fruit, 

pome, group 11 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, 

stone, group 12 at 0.01 ppm; 

pomegranates at 0.01 ppm; olives at 0.01 

ppm; grapes at 0.01 ppm, and hops at 

0.05 ppm. The notice referenced a 

summary of the petition prepared by 

Nichino America, Inc., the registrant, 

which is available in the docket, 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 is not 

establishing, at this time, the requested 

hop tolerance due to the lack of field 

trial information for the hop study. EPA 

is updating the proposed crop 

commodities terminology. The reason 

for the changes 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 pyraflufen-ethyl 

including exposure resulting from the 

tolerances established by this action. 

EPA’s assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with pyraflufen-ethyl 

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. 

Pyraflufen-ethyl has low to moderate 

toxicity from acute exposure and it is 

not a dermal sensitizer. The liver, 

kidney, and possibly the hematopoietic 

system are the target organs for 

pyraflufen-ethyl in the rat and/or the 

mouse. There is no evidence of 

increased sensitivity to the young in 

developmental and reproductive studies 

with pyraflufen-ethyl. Pyraflufen-ethyl 

was not shown to be mutagenic in a 

battery of tests. Pyraflufen-ethyl was 

classified as ‘‘Likely to be Carcinogenic 

to Humans’’ based on male mouse 

hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas 

and/or hepatoblastomas (combined) 

observed in the mouse carcinogenicity 

study. The method of quantification was 

linear cancer slope factor (Q*). 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by pyraflufen-ethyl as 

well as the no-observed-adverse-effectlevel (NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the 

toxicity studies can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov in the document 

‘‘Pyraflufen-ethyl: Human Health Risk 

Assessment for a Section 3 Registration 

of New Food Uses on Tree Nuts (Crop 

Group 14), Pistachios, Pome Fruit (Crop 

Group 11–10), And Stone Fruits (Crop 

Group 12), Hops, Grapes, Olives And 

Pomegranates,’’ at page 17 in docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0426. 

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 pesticides. 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31481 

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 Pyraflufen-ethyl used for 

human risk assessment is shown in the 

following Table. 

TABLE—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR PYRAFLUFEN-ETHYL FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH

RISK ASSESSMENTS

Exposure/scenario Point of departure and 

uncertainty/safety factors 

RfD, PAD, LOC for risk 

assessment Study and toxicological effects 

Acute dietary (General population including infants and children).None ................................. None ................................. An endpoint attributable to a single dose 

was not identified from the available 

data. 

Chronic dietary (All populations) ................ NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day ...

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

Chronic RfD = 0.20 mg/kg/ 

day.

cPAD = 0.2 mg/kg/day 

Mouse Carcinogenicity LOAEL = 98 mg/ 

kg/day based on liver toxicity. 

Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) ... NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day ...

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

LOC for MOE = 100 ......... Developmental Toxicity-Rabbit LOAEL = 

60 mg/kg/day based on decreases in 

body weight and food consumption, GI 

observations, and abortions. 

Incidental oral intermediate-term (1 to 6 

months).

NOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day ...

UFA= 10x 

UFH= 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

LOC for MOE = 100 ......... Mouse Carcinogenicity LOAEL = 98 mg/ 

kg/day based on liver toxicity at interim 

sacrifice. 

Dermal (All Durations) ............................... None ................................. None ................................. In a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats, 

no dermal or systemic toxicity was 

seen at the Limit Dose (1,000 mg/kg/ 

day). 

Inhalation (All Durations) ........................... Maternal NOAEL= 20 mg/ 

kg/day.

UFA = 10x 

UFH = 10x 

FQPA SF = 1x 

LOC for MOE (residential) 

= 100.

Developmental Toxicity-Rabbit LOAEL = 

60 mg/kg/day based on decreases in 

body weight and food consumption, GI 

observations, and abortions. 

Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) .............. Classification: ‘‘Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ by the oral route. Q1* = 3.32 x 10¥2 (mg/kg/ 

day)¥1

GI = gastrointestinal. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the 

human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. LOC = level of concern. Mg/Kg/Day = milligram/kilogram/day. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances as well as all 

existing pyraflufen-ethyl tolerances in 

40 CFR 180.585. EPA assessed dietary 

exposures from pyraflufen-ethyl 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 pyraflufenethyl; therefore, a quantitative acute 

dietary exposure assessment is 

unnecessary. 

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting 

the chronic dietary exposure assessment 

EPA used the following assumptions: 

100 percent crop treated (PCT) and 

tolerance-level residues for pyraflufenethyl on all treated crops except corn, 

cottonseed, potato, soybean, wheat, 

pome fruit, stone fruit, pomegranate, 

olive, grape, tree nuts and pistachio for 

which one half of the combined Levels 

of Quantification (LOQs) for the parent 

and the metabolite were used since all 

field trial residue levels were less than 

the LOQ. 

iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether 

quantitative cancer exposure and risk 

assessments are appropriate for a fooduse pesticide based on the weight of the 

evidence from cancer studies and other 

relevant data. If quantitative cancer risk 

assessment is appropriate, cancer risk 

may be quantified using a linear or 

nonlinear approach. If sufficient 

information on the carcinogenic mode 

of action is available, a threshold or 

non-linear approach is used and a 

cancer RfD is calculated based on an 

earlier noncancer key event. If 

carcinogenic mode of action data are not 

available, or if the mode of action data 

determines a mutagenic mode of action, 

a default linear cancer slope factor 

approach is utilized. Based on the data 

summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 

concluded that pyraflufen-ethyl should 

be classified as ‘‘Likely to be 

Carcinogenic to Humans’’ and a linear 

approach has been used to quantify 

cancer risk. 

In conducting the cancer dietary 

exposure assessment EPA used the same 

food consumption data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 

assumptions for residue levels in food 

as the chronic exposure in Unit III. C. 

1. ii., above. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for pyraflufen-ethyl in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

pyraflufen-ethyl. Further information 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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), 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 pyraflufen-ethyl for acute 

exposures are estimated to be 1,247 

parts per trillion (ppt) for surface water 

and 1.8 ppt for ground water and for 

chronic exposures for non-cancer and 

cancer assessments, the EDWCs are 

estimated to be 281 ppt for surface water 

and 1.8 ppt for ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

chronic and cancer dietary risk 

assessment, the water concentration of 

value 281 ppt was used to assess the 

contribution to drinking water. 

3. From non-dietary exposure. The 

term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in 

this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, 

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Pyraflufen-ethyl is currently 

registered on the following residential 

sites that could result in residential 

exposures: Airports, nurseries, 

ornamental turf, golf courses, roadsides, 

railroads, non-crop land, and 

uncultivated agricultural areas. The risk 

assessment was conducted using the 

following residential exposure 

assumptions: Adults and children may 

be exposed to residues of pyraflufenethyl through short term post 

application contact with treated 

residential/recreational areas and 

residential handlers mixing, loading and 

applying liquid pyraflufen-ethyl in 

these areas. 

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 pyraflufen-ethyl to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and 

pyraflufen-ethyl does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that pyraflufen-ethyl 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 increased 

susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses 

following in utero exposure in the 

developmental studies with pyraflufenethyl. There is no evidence of increased 

susceptibility of young rats in the 

reproduction study with pyraflufenethyl. EPA concluded there are no 

residual uncertainties for prenatal and/ 

or postnatal exposure. 

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 pyraflufenethyl is complete except for a 28-day 

inhalation study, acute and subchronic 

neurotoxicity studies and 

immunotoxicity study which are now 

included under 40 CFR 158.500 as part 

of the toxicology data requirements for 

registration of a pesticide (food and nonfood uses). 

In the absence of a route specific 

inhalation toxicity study, a point of 

departure (POD) for inhalation exposure 

risk assessment has been extrapolated 

from an oral study. EPA does not 

believe the aggregate risk assessment is 

under-protective of adult handlers. 

Residential handler MOEs based on the 

extrapolated endpoint are quite high 

(greater than 35 million), and the 

contribution of residential exposure to 

aggregate risk is small. Therefore, even 

if an inhalation study were to provide 

a lower POD than the oral study, it’s not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

aggregate risk. 

ii. Pyraflufen-ethyl primarily impacts 

the parameters of food consumption, 

decreased body weight, and 

histopathological changes in the liver. 

There is no evidence that pyraflufenethyl causes neurotoxic effects in any of 

the available toxicity studies. Evidence 

of immunotoxic potential is limited to 

an adverse effect on the spleen reported 

in one study at a dose level (1,489 mg/ 

kg/day) which is above the limit dose, 

and also caused death. EPA does not 

believe that conducting immunotoxicity 

and acute/subchronic neurotoxicity 

testing will result in a NOAEL less than 

20 mg/kg/day, which is presently used 

as the POD for chronic risk assessment. 

iii. There is no evidence that 

pyraflufen-ethyl 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 dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed based on 100% of the 

crop treated and a conservative estimate 

of residues in food. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to pyraflufenethyl 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 pyraflufen-ethyl. 

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. 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 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31483 

and no acute dietary endpoint was 

selected. Therefore, pyraflufen-ethyl 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 pyraflufenethyl from food and water will utilize 

less than 1% of the cPAD for all 

population groups. Based on the 

explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding 

residential use patterns, chronic 

residential exposure to residues of 

pyraflufen-ethyl is not expected. 

3. Short-term risk. Short-term 

aggregate exposure takes into account 

short-term residential exposure plus 

chronic exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). Pyraflufen-ethyl is 

currently registered for uses that could 

result in short-term residential 

exposure, and the Agency has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

aggregate chronic exposure through food 

and water with short-term residential 

exposures to pyraflufen-ethyl. 

A short-term aggregate risk 

assessment was performed for 

residential handler exposure, children’s 

incidental post-application oral 

exposure (from residential treatment) 

and dietary exposure to food and water 

(considered to be a background 

exposure level). The anticipated 

exposure level for children ages 1–2 

years old (the highest exposed 

population) is below EPA’s level of 

concern, with a MOE greater than 

60,000. 

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). 

Pyraflufen-ethyl is not registered for 

any use patterns that would result in 

intermediate-term residential exposure. 

No residential handler exposure is 

expected and post application 

inhalation exposure is expected to be 

negligible. Post application exposure to 

infants and children over the 

intermediate term duration (1–6 

months) is not likely based on the use 

pattern. Therefore, the intermediateterm aggregate risk is the sum of the risk 

from exposure to pyraflufen-ethyl 

through food and water, which has 

already been addressed, and will not be 

greater than the chronic aggregate risk. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. The aggregate cancer risk 

assessment for the general population 

takes into account exposure estimates 

from dietary consumption of pyraflufenethyl from food and drinking water 

sources. Average food plus water source 

dietary exposure was used. Estimated 

cancer risk for the U.S. population 

includes infants and children. The 

aggregate cancer risk estimate for 

pyraflufen-ethyl is 2.8 × 10¥6. This risk 

estimate is based, in part, on the 

conservative assumption that 100% of 

all crops for which pyraflufen-ethyl is 

registered or proposed for registration 

are treated. Additional refinement using 

PCT estimates would result in a lower 

estimate of cancer risk. 

EPA generally considers cancer risks 

in the range of one in one million (1 × 

10¥6) or less to be negligible. The 

precision which can be assumed for 

cancer risk estimates is best described 

by rounding to the nearest integral order 

of magnitude on the log scale; for 

example, risks falling between 3 × 10¥7

and 3 × 10¥6 are expressed as risks in 

the range of 10¥6. Considering the 

precision with which cancer hazard can 

be estimated, the conservativeness of 

low-dose linear extrapolation, and the 

rounding procedure described above, 

cancer risk should generally not be 

assumed to exceed the benchmark level 

of concern of the range of 10¥6 until the 

calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 

× 10¥6. This is particularly the case 

where some conservatism is maintained 

in the exposure assessment. Although 

the pyraflufen-ethyl exposure risk 

assessment is somewhat refined, it 

retains significant conservatism due, 

among other things, to the assumption 

that 100 percent of registered crops are 

treated. Accordingly, EPA has 

concluded the cancer risk for all 

existing pyraflufen-ethyl uses and the 

uses associated with the tolerances 

established in this action fall within the 

range of 1 × 10¥6 and are thus 

negligible. 

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 pyraflufenethyl residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(Gas Chromatography with Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/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 pyraflufen-ethyl. Canada has not 

established MRLs for the proposed use 

sites for pyraflufen-ethyl. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances 

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 pome fruit group 11. Changes to 

crop group 11 included adding azarole; 

medlar; Asian pear; Chinese quince; 

Japanese quince; and tejocote; creating 

subgroups; revising the representative 

commodities; and naming the new crop 

group, Pome Fruit Group 11–10. 

Therefore, consistent with this rule, 

EPA is establishing tolerances for 

pyraflufen-ethyl residues on Pome Fruit 

Group 11–10 instead of the requested 

Pome Fruit Group 11 and is correcting 

the crops proposed in the Notice of 

Filing to the crop commodities specified 

in 40 CFR 180.41: grape; nut, tree, group 

14; olive and pomegranate. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, previously established 

tolerances are amended and new 

tolerances are established for residues of 

pyraflufen-ethyl, 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, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
31484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 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 

(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, 

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: May 18, 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 180.585 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a) and by alphabetically 

adding commodities to the table in 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.585 Pyraflufen-ethyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. Tolerances are 

established for residues of the herbicide, 

pyraflufen-ethyl, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in the 

commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels 

specified below is to be determined by 

measuring pyraflufen-ethyl, ethyl 2- 

chloro-5-(4-chloro-5-difluoromethoxy-1- 

methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-4- 

fluorophenoxyacetate, and its acid 

metabolite, E-1, 2-[2-chloro-5-(4-chloro5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-1Hpyrazol-3-yl)-4-fluorophenoxy]acetic 

acid, in or on the commodity: 

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/ 

revocation date 

Almond, hulls ................................................................................................................................................... 0.02 None. 

* * * * * * * 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ............................................................................................................................... 0.01 None. 

Fruit, stone, group 12 ...................................................................................................................................... 0.01 None. 

Grape .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.01 None. 

* * * * * * * 

Nut, tree, group 14 .......................................................................................................................................... 0.01 None. 

Olive ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.01 None. 

Pistachio .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 None. 

Pomegranate ................................................................................................................................................... 0.01 None. 

* * * * * * * 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31485 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–13587 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0268; FRL–8873–9] 

Bromoxynil; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation revises 

established tolerances for residues of 

bromoxynil in or on multiple 

commodities which are identified and 

discussed later in this document. Bayer 

CropScience LLC requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

1, 2011. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 1, 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–2010–0268. 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: 

Susan Stanton, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5218; e-mail address: 

stanton.susan@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. 

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 

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–2010–0268 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 1, 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–2010–0268, 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 June 23, 

2010 (75 FR 35801) (FRL–8831–3), 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 9F7678) by Bayer 

CropScience LLC, 2 T. W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.324 be amended by increasing 

existing tolerances for residues of the 

herbicide bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4- 

hydroxybenzonitrile, in or on sorghum, 

grain, grain from 0.05 parts per million 

(ppm) to 0.2 ppm; grass, hay from 3.0 

ppm to 5.0 ppm; and grass, forage from 

3.0 ppm to 18 ppm. That notice 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Bayer CropScience LLC, the 

registrant, which is available in the 

docket, 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 

determined that the existing tolerances 

for aspirated grain fractions, milk, and 

grain sorghum forage must also be 

increased as a result of the proposed 

changes to the use patterns for sorghum 

and grasses. The reasons for these 

changes are explained in Unit IV.C. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES