 

<

<

<

<ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY>

 

<[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–[0600]; FRL–XXXX–X]>

<Notice of Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities>

<<AGENCY:> <Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).>>

<<ACTION:> <Notice>.>

<<SUMMARY:> <This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.>>

<<DATES:> <Comments must be received on or before [<insert date 30 days
after date of publication in the> <Federal Register>].>>

<<ADDRESSES:> <Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–[0600] and the pesticide petition
number (PP), 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.>

<	<Instructions>:  Direct your comments to docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–[0600] and the pesticide petition number (PP). 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line at
<http://www.regulations.gov>, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.> 

<	<Docket>: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at <  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
http://www.regulations.gov >. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 either in the electronic docket at <  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  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 hours of operation of this Docket Facility are 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:> <Joanne I. Miller, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number: 703-305-6217; e-mail address: 
Miller.Joanne<@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:>

<	• 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 provides 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.  What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?>

<     1.  <Submitting CBI>.  Do not submit this information to EPA
through regulations.gov or e-mail.  Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.  For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed
as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.>	

 

<     2.   <Tips for preparing your comments>.  When submitting
comments, remember to:>

<	i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, <Federal Register> date and page number).>

<	ii. Follow directions.  The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.>

<	iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.>

<	iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.>

<	v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.>

<	vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.>

<	vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.>

<	viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.>

<	3. <Environmental justice>. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.>

<II. What Action is the Agency Taking?>

<	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA is printing notice of the filing of a
pesticide petition received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities.  EPA has determined that
the pesticide petition described in this notice contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2);
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide
petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.>

<	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the
petition included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for this rulemaking.   The docket
for this petition is available on-line at <  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov >.

Dow AgroSciences, LLC

<[8F7403]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (8F7403) from Dow AgroSciences,
LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN, 46268 proposing, pursuant
to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<>

<	1. to reestablish and make permanent tolerances for residues of>

<	the combined residues of cyhalofop (cyhalofop-butyl,
R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate, plus
cyhalofop acid,
R-(+)-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionicacid) and the
di-acid metabolite, (2R)-4-4-(1-carboxyethoxy)phenoxy]-3-fluorobenzoic
acid in or on the raw agricultural commodity Rice, grain at 0.03 parts
per million (ppm) and Rice, straw at 8.0 ppm.  EPA has determined that
the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set
forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully
evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether
the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of cyhalofop-butyl in plants
(rice) is adequately understood for the purposes of a tolerance in rice.
 Two separate foliar broadcast 14C NOR studies have been conducted. 
Results indicated cyhalofop-butyl was metabolized to cyhalofop (acid
form) and then subsequently to the free and conjugated forms of the
di-acid and the FHPBA.  Other minor metabolites were also identified. 
In addition, the rotational crop study showed no carryover of
significant cyhalofop-butyl related residues in representative crops.>

<	2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method is available for
enforcement purposes; the method has been developed and validated to
determine the residues of cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop (acid form) and the
di-acid metabolite in rice grain, straw and processed products.  The
method was based on capillary gas chromatography with mass selective
detection.  Limits of detection were 0.005 or 0.006 ppm depending on the
analyte and matrix.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. A magnitude of residue study was conducted
at 18 sites in major rice growing regions at the nominal proposed
maximum use rates.  Cyhalofop-butyl rapidly degrades to cyhalofop and
further to the amide and di-acid.  Analytically, the ester is included
in the cyhalofop residue and the di-acid includes all residues of the
amide.  There were no detections reported for cyhalofop in rice grain,
bran, and polished rice and no detections for the di-acid in bran and
polished rice.  For rice hulls, residues were below the respective LOQ
values of 0.010 ppm for cyhalofop and 0.011 ppm for the di-acid.  Low
residues were observed in the grain for the di-acid from ND (<0.005) to
0.013 ppm.  For rice straw, residues ranged from ND (<0.006) to 0.19 ppm
for cyhalofop and ND to 5.3 ppm for the di-acid.

>

<B. Toxicological Profile The toxicological profile and endpoints for
cyhalofop-butyl which support this petition and tolerances were
previously published in the Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67
FRL-7178-5).  The relevant information is summarized below.>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single
dose was identified; the EPA has not established an acute RfD for
cyhalofop-butyl.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. No evidence of genetic toxicity was observed when
cyhalofop-butyl was tested in a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Cyhalofop-butyl did not
have any effects on reproductive parameters at dose levels that induced
treatment-related effects in parental rats.  In addition, no teratogenic
potential was demonstrated in either rats or rabbits at dose levels that
induced maternal toxicity.>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. Sub-chronic studies on cyhalofop-butyl have
been conducted and reviewed.  No endpoint was established for dermal
exposure because no systemic effects were observed in the 21-day dermal
study in the rat at doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day.  A short-term incidental
NOAEL of 4.3 mg/kg/day was selected as endpoint based on subchronic
feeding study in mice; this endpoint was also designated as conservative
surrogate for inhalation exposures.  However, for the review of a
tolerance, no short-term oral, dermal or inhalation exposures are
considered.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. A chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.01 mg/kg/day
has been established based on the 18-month feeding study in mice and the
application of an uncertainty factor of 100 (10X for interspecies
extrapolation and 10X for intra-species variation).  A 1X FQPA safety
factor was applied to the chronic endpoint.  Thus in the case of
cyhalofop-butyl, the cPAD = cRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day.

At the time of initial registration, the carcinogencity studies in rats
and mice showed no evidence of a tumorigenic response.  But the agency
also concluded the original studies did not reach a maximum tolerated
dose and deemed them inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential
(Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67 FRL-7178-5).  The agency recently
reviewed additional information on peroxisome proliferation and the lack
of human relevance for liver tumors formed by this mode of action.  Per
HED Memorandum TXR: 0054798 dated December 20, 2007 and in accordance
with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29,
2005) the EPA has now has classified cyhalofop-butyl as “Not Likely to
Be Carcinogenic to Humans”.

At the time of registration, the agency created a holding time for water
based on the original uncertainty for cancer classification coupled with
estimates of drinking water concentrations using a modified GENEEC
approach for rice paddies and SCI-GROW.  A 7-day holding time was
established to allow estimated concentrations of cyhalofop-butyl to fall
below 0.15 ppb.  Based on the recent cancer reclassification and Table 6
of the June 4, 2002 Final Rule for Cyhalofop-butyl; Time-Limited
Pesticide Tolerance, the 7-day holding time is not needed.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. Oral administration of cyhalofop-butyl, results
in rapid absorption, metabolism and excretion in the dog and rat.  The
butyl ester form is rapidly hydrolyzed to the acid form (cyhalofop) with
no significant quantities of unchanged parent in the plasma, tissues or
excreta.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. In all matrices (animal, plant,
environmental), cyhalofop-butyl is rapidly metabolized to the acid form,
cyhalofop.  Hence mammalian toxicity studies inherently include the acid
metabolite as part of the study.  Plant studies have identified the
di-acid as a major metabolite; the di-acid is more polar, and less lipid
soluble and is expected to be less toxic than the parent.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. No evidence from any of the studies indicates
cyhalofop-butyl is an endocrine disrupter.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Chronic exposure resulting from agricultural use
of cyhalofop-butyl on rice has been assessed for the US population and
sub-populations.  The dietary assessment model DEEM-FCID version 2.16
was employed.  It estimates US consumption patterns based on the
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and EPA/USDA
translation recipes from August 2002.  An estimate of the residue level
in each food (e.g., water or rice) is multiplied by the average daily
consumption estimate for that food.  The resulting residue consumption
estimate for each food is summed to determine the total estimated
exposure.  Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and
compared to the cPAD.

>

<	i. Food. For cyhalofop-butyl, a DEEM residue file for a Tier III
dietary assessment was prepared using the average residue value from
field trials (0.0066 ppm) for rice.  (The assessment comprehensively
includes the anticipated tolerance value of 0.03 ppm for wild rice as
recently supported by IR-4.)  The exposure was assessed against a cPAD =
cRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day.

The percent crop treated (PCT) assumption used in the original EPA 2002
assessment has been confirmed at 18% based on current marketing data for
Clincher* herbicide.  The average number of planted rice acres over the
last 3 year period is 3,214,000 acres.  The average of the total treated
acreage (Doune Agrotrak 2006) has been conservatively adjusted by a 1%
retreatment to arrive at an average base acres treated of 590,049 acres.
 (It is estimated that between % 1 and <5% of the treated fields utilize
the 2 applications of Clincher* herbicide allowed on the label.)  The
PCT calculated from current numbers is in excellent agreement with
original projections for maturity of sales used by the EPA; the 2002 EPA
projection was 17.6%, the revised number is 18.4%.  A rounded value of
18% PCT has been used as the second adjustment factor in the DEEM file.

Results indicate exposure to cyhalofop-butyl residues is very low and
represents less than 0.1 % of the cRfD for all subpopulations.  Without
the use of the PCT as the second adjustment factor, all exposures are
below 0.2% of the cPAD.>

<	ii. Drinking water. Available monitoring data from two studies
supports the anticipated residue for cyhalofop-butyl in water used in
DEEM.  In 2001, a surface water monitoring study in California commenced
just after initial Section 18 Specific Exemption applications.  Although
fortified storage stability associated with the study indicated the
ester form was not stable under sampling and storage conditions of this
study (i. e. cyhalofop-butyl converted to cyhalofop (acid form)),
results indicated no sample had a concentration of either
cyhalofop-butyl or cyhalofop above the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.5
ppb.  The results of the 2001 work are substantiated by a 2002 study
with lower analytical limits.  Clincher* CA herbicide was applied in
California in 2002 under a Section 18 Specific Exemption.  The 2002
monitoring study was conducted at the time of maximum use of Clincher*
herbicide in the Sacramento River Valley.  The study monitored drinking
water for cyhalofop-buyl and the 3 principal metabolites (cyhalofop,
cyhalofop-di-acid and cyhalofop-amide).  Water was sampled semiweekly
from April 30 to July 18.  A total of 48 samples were collected and
analyzed.  Method GRM 99.07 was modified to achieve a limit of
quantitification of (LOQ) of 0.1 ug/L (ppb).  Neither cyhalofop-butyl
nor its metabolites were present in any of the drinking water samples
above the LOQ.  The limits of detections (LOD) were 0.04 ppb for
cyhalofop-butyl, 0.01 ppb for cyhalofop (acid), 0.01 ppb for
cyhalofop-amide and 0.04 ppb for cyhalofop-di-acid.  Only one sample in
48 had a detection above the LOD and only cyhalofop-butyl (no
metabolites) was noted in that sample.  The general lack of detections
is understood in light of the known rapid degradation of cyhalofop-butyl
and its metabolites in the environment.

Based on the drinking water monitoring, 0.05 ppb (½ the LOQ) has been
incorporated as a single point estimate for both direct and indirect
water sources within DEEM.  Dietary and water exposure were chronically
assessed against the cRfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day.  All subpopulations have
exposure estimates of < 0.1% cPAD.  Comparison of DEEM output with and
without the water component demonstrates the additional water exposure
has minimal impact on the overall exposure assessment for all sub
populations.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. There are no residential uses for this
compound.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	For purposes of this tolerance petition, no assumption of a common
mechanism of toxicity for cyhalofop-butyl with other substances has been
made.>

<E. Safety Determination . >

<	1. U.S. population. Based on the dietary and water exposure
assessments, chronic dietary exposure to cyhalofop-butyl from registered
uses in rice plus drinking water will utilize <0.1% of the cRfD for the
U. S. population.  Exposures below 100% of the cRfD are typically below
the EPA’s level of concern because the chronic RfD represents the
level at or below which daily dietary exposures over a lifetime will not
pose appreciable risks to human health.>

<	2. Infants and children. Per Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67
FRL-7178-5), EPA has previously determined that an FQPA safety factor of
1X is applicable to all population subgroups for cyhalofop-butyl.  The
major identifiable subgroup with the highest chronic dietary exposure is
“non-nursing infants” and “all infants (<1 year)”, but each are
exposed to estimated residues of <0.1 % of the cPAD.  Dow AgroSciences
concludes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants
and children from the aggregate exposure to cyhalofop-butyl residues
from registered and proposed uses.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	A review of national websites and the Homologa MRL database indicates
several values have been set for cyhalofop in rice globally.  The US
value of 0.03 ppm in rice is higher than values in Europe and Latin
America, but lower than values established in most of the Pacific.  No
MRLs were noted by Codex.

Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Turkey	Rice	0.01	PPM

EU and various individual member states	Rice	0.02	PPM

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan	Rice	0.1	PPM

>>

 

<>

<>

 <________>>

<>

<Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.>>>

<>

<[FR Doc.  08–?????? Filed ??–??–08; 8:45 am]>

<BILLING CODE 6560–50–S>>>

 PAGE   

 PAGE   9 

