[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76304-76309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026; FRL-9325-2]
Saflufenacil; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
saflufenacil in or on Banana; Coffee, green bean; and Mango. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective December 7, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 6, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Montague, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 305-1243; email address:
montague.kathryn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
[[Page 76305]]
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 6, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of February 4, 2011 (76 FR 6465) (FRL-8858-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E7806) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.649 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide saflufenacil, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on Banana, whole fruit; Coffee, green bean; and Mango, fruit at 0.03
parts per million (ppm). Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the sum of saflufenacil, 2-chloro-5-[3,6-
dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-
fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide, and its
metabolites N-[2-chloro-5-(2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro-
1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N'-isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-
chloro-2-fluoro-5-
({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]amino{time} carbonyl)phenyl]urea,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of saflufenacil, in or on
the commodities. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the commodity terms for Banana and Mango. The reason for this
change is explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for saflufenacil including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with saflufenacil
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
Saflufenacil has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is slightly irritating to the eye but
is neither a dermal irritant nor sensitizer.
Short-term, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice,
and dogs identified the hematopoietic system as the target organ of
saflufenacil. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibition in the mammalian
species may result in disruption of heme synthesis which in turn causes
anemia. In these studies, decreased hematological parameters (red blood
cells (RBC), hematocrit (Ht), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean
corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and mean corpuscular hemoglobin
concentration (MCHC)) were seen at about the same dose level across
species, except in the case of the dog, where the effects were seen at
a slightly higher dose. These effects occurred around the same dose
level from the
[[Page 76306]]
short- through long-term exposures without increasing in severity.
Effects were also seen in the liver (increased weight, centrilobular
fatty change, and lymphoid infiltrate) in mice, the spleen (increased
spleen weight and extramedullary hematopoiesis) in rats, and in both
these organs (increased iron storage in the liver and extramedullary
hematopoiesis in the spleen) in dogs. No dermal toxicity was seen at
the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats.
Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of
increased incidence of tumors at the tested doses. Saflufenacil is
weakly clastogenic in the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay in V79
cells in the presence of S9 activation; however, the response was not
evident in the absence of S9 activation. It is neither mutagenic in
bacterial cells nor clastogenic in rodents in vivo. Saflufenacil is
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Increased fetal and offspring susceptibility to saflufenacil were
observed in the developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit
and in the 2-generation reproduction study in the rat. Developmental
effects such as decreased fetal body weights and increased skeletal
variations occurred at doses that were not maternally toxic in the
developmental study in rats, indicating increased quantitative
susceptibility. In rabbits, developmental effects such as increased
liver porphyrins were observed at doses that were not maternally toxic,
indicating increased quantitative susceptibility. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, offspring effects such as increased number
of stillborn pups, decreased viability and lactation indices, decreased
pre-weaning body weight and/or body-weight gain, and changes in
hematological parameters were observed at a dose resulting in less
severe maternal toxicity (decreased food intake, body weight/weight
gain and changes in hematological parameters and organ weights
indicative of anemia), indicating increased qualitative susceptibility.
There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the
toxicity database for saflufenacil. In the acute neurotoxicity study, a
decrease in motor activity was observed on the first day of dosing at
the limit dose in males only. The finding was not accompanied by any
other neuropathological changes and was considered a reflection of a
mild and transient general systemic toxicity and not a substance-
specific neurotoxic effect. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study,
systemic toxicity (anemia), but no evidence of neurotoxicity, was seen
in males and females.
There is no evidence of immunotoxity in the saflufenacil database.
The increase in spleen weight seen only in rats in the 90-day oral
toxicity study is attributable to an increased clearance of defective
RBCs (i.e., defective hemoglobin synthesis) and is thus an indication
of toxicity to the hematopoietic system rather than to the immune
system. In a 28-day immunotoxicity study in rats, saflufenacil failed
to induce toxicity specific to the immune system at the highest dose
tested, indicating that saflufenacil does not directly target the
immune system at the dose levels being used for risk assessment.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by saflufenacil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document Saflufenacil. Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Tolerances for Residues in/on Imported Coffee,
Banana, and Mango at page 19 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1026.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors (U/SF) are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to
as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a
safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk.
Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an
occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for saflufenacil used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27256) (FRL-
8872-7).
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to saflufenacil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing saflufenacil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.649. EPA assessed dietary exposures from saflufenacil in food
as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
Such effects were identified for saflufenacil. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). The unrefined
assessment assumed 100% crop treated (CT), Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model (DEEM)TM 7.81 default concentration factors, and
tolerance-level residues for all commodities, except cottonseed;
sunflower subgroup 20B; soybean, seed; vegetable, legume, subgroup 6C,
pea and bean (except soybean); and rapeseed subgroup 20A, for which the
tolerance levels were multiplied by a correction factor to account for
a metabolite of concern which is not included in the tolerance
expression.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. Chronic dietary exposure was assessed using the same
food residue assumptions as in the acute dietary exposure assessment
discussed in unit III.C.1.i.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that saflufenacil does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for saflufenacil in drinking water. These
[[Page 76307]]
simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and
fate/transport characteristics of saflufenacil. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Ground Water (PRZM/GW) models, the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of saflufenacil for acute
exposures are estimated to be 37.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 180 ppb for ground water. EDWCs for chronic exposures for
non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 23.8 ppb for surface water
and 173 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 180 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 173 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used 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). Saflufenacil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found saflufenacil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and saflufenacil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
saflufenacil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10x, or uses a different additional
SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The pre- and postnatal
toxicity database for saflufenacil includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats, and
a 28-day immunotoxicity study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A.
there was evidence of quantitative susceptibility of fetuses to
saflufenacil exposure in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and
rabbits and evidence of qualitative susceptibility of offspring in the
rat reproduction study.
An analysis was performed to determine the degree of concern for
the effects observed in the developmental and reproduction toxicity
studies when considered in the context of all available toxicity data,
and to identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity
endpoints and traditional uncertainty factors (UFs) to be used in the
risk assessment of saflufenacil. The degree of concern is low and there
are no residual uncertainties for the increased susceptibility since:
i. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the developmental
effects seen in rats and rabbits as well as for the offspring effects
seen in the 2-generation reproduction study;
ii. Dose-response relationships for the effects of concern are well
characterized;
iii. None of the effects in the developmental or reproduction
studies were attributable to a single exposure and, therefore, are not
of concern for acute risk assessment; and
iv. The dose used to evaluate chronic dietary risks is lower than
the NOAELS for fetal/offspring effects in the developmental and
reproduction studies and is, therefore, protective of the developmental
and offspring effects observed in these studies.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for saflufenacil is complete.
ii. There is no indication that saflufenacil is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. Although there is evidence of increased quantitative and
qualitative susceptibility of offspring in the developmental and
reproduction studies for saflufenacil, the degree of concern is low and
the Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after
establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the
risk assessment of saflufenacil.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to saflufenacil in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
saflufenacil.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to saflufenacil will occupy <1% of the aPAD for the general U.S.
population and all population subgroups including infants and children.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
saflufenacil from food and water will utilize 31% of the cPAD for
infants less than 1 year
[[Page 76308]]
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for saflufenacil.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
A short-term adverse effect was identified; however, saflufenacil
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term
residential exposure. Short-term risk is assessed based on short-term
residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no
short-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is
at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on
the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for
saflufenacil.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
saflufenacil is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
saflufenacil.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, saflufenacil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to saflufenacil residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectroscopy/mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email
address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for saflufenacil.
C. Response to Comments
An anonymous citizen objected to the presence of any pesticide
residues on food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and
recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned completely. However, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of FFDCA contemplates that tolerances greater than zero may
be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by
that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the
underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has
made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory
framework.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
EPA has revised the proposed commodity terms as follows to agree
with the Agency's Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary: ``Banana, whole
fruit'' was changed to ``Banana;'' ``Mango, fruit'' was changed to
``Mango''.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of saflufenacil,
including its metabolites and degradates, as set forth in the
regulatory text.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10,
[[Page 76309]]
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 21, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
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 180.649 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.649 Saflufenacil; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Banana \1\................................................. 0.03
Coffee, green bean \1\..................................... 0.03
* * * * *
Mango \1\.................................................. 0.03
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No U.S. registration as of December 7, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-31394 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P