Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0126-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Pesticide Tolerances: Bifenazate
Posted Date: 2009-12-23T05:00Z

[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 68162-68168]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23de09-13]                         

[[Page 68162]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0126; FRL-8804-1]

 
Bifenazate; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues 
of bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) 
hydrazinecarboxylate) and its metabolite, diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-
methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as 
bifenazate) in or on bean, dry seed. Interregional Research Project 
4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 23, 2009. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2010, 
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-2008-0126. 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: Barbara Madden, Registration Division, 
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(703) 305-6463; e-mail address: madden.barbara@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 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-2008-0126 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 February 22, 2010.
    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-2008-0126 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 Register of March 12, 2008 (73 FR 13225) (FRL-8354-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
8E7318) by Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4), 500 
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition 
requested that 40 CFR 180.572 be amended by establishing tolerances for 
combined residues of the insecticide bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-
methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) hydrazinecarboxylate) and its metabolite, 
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-
methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate), in or on bean dry, seed at 
0.2 parts per million (ppm); grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, 
forage at 140 ppm; and grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay at 
120 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by 
Chemtura Corporation, the registrant, on behalf of IR-4, which is 
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One 
comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this 
comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    After the petition was submitted, IR-4 subsequently withdrew the 
tolerance request for grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage; 
and grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay. As such, these 
commodities are not considered in this document.
    EPA reviewed the petition and determined that the tolerance should 
be set at 0.60 ppm on bean, dry seed. The

[[Page 68163]]

reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a 
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a 
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure 
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary 
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in 
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. 
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special 
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide 
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors 
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for 
tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide bifenazate (1-
methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) hydrazinecarboxylate) and 
its metabolite, diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-
yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate), in or on bean, dry 
seed at 0.60 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. Bifenazate is not acutely toxic by the oral, inhalation, or 
dermal routes of exposure. It is minimally irritating to the eye and 
slightly-irritating to the skin. Bifenazate is a dermal sensitizer by 
the Magnusson/Kligman method, but not the Buehler method. Subchronic 
and chronic studies in rats and dogs indicate that the liver and 
hematopoietic system (spleen and/or bone marrow with associated 
hematological findings) are the primary target organs in these species, 
with additional toxicity in the kidney (chronic dog) and adrenal gland 
(male rats) also identified. Similarly, the hematopoietic system 
(spleen) was the primary target organ in the repeat-dose dermal 
toxicity study. Also associated with this toxicity in several studies 
were decreased body weight, body-weight gain, and food consumption. No 
evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in the rat and mouse studies and 
the Agency has classified bifenazate as ``not likely'' to be a human 
carcinogen by any relevant route of exposure. A full battery of 
mutagenicity studies were negative for mutagenic or clastogenic 
activity. The developmental studies in rats and rabbits did not 
demonstrate increased sensitivity of fetuses to bifenazate. Similarly, 
increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility to offspring were 
not observed with bifenazate during pre- or postnatal development in 
the reproduction study. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity 
(clinical signs or neuropathology) in any of the toxicology studies 
conducted with bifenazate. Therefore, a bifenazate developmental 
neurotoxicity (DNT) study was not required by the Agency. Specific 
information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse 
effects caused by bifenazate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-
level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from 
the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the 
document titled ``Bifenazate; Petition for Establishment of Tolerances 
for the Use of Bifenazate on Dry Bean Seed. HED Human-Health Risk 
Assessment,'' pages 23-24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0126.

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 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 bifenazate used for 
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the 
document titled ``Bifenazate; Petition for Establishment of Tolerances 
for the Use of Bifenazate on Dry Bean Seed. HED Human-Health Risk 
Assessment,'' pages 10-11 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0126.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to bifenazate, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerance as well as all existing bifenazate tolerances in 40 CFR 
180.572. EPA assessed dietary exposures from bifenazate 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 bifenazate; 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 USDA 1994-1996 
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA

[[Page 68164]]

assumed that all commodities, except squash, peach, tomato and milk, 
contained tolerance-level residues. For squash, peach and tomato, EPA 
assumed residues were present at average field trial levels. For milk, 
the tolerance level was adjusted upward to account for all of the 
residues of concern for risk assessment. Default processing factors 
were assumed for all commodities except apple juice, grape juice, wine/
sherry, tomato paste, and tomato puree. The processing factors for 
these commodities were based on data from processing studies. The 
chronic analysis also incorporated average percent crop treated (PCT) 
information for some registered commodities but assumed 100 PCT for the 
new use.
    iii. Cancer. No evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in the cancer 
studies performed with bifenazate on rats and mice, and EPA has 
classified bifenazate as ''not likely`` to be a human carcinogen by any 
relevant route of exposure. Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was 
not conducted.
    Bifenazate contains hydrazine as part of its chemical structure. 
This side chain is structurally similar to unsymmetrical dimethyl 
hydrazine (UDMH), a category B2 animal carcinogen and possible human 
carcinogen. However, EPA has concluded that formation of free biphenyl 
hydrazine or other hydrazines is unlikely based on the results of 
submitted metabolism studies. The rat, livestock, and plant metabolism 
studies indicate that metabolism of bifenazate proceeds via oxidation 
of the hydrazine moiety of bifenazate to form D3598 (diazene). The 
D3598 is then metabolized to D1989 (methoxy biphenyl) and to bound 
residues by reaction with natural products. A radish metabolism study 
which specifically monitored for the formation of biphenyl hydrazine 
found none. Based on the results of the metabolism studies, especially 
the absence of biphenyl hydrazine in the radish metabolism study or in 
the excreta of rats in the rat metabolism study, EPA concluded that the 
formation of free hydrazines is unlikely. This conclusion is further 
supported by the lack of carcinogenic effects in the bifenazate 
carcinogenicity studies.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and 
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in 
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been 
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after 
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, 
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels 
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data 
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary 
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a 
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop 
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food 
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not 
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any 
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate 
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require 
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows:
    Almond 5%; apple 5%; apricot 1%; cherry 1%; cucumber 1%; grape 5%; 
nectarine 5%; peach 10%; pear 10%; pecan 1%; pepper 1%; pistachio 1%; 
plum 5%; strawberry 30%; tomato 1%; walnut 1%; and watermelon 1%; 100 
PCT was assumed for all new uses and the remaining currently registered 
uses.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States 
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service 
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use 
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years. 
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average 
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available 
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across 
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those 
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA 
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT 
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the 
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit 
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates 
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are 
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that 
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an 
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption 
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations 
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating 
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional 
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment 
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency 
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to 
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than 
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does 
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of 
food to which bifenazate may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for bifenazate in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of bifenazate. 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 
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the 
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of bifenazate for 
chronic exposures are estimated to be 11.2 parts per billion (ppb) for 
surface water and 0.044 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 of value 11.2 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and

[[Page 68165]]

flea and tick control on pets). Bifenazate is currently registered for 
the following residential non-dietary sites: Ornamental plants, 
including bedding plants, flowering plants, foliage plants, bulb crops, 
perennials, trees, and shrubs. There is a potential for short-term 
dermal and inhalation exposure of homeowners applying bifenazate on 
these sites. However, post-application exposures of adults and children 
from this use are expected to be negligible. Therefore, EPA assessed 
only short-term dermal and inhalation residential handler exposures for 
adults. Handler exposures were estimated assuming applications would be 
made using hose-end sprayers, since this application method is expected 
to result in higher exposures than other application methods, such as 
pump sprayers or similar devices.
    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 bifenazate to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and bifenazate does not appear to 
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
bifenazate 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 bifenazate includes rat and rabbit 
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity 
study in rats. There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of 
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure 
in the developmental studies, nor of rats following prenatal/postnatal 
exposure in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following 
findings:
      There are no residual uncertainties in the toxicity 
database. The bifenazate toxicological database is complete with the 
exception of an inhalation study, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity 
studies and an immunotoxicity study. The immunotoxicity and acute and 
subchronic neurotoxicity studies are now required as a part of new data 
requirements in the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide 
registration and a 28-day inhalation study has not been submitted. 
However, the Agency does not believe that conducting these studies will 
result in a lower point of departure (POD) than that currently used for 
overall risk assessment, and therefore, a database uncertainty factor 
(UFDB) is not needed to account for lack of these studies for the 
following reasons:
    i. The toxicology database for bifenazate does not indicate that 
the immune system is the primary target organ. The observed effects on 
the immune system have been well characterized and were seen at dose(s) 
that produce evidence of overt systemic toxicity. These effects 
included increased spleen weight in females and histopathological 
changes in the spleen in males in a 90-day oral rat toxicity study, 
extramedullary hematopoiesis in the both sexes in a 21-day dermal 
toxicity study in rats, and changes in hematological parameters, 
clinical chemistry parameters in both sexes and histopathological 
effects in bone marrow (compensatory hyperplasia) in both sexes in a 1-
year chronic toxicity study.
    ii. The overall weight of evidence suggests that bifenazate does 
not directly target the immune system, and these findings may be due to 
secondary effect of overt systemic toxicity. Further, there is no 
evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the bifenazate database.
    iii. A 28-day inhalation study is not available; however, the EPA 
has determined that the additional FQPA SF is not needed. Residential 
inhalation risk was estimated by calculating exposure using the 
Agency's Residential SOPs. For chemicals with low vapor pressure (7.5 x 
10-\5\ mmHg or below for outdoor uses at 20-30[deg]C) these 
standard assumptions are expected to overestimate the exposure via the 
inhalation route. Bifenazate is such a compound and exposure through 
the inhalation route is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the risk 
estimate is conservative and is considered protective and the 
additional FQPA SF is not needed.
    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.
     There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of 
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure 
in developmental studies, nor following pre/post-natal exposure to rats 
in the 2-generation reproduction study.
     A developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) is not required 
because there is no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the 
bifenazate database.
     The dietary food and drinking water exposure assessments 
will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and 
children; and the residential use (ornamentals) is not expected to 
result in post-application exposure to infants and children.

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

[[Page 68166]]

a single-oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was 
selected. Therefore, bifenazate 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 
bifenazate from food and water will utilize 50% of the cPAD for 
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding 
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of 
bifenazate 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).
    Bifenazate is currently registered for use that could result in 
short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it 
is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term 
exposures for bifenazate.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential 
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 2,200 for the U.S. 
population. The aggregate MOEs for adults take into consideration food 
and drinking water exposures as well as dermal and inhalation exposures 
of adults applying bifenazate to ornamentals in residential areas. 
Since residential exposure of infants and children is not expected, 
short-term aggregate risk for infants and children is the sum of the 
risk from food and water, which does not exceed the Agency's level of 
concern.
    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).
    Bifenazate 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 bifenazate 
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. Bifenazate has been 
classified as not likely to be a human carcinogen by any relevant route 
of exposure 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 bifenazate residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the 
tolerance expression. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) 
Method UCC-D2341 is available as a primary enforcement method for 
determination of the combined residues of bifenazate and its 
metabolite, diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 
1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate), in/on crop matrices. The 
method has undergone a successful validation and has been forwarded to 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for inclusion in the Pesticide 
Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II. In addition, a method utilizing a 
liquid chromatographic system with tandem mass spectrometers (LC/MS/MS) 
was recently submitted as a confirmatory method (Method NCL ME 245) and 
has been forwarded to FDA. 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 currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican 
maximum residue limits (MRLs) for bifenazate in/on dry bean seed.

C. Response to Comments

    A comment was received from a private citizen indicating that 
testing conducted on animals have absolutely no validity and cruel to 
the test animals. The Agency disagrees with the commenter's claims 
regarding animal testing. Since humans and animals have complex organ 
systems and mechanisms for the distribution of chemicals in the body, 
as well as processes for eliminating toxic substances from their 
systems, EPA relies on laboratory animals, such as, rats and mice to 
mimic the complexity of human and higher-order animal physiological 
responses when exposed to a pesticide. EPA is committed, however, to 
reducing the use of animals whenever possible. EPA-required studies 
include animals only when the requirements of sound toxicological 
science make the use of an animal absolutely necessary. The Agency's 
goal is to be able to predict the potential of pesticides to cause 
harmful effects to humans and wildlife by using fewer laboratory 
animals as models and have been accepting data from alternative (to 
animals) test methods for several years. As progress is made on finding 
or developing non-animal test models that reliably predict the 
potential for harm to humans or the environment, EPA expects that it 
will need fewer animal studies to make safety determinations. Finally, 
because the commenter has not provided the Agency with a specific 
rationale (including supporting information) as to why the Agency's 
action is inconsistent with the legal standards in section 408 of 
FFDCA, EPA can not provide any more detailed response to the 
commenter's disagreement with the Agency's decision.
    In addition, the commenter noted several adverse effects seen in 
animal toxicology studies with bifenazate and claims because of these 
effects no tolerance should be approved. EPA has found, however, that 
there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to humans after considering 
these toxicological studies and the exposure levels of humans to 
bifenazate.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The initial petition submitted by IR-4 proposed tolerance for 
grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage; and grass, forage, 
fodder and hay, group 17, hay. EPA reviewed the petition and concluded 
that in order to grant the use on grass, a ruminant metabolism and 
adequate feeding studies would be required. IR-4 subsequently withdrew 
these proposed tolerances.
    EPA evaluated this petition and upon reviewing the submitted field 
trial data and entering it into the Agency's tolerance spreadsheet as 
specified by the Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on 
Field Trial Data SOP, it was determined that the tolerance should be 
set at 0.60 ppm for residues in/on bean, dry seed as opposed to the 
level proposed by IR-4.
    Additionally, EPA has revised the tolerance expression to clarify 
(1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers 
metabolites and degradates of bifenazate not specifically mentioned; 
and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be 
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the 
tolerance expression. This change was made to both the tolerance 
expressions for plant commodities and livestock commodities because it 
makes no substantive change to the meaning of the tolerance but rather 
only clarifies the existing language.

[[Page 68167]]

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for combined residues of the 
insecticide bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) 
hydrazinecarboxylate) and its metabolite, diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-
methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as 
bifenazate), in or on bean, dry seed at 0.60 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance 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: December 11, 2009.
 Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.572 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) 
introductory text, (a)(2) introductory text, and (b) introductory text; 
and alphabetically adding ``Bean, dry, seed'' to the table in paragraph 
(a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.572  Bifenazate; tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of 
bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-
yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) including its metabolites and degradates, in 
or on the commodities listed in the following table. Compliance with 
the tolerance levels specified are to be determined by measuring only 
the sum of bifenazate and its metabolite diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-
methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as 
bifenazate) in or on the following food commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Bean, dry seed......................                                0.60
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of bifenazate (1-
methylethyl 2-(4-methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) hydrazinecarboxylate) 
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities 
listed in the following table. Compliance with the tolerance levels 
specified are to be determined by measuring only the sum of bifenazate 
and its metabolites diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-
biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate); 1,1'-
biphenyl, 4-ol; and 1,1'-biphenyl, 4-oxysulfonic acid (expressed as 
1,1'-biphenyl, 4-ol) in or on the following food commodities:
* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are 
established for residues of bifenazate (1-methylethyl 2-(4-
methoxy[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl)hydrazinecarboxylate) including its

[[Page 68168]]

metabolites and degradates in connection with use of the pesticide 
under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. Compliance with 
the tolerance levels specified in the following table are to be 
determined by measuring only the sum of bifenazate and its metabolite 
diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl), 1-
methylethyl ester (expressed as bifenazate). The tolerances will expire 
and are revoked on the dates specified in the following table.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-30138 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S