[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5711-5717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02670]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0649; FRL-9972-61]


Cyflufenamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
cyflufenamid in or on cherry crop subgroup 12-12A, hops dried cones, 
and fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10; and amends the tolerance for 
cucurbit vegetable crop group 9. Nisso America, on behalf of Nippon 
Soda Co., Ltd. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 9, 2018. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 10, 2018, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0649, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs

[[Page 5712]]

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection 
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., 
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@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. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/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-2016-0649 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 
April 10, 2018. 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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (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 the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0649, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 23, 2017 (82 FR 14846) (FRL-9957-
99), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
6F8512) by Nisso America on behalf of Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., 88 Pine 
Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10005. The petition requested that 40 
CFR 180.667 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the 
fungicide cyflufenamid, in or on cherry crop subgroup 12-12A at 0.6 
parts per million (ppm), hops at 5.0 ppm, and fruiting vegetable crop 
group 8-10 at 0.2 ppm. Then in the Federal Register of September 15, 
2017 (82 FR 43352) (FRL-9965-43), EPA issued another document pursuant 
to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing that this 
petition also requested the amendment of the existing tolerance for 
residues of cyflufenamid in or on cucurbit vegetable group 9, 
increasing the tolerance level from 0.07 ppm to 0.10 ppm. Those 
documents referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Nisso 
America on behalf of Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., the registrant, which is 
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were 
received on the notices of filing. EPA's response to these comments is 
discussed in Unit IV.C.

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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors 
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 cyflufenamid including exposure 
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyflufenamid 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.
    Cyflufenamid has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and 
inhalation routes of exposure. Though slightly irritating to the eye, 
cyflufenamid is not

[[Page 5713]]

a skin irritant or sensitizer. In the mammalian toxicology database, 
the liver was the primary target organ for cyflufenamid toxicity. 
Across species, duration and gender, changes in weight, clinical 
chemistry, and pathology indicated treatment-related perturbations in 
and adverse effects on liver function.
    Thyroid effects due to treatment with cyflufenamid, seen only in 
the rat, included increased follicular cell hypertrophy (as well as 
increased organ weight) and neoplastic thyroid follicular adenomas. 
Kidney effects related to treatment included increased kidney weight 
accompanied by tubular vacuolation and slight decreases in sodium and 
chloride concentrations.
    Treatment-related cardiotoxicity was noted in the rat and mouse 
feeding studies. Observed myocardial vacuolation and lipidosis may be 
attributed to decreased lipid metabolism; cyflufenamid caused an 
approximately 50% inhibition of carnitine palmitoyltransferase in both 
rat and mouse heart microsomal fractions in a non-guideline mechanistic 
study. Carnitine palmitoyltransferase is involved in the transport of 
long chain fatty acids into the mitochondrial matrix for oxidation. 
Fatty acid oxidation is an important source of energy for adenosine 
triphosphate (ATP) production in the mitochondria.
    Cyflufenamid-induced brain vacuolation was specific to the dog and 
not associated with any apparent clinical sign of neurotoxicity. 
Supplementary studies investigating this phenomenon determined that 
vacuolation was due to myelin edema affecting the white matter of the 
cerebrum and thalamus. Furthermore, this brain lesion was partially 
reversed after a 13-week recovery period (following 90-day exposure) 
and fully reversed after a 26-week recovery period. This effect was not 
observed in any other species. A subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats 
showed no evidence of neurotoxicity.
    Effects on reproductive organs and/or parameters have been 
previously noted in several subchronic studies; however, the effects 
occurred at doses above the respective lowest observed adverse effect 
level (LOAELs) from the studies used to derive the point of departures 
(POD)s. The PODs are protective of these effects. The developmental 
studies in rats and rabbits do not indicate any concern for increased 
susceptibility to offspring. Although offspring effects of decreased 
body weight and incomplete ossification were observed in rabbits, those 
effects occurred at doses higher than doses resulting in maternal 
effects and are believed to be related to maternal toxicity. 
Furthermore, the current PODs are protective of the effects seen on 
reproductive parameters in offspring. In addition, mating performance 
and fertility in the Parent/Filial (P/F)0 generation were 
both unaffected by treatment with cyflufenamid in the 2-generation 
reproductive toxicity study in rats. Sex ratio, sexual maturation, 
estrous cyclicity, sperm quantity and quality, mating performance and 
fertility, gestation and viability indices in the filial 1 
(F1) generation were all unaffected by treatment.
    When tolerances were last established for cyflufenamid (77 FR 
38204, June 27, 2012), EPA had classified cyflufenamid as ``likely to 
be carcinogenic to humans'' based on the presence of thyroid follicular 
cell tumors in male rats and liver tumors in male mice. Since that 
time, EPA has reevaluated the carcinogenic potential of cyflufenamid 
and based on available data has reclassified cyflufenamid as having 
``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity.'' A well-established non-
mutagenic mode of action (MOA) for thyroid follicular cell tumors in 
male rats was tested and found acceptable. In summary, EPA has 
determined that because of the thyroid hormone imbalance, thyroid 
follicular cell tumors in male rats are likely to occur. That lead to 
an increase in the size (hypertrophy) and number (hyperplasia) of the 
thyroid follicular cells and eventually to thyroid neoplasia (or 
tumors). Because of marked quantitative differences between rats and 
humans in their inherent susceptibility for thyroid tumors in response 
to an imbalance in thyroid hormones, EPA concludes that cyflufenamid is 
not likely to pose a risk for thyroid follicular cell tumors in humans. 
As a result, the database contains the following data concerning 
carcinogenicity: (1) There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in female 
rats and mice; (2) the MOA data indicates that thyroid follicular cell 
tumors may not be relevant to humans; (3) tumors were only found in the 
liver in one gender of one species, i.e., male mice; and (4) there is 
no concern for mutagenicity or clastogenicity based on the results of 
the battery of genotoxicity studies. Therefore, EPA concludes that the 
chronic reference dose (cRfD) (0.044 mg/kg/day) will adequately account 
for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity (which occurred 
only at a dose over 5000x higher than the cRfD) that could result from 
exposure to cyflufenamid.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by cyflufenamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies 
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: ``Cyflufenamid. 
Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Fruiting Vegetable 
Group 8-10, Cherry crop Subgroup 12-12A, and Hops; and a Revised 
Tolerance on Cucurbit Vegetable Group 9'' on page 16 in docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0649.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological 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 based on a careful analysis of 
each toxicological study to determine the values of the NOAEL and the 
LOAEL. Uncertainty/safety factors 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyflufenamid used for 
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
Table Summary of Points of Departure and Toxicity Endpoints Used in 
Human Risk Assessment

[[Page 5714]]



            Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Cyflufenamid for Use in Dietary,
                         Non-Occupational and Occupational Human Health Risk Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Uncertainty/   RfD, PAD, level
      Exposure/ scenario           Point of       FQPA safety     of concern for      Study and toxicological
                                  departure         factors      risk dssessment              effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (All             There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure
 Populations).                  (dose) observed in appropriate toxicity studies. Therefore, a dose and endpoint
                                were not identified for this risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All           NOAEL = 4.4 mg/  UFA = 10x        Chronic RfD =    Combined Chronic Toxicity/
 Populations).                  kg/day          UFH = 10x......   0.044 mg/kg/     Carcinogenicity Study in
                                                FQPA SF = 1x...   day              Rats.
                                                                 cPAD = 0.044 mg/ LOAEL = 22 mg/kg/day based on
                                                                  kg/day.          increased thyroid/parathyroid
                                                                                   weight, increased liver
                                                                                   weight and centrilobular
                                                                                   hepatocytic hypertrophy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal Short-Term (1-30 days)  No adverse effects were observed in the dermal toxicity study and there are no
 and Intermediate-Term (1-6     concerns for developmental or neurological toxicities; therefore, no hazards are
 months).                       expected from these exposure scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation Short-Term (1-30    NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/ UFA = 10x        Residential/     Prenatal Developmental Study
 days) and Intermediate-Term    day             UFH = 10x......   Occupational     in Rabbits.
 (1-6 months).                                  FQPA SF = 1x...   LOC for MOE =   Maternal LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
                                                                  100              based on decreased body
                                                                                   weight, body weight gains and
                                                                                   food consumption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal,          Classification: ``Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' and
 inhalation).                   quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD approach) is
                                appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.
  PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC =
  level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to cyflufenamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyflufenamid tolerances in 40 
CFR 180.667. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyflufenamid 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 
cyflufenamid; 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 U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What 
We Eat in America (USDA's NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, 
EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated (100% CT) 
for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has 
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing 
cancer risk to cyflufenamid. Cancer risk was assessed using the same 
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use anticipated residue and PCT information in the dietary 
assessment for cyflufenamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100% CT 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 cyflufenamid in drinking water. These simulation models 
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of cyflufenamid. Further information regarding EPA 
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be 
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The Agency used Tier II surface water and Tier I ground water 
simulations for all proposed cyflufenamid uses and label modifications. 
The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of cyflufenamid for 
chronic exposures are 1.15 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water 
and 29.6 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk 
assessment, no toxic effects attributable to a single exposure to 
cyflufenamid have been identified; therefore, an acute reference dose 
(aRfD) has not been established and an acute dietary exposure 
assessment was not conducted. For chronic and cancer dietary risk 
assessments, the ground water concentration value of 29.6 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).
    Although the Agency previously assessed residential handler 
exposure and risk estimates from the use of cyflufenamid on ornamental 
use sites, the Agency now assumes that cyflufenamid is only used by 
commercial applicators based on labeling requiring handlers to use 
personal protective equipment (PPE). Therefore, the Agency concludes 
that there are no residential handler exposures to assess.
    The Agency has also determined that there are no post-application 
residential exposures to assess. Although there is a potential for 
residential dermal post-application exposure from the existing uses of 
cyflufenamid, there is no adverse systemic hazard via the dermal route 
of exposure. Moreover, there is no

[[Page 5715]]

incidental oral exposure expected from cyflufenamid use on ornamental 
plants.
    Therefore, the Agency has concluded that there are no residential 
exposure scenarios to aggregate with dietary exposures for 
cyflufenamid.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic 
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 cyflufenamid to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and cyflufenamid does not appear to 
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the 
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
cyflufenamid 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of 
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of 
susceptibility following in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the 
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits, and in the 2-
generation rat reproduction study. Neither the rat nor rabbit 
developmental studies identified teratogenic effects. The marginally 
higher incidence of incompletely ossified epiphyses and metacarpals/
phalanges seen in rabbits may be associated with low fetal weight and 
are indicative of delayed embryo-fetal development. The combined 
offspring effects of decreased body weight and incomplete ossification 
are believed to be related to the observed maternal toxicity. 
Furthermore, the PODs selected for all exposure scenarios are lower 
than those doses causing adverse effects in offspring.
    There are no residual uncertainties concerning pre- and postnatal 
toxicity and no neurotoxicity concerns.
    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 cyflufenamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that cyflufenamid 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 cyflufenamid results in increased 
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal 
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction 
study.
    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 and surface water modeling used 
to assess exposure to cyflufenamid in drinking water. These assessments 
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by cyflufenamid.

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 population adjusted dose (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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account acute exposure estimates from 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, 
cyflufenamid 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 
cyflufenamid from food and water will utilize 2.8% of the cPAD for the 
general U.S. population and 6.1% for children 1-2 years old, the 
population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the 
explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding the lack of residential use 
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyflufenamid is 
not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. A short-term adverse effect was identified for 
inhalation and oral exposures; however, cyflufenamid 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 
cyflufenamid.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. An intermediate-term adverse effect was 
identified; however, cyflufenamid 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 cyflufenamid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has determined 
that quantification of risk using the RfD approach is appropriate and 
will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including 
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to

[[Page 5716]]

cyflufenamid. Based on the conclusions of the chronic dietary 
assessment, EPA concludes that exposure to cyflufenamid is unlikely to 
pose an aggregate 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 cyflufenamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (High-Performance Liquid 
Chromatography Method with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC/MS/
MS), Method No. RD-01307) 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 United Nations 
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 cyflufenamid.

C. Response to Comments

    Several comments were received on the publication. While some 
comments raised issues outside the scope of the FFDCA analysis, the 
remaining comments primarily expressed general concerns about the 
potential health effects of pesticides residues in or on food and one 
comment asked that the combined effects of multiple pesticides be 
considered on food commodities. None of the comments specifically 
mentioned any particular safety concerns with cyflufenamid nor did any 
commenters provide supporting information for the Agency to evaluate or 
on which the Agency could rely to support a finding on the petitioned-
for tolerances.
    EPA recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should 
be banned on agricultural crops. The existing legal framework provided 
by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 
however, states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such 
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the 
safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects 
of cyflufenamid on human health and determined that aggregate exposure 
to it will be safe. These comments provide no information to support an 
alternative conclusion.
    As noted in Unit III.C.4., Congress has directed EPA to consider 
the cumulative risk of pesticide residues with residues of ``other 
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' FFDCA section 
408(b)(2)(D)(v). At this time, EPA has not concluded that cyflufenamid 
has a common mechanism of toxicity with any other pesticides. The 
petitioner has not provided any other information to support a 
different conclusion.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is establishing tolerances that vary slightly from requests in 
the petition by adding another significant figure to the tolerance 
levels for subgroup 12-12A and group 8-10 and revising commodity term 
for hops to match the Agency's commodity vocabulary.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of cyflufenamid, 
in or on cherry crop subgroup 12-12A at 0.60 ppm; hop, dried cones at 
5.0 ppm; and fruiting vegetable group 8-10 at 0.20 ppm; and the 
tolerance for residues in or on cucurbit vegetable group 9 is increased 
to 0.10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes and amends tolerances under FFDCA section 
408(d) 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 action has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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)), or Executive Order 13771, 
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

[[Page 5717]]

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
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 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: January 24, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
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. In Sec.  180.667, amend the table in paragraph (a) by:
0
i. Adding alphabetically the commodities ``Cherry subgroup 12-12A'', 
``Hop, dried cones'', and ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10'', and
0
ii. Revising the commodity ``Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  [emsp14]180.667  Cyflufenamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Cherry subgroup 12-12A.......................................       0.60
 
                                * * * * *
Hop, dried cones.............................................        5.0
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9.................................       0.10
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10..............................       0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-02670 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P