15876 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. 

[Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–7966 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0361; FRL–8406–8] 

Cyhalofop-butyl; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for combined residues of 

cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop acid and the 

di-acid metabolite in or on rice, grain 

and rice, wild, grain. Interregional 

Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and 

Dow AgroSciences, LLC, requested 

these tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This 

regulation also removes the expired, 

time-limited tolerances for residues of 

cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop acid and the 

di-acid metabolite in or on on rice, grain 

and rice, straw. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

8, 2009. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 8, 2009, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0361. 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 Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing electronically 

available documents at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of EPA’s tolerance 

regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through 

the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR 

cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0361 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or 

before June 8, 2009. 

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 that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit this copy, 

identified by docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OPP–2008–0361, 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. Petition for Tolerance 

In the Federal Registers of June 4, 

2008 (73 FR 31862) (FRL–8365–3) and 

August 29, 2008 (73 FR 50963) (FRL– 

8379–2), EPA issued notices pursuant to 

section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 8E7341) by 

Interregional Research Project Number 4 

(IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 

201W, Princeton, NJ, 08540; and a 

pesticide petition (PP 8F7403) by Dow 

AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd., 

Indianapolis, IN 46268, respectively. 

The petitions requested that 40 CFR 

180.576 be amended by establishing 

tolerances for combined residues of the 

herbicide cyhalofop-butyl, R-(+)-nbutyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)- 

phenoxy)propionate, plus cyhalofop 

acid, R-(+)-2-(4(4-cyano-2- 

fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionic 

acid) and the di-acid metabolite, (2R)-4- 

[4-(1-carboxyethoxy)phenoxy]-3- 

fluorobenzoic acid, in or on rice, grain 

(PP 8F7403) and rice, wild, grain (PP 

8E7341) at 0.03 parts per million (ppm); 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15877 

and in or on rice, straw at 8.0 ppm 

(8F7403). The notices referenced 

summaries of the petitions prepared by 

Dow AgroSciences, LLC, the registrant, 

which are available to the public in the 

dockets established for each action (PP 

8E7341: Docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2008–0361; and PP 8F7403: 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0600) at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments were received on the notice 

of filing of PP 8F7403 (rice, grain). 

EPA’s response to these comments is 

discussed in Unit IV.C. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting these petitions and current 

Agency policy, EPA has determined that 

the proposed tolerance on rice, straw is 

unnecessary and should not be 

established. 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 the petitioned-for 

tolerances for combined residues of 

cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop acid and the 

di-acid metabolite on rice, grain and 

rice, wild, grain at 0.03 ppm. EPA’s 

assessment of exposures and risks 

associated with establishing tolerances 

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. 

Cyhalofop-butyl has low or minimal 

acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and 

inhalation routes of exposure. It is 

minimally irritating to the eye, nonirritating to the skin and is not a dermal 

sensitizer. 

Kidney effects were observed after 

subchronic and chronic dosing of the rat 

and mouse as well as in the rabbit 

developmental and rat reproduction 

studies. In the 90–day rat study, 

lipofuscin pigment deposition in 

proximal tubule kidney cells was noted 

in both sexes in addition to hepatocyte 

eosinophilic granules (males only); and 

in the 90–day mouse study (females 

only), there was an increase in absolute 

and relative kidney weights as well as 

swelling of the proximal tubule cells. In 

the rabbit developmental study, 1/18 

dams in the mid-dose group and 9/18 

dams in the high-dose group died or 

were sacrificed in extremis after 

exhibiting hematuria (gross pathological 

examinations revealed cloudy or dark 

colored kidneys). Slight kidney tubular 

cell swelling was observed only in adult 

males in the rat reproductive toxicity 

study. In the 18–month mouse 

carcinogenicity study, kidney findings 

included tubular dilatation, chronic 

glomurulonephritis and hyaline casts in 

females (not males). In both sexes in the 

chronic/carcinogenicity rat study 

increased deposition of kidney changes 

(early and increased deposition of the 

pigments lipofuscin and hemosiderin in 

the renal proximal tubular cells) was 

observed. In addition, in females only, 

renal mineralization was observed. 

Non-kidney effects observed 

following subchronic or chronic 

exposure to cyhalofop-butyl included 

hyperplasia of the stomach mucosal 

epithelium (male mice only) in the 18– 

month mouse carcinogenicity study and 

brown and/or atrophied thymuses and 

decreased thymus weight in the 90–day 

dog study. The thymus effects, which 

could be an indication of potential 

immunotoxicity, were not observed in 

the 1–year dog study or in other species 

(rats, mice or rabbits) and were not seen 

in any tested species following chronic 

exposure to cyhalofop-butyl. 

There was no evidence of 

developmental, reproductive or 

endocrine toxicity in the toxicology 

studies for cyhalofop-butyl. In the rat 

developmental toxicity study, there 

were no maternal or fetal effects 

observed up to the limit dose. In the 

rabbit developmental toxicity study, no 

fetal effects were observed up to the 

limit dose; whereas kidney effects 

(deaths related to hematuria and the 

occurrence of cloudy or dark colored 

kidneys on gross pathological 

examination) were seen in maternal 

animals. Slight kidney tubular cell 

swelling was observed in adult males in 

the rat reproductive toxicity study with 

no evidence of treatment-related effects 

observed in females or offspring. 

There were no systemic or neurotoxic 

effects noted at the limit dose in the 

gavage acute neurotoxicity study or in 

the 90–day feeding neurotoxicity study. 

In a previous 2002 risk assessment for 

cyhalofop-butyl, it was not possible to 

assess the carcinogenic potential of 

cyhalofop-butyl due to insufficient 

dosing in the rat and mouse 

carcinogenicity studies. In the absence 

of acceptable data, EPA assumed that 

cyhalofop-butyl had the same 

carcinogenic potential as the structural 

analog, diclofop-methyl, and conducted 

an exposure asssessment to evaluate 

cancer risk using quantitative linear 

low-dose extrapolation and the Q1* for 

diclofop-methyl of 2.3 x 10-1 (mg/kg/ 

day)-1. Subsequently, two specific 

mechanistic studies (Peroxisome 

Proliferator Receptor-Alpha Reporter 

Assays (PPARa¬ )) in the mouse were 

submitted to EPA. Review of the 

mechanistic data indicated that 

cyhalofop-butyl is not a liver toxicant/ 

carcinogen for humans, since the 

PPARa¬ rodent liver mode of action is 

not likely to occur in humans; and that 

the doses in the original long-term 

studies were approaching a maximum 

tolerated dose. In addition, there were 

no positive effects in the battery of 

mutagenic studies. Based on these 

findings, EPA has classified cyhalofopbutyl as ‘‘Not Likely to be Carcinogenic 

to Humans.’’ 

Specific information on the studies 

received and the nature of the adverse 

effects caused by cyhalofop-butyl 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 

Cyhalofop-butyl: Human Health Risk 

Assessment for Proposed Uses on Wild 

Rice and A Proposed Amended Labeling 

for Clincher® SF Herbicide, page 30 in 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008– 

0361. 

B. Toxicological Endpoints 

For hazards that have a threshold 

below which there is no appreciable 

risk, a toxicological point of departure 

(POD) is identified as the basis for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15878 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

derivation of reference values for risk 

assessment. The POD may be defined as 

the highest dose at which no adverse 

effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the 

toxicology study identified as 

appropriate for use in risk assessment. 

However, if a NOAEL cannot be 

determined, the lowest dose at which 

adverse effects of concern are identified 

(the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose 

(BMD) approach is sometimes used for 

risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety 

factors (UFs) are used in conjunction 

with the POD to take into account 

uncertainties inherent in the 

extrapolation from laboratory animal 

data to humans and in the variations in 

sensitivity among members of the 

human population as well as other 

unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute 

and chronic dietary risks by comparing 

aggregate food and water exposure to 

the pesticide to the acute population 

adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic 

population adjusted dose (cPAD). The 

aPAD and cPAD are calculated by 

dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. 

Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and 

chronic-term risks are evaluated by 

comparing food, water, and residential 

exposure to the POD to ensure that the 

margin of exposure (MOE) called for by 

the product of all applicable UFs is not 

exceeded. This latter value is referred to 

as the level of concern (LOC). 

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 greater than that 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 cyhalofop-butyl used for 

human risk assessment can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov in the 

document Cyhalofop-butyl: Human 

Health Risk Assessment for Proposed 

Uses on Wild Rice and A Proposed 

Amended Labeling for Clincher® SF 

Herbicide, page 16 in docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0361. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to cyhalofop-butyl, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

petitioned-for tolerances. There are no 

other tolerances in effect for cyhalofopbutyl. EPA assessed dietary exposures 

from cyhalofop-butyl 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 cyhalofop-butyl; 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 1994–1996 and 1998 

Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by 

Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels 

in food, EPA assumed that all rice and 

wild rice commodities would be treated 

with cyhalofop-butyl and contain 

tolerance-level residues. 

iii. Cancer. Based on the results of 

carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, 

and mechanistic studies in mice, EPA 

classified cyhalofop-butyl as ‘‘Not 

Likely to be Carcinogenic To Humans;’’ 

therefore, an exposure assessment for 

evaluating cancer risk is not needed for 

this chemical. 

iv. Anticipated residue and percent 

crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did 

not use anticipated residue or PCT 

information in the dietary assessment 

for cyhalofop-butyl. Tolerance level 

residues and 100 PCT were assumed for 

all food commodities. 

2. Dietary exposure from drinking 

water. The Agency used screening level 

water exposure models in the dietary 

exposure analysis and risk assessment 

for cyhalofop-butyl in drinking water. 

These simulation models take into 

account data on the physical, chemical, 

and fate/transport characteristics of 

cyhalofop-butyl. 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 Tier I Rice model and 

Screening Concentration in Ground 

Water (SCI-GROW) model, the estimated 

drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) 

of cyhalofop-butyl for chronic exposures 

for non-cancer assessments (the only 

dietary exposure scenario for which a 

toxicological endpoint of concern was 

identified) are estimated to be 21 parts 

per billion (ppb) for surface water and 

0.152 ppb for ground water. 

Modeled estimates of drinking water 

concentrations were directly entered 

into the dietary exposure model. For 

chronic dietary risk assessment, the 

water concentration value of 21 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 nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure 

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

indoor pest control, termiticides, and 

flea and tick control on pets). 

Cyhalofop-butyl 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 cyhalofop-butyl to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and 

cyhalofop-butyl does not appear to 

produce a toxic metabolite produced by 

other substances. For the purposes of 

this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that cyhalofop-butyl 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 website 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. 

The prenatal and postnatal toxicology 

database for cyhalofop-butyl includes 

rat and rabbit developmental toxicity 

studies and a 2–generation reproduction 

toxicity study in rats. There were no 

treatment-related effects observed in 

fetuses or offspring in any of 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15879 

were reduced to 1X. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for cyhalofopbutyl is complete, except for 

immunotoxicity data, and EPA has 

determined that an additional 

uncertainty factor is not required to 

account for potential immunotoxicity. 

EPA began requiring functional 

immunotoxicity testing of all food and 

non-food use pesticides on December 

26, 2007. Since this requirement is 

relatively new, these data are not yet 

available for cyhalofop-butyl. In the 

absence of specific immunotoxicity 

studies, EPA has evaluated the available 

cyhalofop-butyl toxicity data to 

determine whether an additional 

database uncertainty factor is needed to 

account for potential immunotoxicity. 

Brown and/or atrophied thymuses 

and decreased thymus weight were 

observed in the 90–day dog study. 

However, these effects, which could be 

an indication of potential 

immunotoxicity, were not observed in 

the 1–year dog study or in other species 

(rats, mice or rabbits) and were not seen 

in any tested species following chronic 

exposure to cyhalofop-butyl. Based on 

these considerations, EPA has 

concluded that the doses and endpoints 

selected for risk assessment (along with 

traditional uncertainty factors) are 

protective of potential immunotoxicity 

and an additional uncertainty factor is 

not needed. 

ii. There is no indication that 

cyhalofop-butyl 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 

cyhalofop-butyl results in increased 

susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits 

in the prenatal developmental studies or 

in offspring in the 2–generation 

reproduction study. 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

The dietary food exposure assessments 

were performed assuming 100 PCT and 

tolerance-level residues. EPA made 

conservative (protective) assumptions in 

the ground and surface water modeling 

used to assess exposure to cyhalofopbutyl in drinking water. Residential 

exposure of infants and children is not 

expected. These assessments will not 

underestimate the exposure and risks 

posed by cyhalofop-butyl. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

EPA determines whether acute and 

chronic pesticide exposures are safe by 

comparing aggregate exposure estimates 

to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and 

cPAD represent the highest safe 

exposures, taking into account all 

appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the 

aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by 

all applicable UFs. For linear cancer 

risks, EPA calculates the probability of 

additional cancer cases 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 POD to 

ensure that the MOE called for by the 

product of all applicable UFs is not 

exceeded. 

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account exposure 

estimates from acute 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, cyhalofop-butyl 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 cyhalofopbutyl from food and water will utilize 

15% of the cPAD for infants, less than 

1–year old, the population group 

receiving the greatest exposure. There 

are no residential uses for cyhalofopbutyl. 

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). Cyhalofop-butyl is not 

registered for any use patterns that 

would result in residential exposure. 

Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk 

is the sum of the risk from exposure to 

cyhalofop-butyl through food and water 

and will not be greater than the chronic 

aggregate risk. 

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). 

Cyhalofop-butyl is not registered for any 

use patterns that would result in 

intermediate-term residential exposure. 

Therefore, the intermediate-term 

aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from 

exposure to cyhalofop-butyl 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. Cyhalofop-butyl is 

classified as ‘‘not likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans’’ and is, 

therefore, not expected to pose a cancer 

risk. 

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 cyhalofopbutyl residues. 

IV. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

Adequate enforcement methodology 

(Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method GRM 

99.06) 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; e-mail address: 

residuemethods@epa.gov. 

B. International Residue Limits 

There are no CODEX, Canadian or 

Mexican maximum residue limits 

(MRLS) established for cyhalofop-butyl 

on the commodities associated with 

these petitions. 

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 

the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 

Act (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 

Dow AgroSciences proposed a 

tolerance for residues of cyhalofop-butyl 

on rice, straw. EPA recently concluded 

that rice straw is not a significant 

livestock feed item. Insignificant 

livestock feed items are considered 

covered by the tolerance for the raw 

agricultural commodity with which they 

are associated (62 FR 66020; December 

17, 1997). Therefore, the proposed 

tolerance on rice, straw is unnecessary 

and is not being established. 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for combined residues of cyhalofopVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:13 Apr 07, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08APR1.SGM 08APR1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15880 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

butyl, R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2- 

fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate, 

plus cyhalopfop acid, R-(+)-2-(4(4- 

cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)- 

phenoxy)propionic acid) and the di-acid 

metabolite, (2R)-4-[4-(1- 

carboxyethoxy)phenoxy]-3- 

fluorobenzoic acid, in or on rice, grain 

and rice, wild, grain at 0.03 ppm. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory 

Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, 

entitled Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 

This final rule does not contain any 

information collections subject to OMB 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., nor does it require any special 

considerations under Executive Order 

12898, entitled Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

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 180.576 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.576 Cyhalofop-butyl; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per million 

Rice, grain ...................... 0.03 

Rice, wild, grain .............. 0.03 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–7990 Filed 4–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0272; FRL–8406–6] 

Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for the combined residues of 

spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6- 

trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- 

en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its 

enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6- 

trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- 

en-2-one), calculated as the parent 

compound equivalents, in or on pop 

corn grain and stover. Bayer 

CropScience requested these tolerances 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In addition, this 

regulation establishes tolerances for 

sweet corn, kernel, stover, and forage; 

and berry, lowgrowing, subgroup 13G. 

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4) requested these tolerances under the 

FFDCA. Additionally, the existing 

tolerance for strawberry is being deleted 

because it is superseded by the 

tolerances established for low growing 

berry subgroup 13–07G. Also, the 

tolerances for milk fat and meat 

byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, and 

sheep are being increased.In addition, 

this action establishes time-limited 

tolerances for the combined residues of 

spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6- 

trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- 

en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate) and its 

enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6- 

trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3- 

en-2-one), calculated as the parent 

compound equivalents, in or on soybean 

commodities in response to the 

approval of a specific exemption under 

section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

authorizing the use of spiromesifen on 

soybeans to control spider mites. The 

time-limited tolerances expire and are 

revoked on December 31, 2011. 

DATES: This regulation is effective April 

8, 2009. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

June 8, 2009, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES