Rule2022-04264
Ipflufenoquin; Pesticide Tolerances
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 1, 2022
Effective
March 1, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of ipflufenoquin in or on almond, almond, hulls, and fruit, pome, group 11-10. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11315-11319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04264]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0225; FRL-8572-01-OCSPP]
Ipflufenoquin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ipflufenoquin in or on almond, almond, hulls, and fruit, pome, group
11-10. Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective March 1, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 2, 2022, 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-2020-0225, is available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
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.
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e7c6a687c60415a474d4b5d6e4b5e4f00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75273133273b1a011c161006351005145b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<bullet> Crop production (NAICS code 111).
<bullet> Animal production (NAICS code 112).
<bullet> Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
<bullet> 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 Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40</a>.
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-2020-0225 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
May 2, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
Despite the regulatory instructions to submit objections or hearing
requests via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA strongly encourages those
interested in submitting objections or a hearing request, to submit
objections and hearing requests electronically. See Order Urging
Electronic Service and Filing (April 10, 2020), <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf</a>. At this time, because
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of the Office of
Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not able to accept
filings or correspondence by courier, personal deliver, or commercial
delivery, and the ability to receive filings or correspondence by U.S.
Mail is similarly limited. When submitting documents to the U.S. EPA
Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a person should utilize the
OALJ e-filing system, at <a href="https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf">https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_upload.nsf</a>.
Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand
deliver, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as
properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency continues
to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA believes the
preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial.
If it is impossible for a person to submit documents electronically or
receive service electronically, e.g., the person does not have any
access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by contacting the
Hearing Clerk at (202) 564-6281. If a person is without access to a
computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person shall notify
the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a manner. The
address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Administrative Law Judges,
[[Page 11316]]
Mail Code 1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
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-2020-0225, by one of
the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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.
<bullet> Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html</a>.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html</a>.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 29, 2020 (85 FR 32338) (FRL-10009-
84), 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
9F8801) by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., Shin-Ohtemachi Bldg. 2-1, 2-Chome
Ohtemachi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8165, Japan. The petition requested
that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the fungicide ipflufenoquin, 2-[2-(7,8-difluoro-2-methylquinolin-3-
yloxy)-6-fluorophenyl]propan-2-ol, in or on almond at 0.10 ppm; almond
hulls at 3.0 ppm; and pome fruit (Crop Group 11-10) at 0.15 ppm; and
tolerances for residues for ipflufenoquin, QP-1-14, QP-1-10, QP-1-11,
and QP-1-15 (in terms of ipflufenoquin) on cattle, fat at 0.010 ppm;
cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.010 ppm; dairy
cattle milk at 0.01 ppm; goat, fat at 0.010 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01
ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.010 ppm; horse, fat at 0.010 ppm;
horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.010 ppm; sheep,
fat at 0.010 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; and sheep, meat byproducts
at 0.010 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., the registrant, which is available
in the docket, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
concluded that tolerances for residues of ipflufenoquin in livestock
commodities are not needed and is establishing the tolerances for
almond, almond hulls, and pome fruit with several minor adjustments.
The reasons for these changes are explained 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 ipflufenoquin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with ipflufenoquin
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.
The primary targets of ipflufenoquin in rodents are teeth, the
liver, thyroid, hematological system, and intestines. Tooth effects
included discoloration, enamel hypoplasia, dysplasia and abrasion of
the incisors. Liver effects included changes in liver weight and
histopathological changes (increased single cell necrosis, bile duct
hyperplasia, and hepatocellular mitotic figures). Thyroid effects were
limited to follicular cell hypertrophy. Effects in the hematological
system included decrease in red blood cells, hemoglobin and
hematocrits, and increases in spleen weight, prothrombin time and
erythropoiesis of the spleen. However, these hematological effects were
considered mild and occurred at the same or higher doses than the tooth
effects. Intestinal findings included black content, minimal cellular
infiltration in the lamina propria of the colon, minimal hyperplasia
epithelium and minimal regeneration of the surface epithelium in the
colon. Intestinal and thyroid effects occurred at the same doses where
tooth effects were observed only in the subchronic studies in rats.
Tooth effects including discoloration, enamel hypoplasia, dysplasia and
abrasion of the incisors were observed throughout the ipflufenoquin
database in rodents only. The toxicology database showed no adverse
toxicological effects were observed in dogs.
Potential signs of neurotoxicity were observed in the acute
neurotoxicity (ACN) study, but only in one sex at the highest doses. No
changes in motor activity were observed in a 13-week oral study in
rats. No developmental or maternal effects were reported in the
developmental studies in rats and rabbits. No treatment-related
reproductive effects were reported in the reproductive toxicity study
in rats. Decreased pup body weight was observed at the same doses where
parental toxicity was observed.
Although no immunotoxicity study is available for ipflufenoquin, no
evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in other submitted studies. No
systemic toxicity was observed in a dermal study in rats up to the
limit dose. Ipflufenoquin is classified as ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans''.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by ipflufenoquin 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> in document ``Ipflufenoquin. Human Health Risk
[[Page 11317]]
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Registration of the New Active
Ingredient for Uses on Pome Fruit (Crop Group 11-10) and Almond.''
(hereinafter ``Ipflufenoquin Human Health Risk Assessment'') at page 37
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0225.
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 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 <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticide">https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticide</a>.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ipflufenoquin used for
human risk assessment can be found in the Ipflufenoquin Human Health
Risk Assessment.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to ipflufenoquin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
ipflufenoquin 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
ipflufenoquin; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary. An acute dietary exposure assessment was not
required because no endpoint attributable to a single dose was
identified in the ipflufenoquin database.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the 2003-2008 food consumption data from the
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America. EPA conducted an
unrefined chronic dietary exposure assessment using tolerance-level
residues, 100% crop treated assumptions, the Agency's 2018 default
processing factors, and empirical processing factors where available.
iii. Cancer. Based on its review of available data, EPA has
concluded that ipflufenoquin is not likely to be carcinogenic.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for ipflufenoquin.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for ipflufenoquin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of ipflufenoquin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide">https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide</a>.
Based on the Tier II Exposure Model Pesticide in Water Calculator
(PWC) (v1.52, Feb. 23, 2016), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of ipflufenoquin for acute exposures are
estimated to be 3.71 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 53.6
ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 1.28 ppb for surface water and 49.1 ppb for ground
water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 49.1ppb 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). Ipflufenoquin is not
being 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.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ipflufenoquin and any
other substances, and ipflufenoquin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that ipflufenoquin has
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 <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides">https://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides</a>.
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 (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies. Decreased pup body weight was observed
in the reproduction study only in the presence of parental toxicity.
Subchronic oral toxicity studies indicate
[[Page 11318]]
tooth discoloration and enamel hypoplasia in rats exposed to
ipflufenoquin. Children are considered the most susceptible population
to the tooth effects since dental enamel development and formation
occurs during childhood.
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 ipflufenoquin is adequate to
characterize the pre- and postnatal risk for infants and children.
ii. There is evidence of potential neurotoxicity (decreased motor
activity) in the ipflufenoquin database in the ACN study. However,
concern is low because: The observed effects are well characterized,
with clear NOAELs; they occur only at the highest doses tested; and the
PODs are based on the most sensitive effects and are protective of any
potential neurotoxicity.
iii. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, there were no
reproductive effects observed, and offspring toxicity was observed only
in the presence of parental toxicity. Although potential signs of
neurotoxicity were observed in the ACN study, clear NOAELs/LOAELs are
established, and effects occurred at high doses that are not relevant
for risk assessment purposes. Moreover, although children are more
susceptible to the tooth effects seen in the database, the PODs
selected for risk assessment purposes are protective of the offspring
and potential effects seen in the database.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to ipflufenoquin in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
ipflufenoquin.
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. 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,
ipflufenoquin 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
ipflufenoquin from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD
for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups. There are
no residential uses for ipflufenoquin.
3. Short- and intermediate-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). Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified;
however, ipflufenoquin is not being proposed to be registered for any
use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term
residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed
based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or 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 short-term risk), no further
assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risk for ipflufenoquin.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, ipflufenoquin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
5. 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 ipflufenoquin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
The petitioner has proposed an adequate analytical method, Method
No. P 3996 G, adapted from the multi-residue method (quick, easy,
cheap, effective, rugged and safe; QuEChERS; Method No. EN 15662:2009-
02) for the determination of ipflufenoquin in plant commodities. For
livestock commodities, adequate enforcement methodology, Method No.
NCAS 18-290 (adapted from QuEChERS multi-residue enforcement method EN
15662), using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass
detection (HPLC/MS-MS) is available for determination of residues of
ipflufenoquin.
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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#493b2c3a202d3c2c242c3d21262d3a092c3928672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="245641574d4051414941504c4b4057644154450a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 has not established any MRLs for ipflufenoquin.
C. Revisions To Petitioned-For Tolerances
Based on the feeding study and the dietary burden estimates, EPA
concludes that there is no reasonable expectation of finite residues in
livestock commodities as a result of eating treated feedstuff (40 CFR
180.6(a)(3)). Therefore, tolerances for residues of ipflufenoquin in
livestock commodities are not needed. Additionally, EPA corrected the
pome fruit crop group commodity definition and is establishing the
tolerance level for ``almond, hulls'' at 3 ppm instead of 3.0 ppm to be
consistent with OECD's rounding class practices.
Although the summary of the petition cited in Unit II of this
preamble indicated a request for a tolerance on almond at 0.10 ppm (and
EPA's notice of filing published in the Federal Register indicated the
request for a tolerance at 0.10 ppm), the actual petition sought a
tolerance at 0.01 ppm. Based on its review of the underlying residue
data, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to set the tolerance
for almond at 0.01 ppm.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
ipflufenoquin, 2-[2-(7,8-difluoro-2-methylquinolin-3-yloxy)-6-
[[Page 11319]]
fluorophenyl]propan-2-ol, in or on almond at 0.01 ppm; almond, hulls at
3 ppm; and fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.15 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes 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). 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 tolerances 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).
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: February 23, 2022.
Edward Messina,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD
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. Add Sec. 180.719 to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 180.719 Ipflufenoquin; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide ipflufenoquin, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities to Table 1 of this section. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in Table 1 is to be determined by measuring
only ipflufenoquin, 2-[(7,8-difluoro-2-methyl-3-quinolinyl)oxy]-6-
fluoro-[alpha],[alpha]-dimethylbenzenemethanol, in or on the
commodities.
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond.................................................. 0.01
Almond, hulls........................................... 3
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................ 0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)-(d) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2022-04264 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 1, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.