[Federal Register: April 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15876-15880]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ap09-14]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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-(+)-n-butyl-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);
[[Page 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, non-irritating 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 (PPAR[alpha])) 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 PPAR[alpha] 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 cyhalofop-butyl 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-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 Cyhalofop-butyl: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Wild Rice and A Proposed Amended
Labeling for Clincher[reg] 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
[[Page 15878]]
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[reg] 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
cyhalofop-butyl. 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 non-occupational, 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
[[Page 15879]]
were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for cyhalofop-butyl 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 cyhalofop-butyl 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
cyhalofop-butyl 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 cyhalofop-butyl.
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 cyhalofop-butyl 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
cyhalofop-
[[Page 15880]]
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.
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 180.576 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 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