Dichlormid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food, 8806-8811 [05-3361]
Download as PDF
8806
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 3, 2004 to December 1,
2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 29, 2004 to December
1, 2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
Florida
Ohio
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Specific: EPA authorized the use of
coumaphos in beehives to control varroa
mites and small hive beetles; January
19, 2005 to January 18,2006. Contact:
(Barbara Madden)
EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 29, 2004 to December
1, 2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of
myclobutanil on soybeans to control
soybean rust; December 1, 2004, to
March 1, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of
indoxacarb on collards to control
diamondback moth; November 4, 2004
to November 3, 2005. Contact: (Andrea
Conrath)
EPA authorized the use of
fenbuconazole on blueberries to control
mummyberry disease; November 18,
2004 to July 1, 2005. Contact: (Andrea
Conrath)
EPA authorized the use of
propiconazole on soybeans to control
soybean rust; November 15, 2004, to
March 1, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole
on soybeans to control soybean rust;
November 15, 2004, to March 1, 2007.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
Oregon
B. Federal Departments and Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of
thiophanate methyl in mushroom
cultivation to control green mold;
October 19, 2004 to October 18, 2005.
Contact: (Andrea Conrath)
EPA authorized the use of flufenacet on
wheat to control Italian ryegrass;
October 20, 2004 to December 31, 2004.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
Agriculture Department
Animal and Plant Health Inspector
Service
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of
carbaryl on imported flightless birds to
control exotic ectoparasites; November
15, 2004, to November 15, 2007.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
South Carolina
Environmental protection, Pesticides
and pest.
Clemson University
Specific: EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 3, 2004 to December 1,
2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of
trifloxystrobin on soybeans to control
soybean rust; December 13, 2004, to
December 1, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
Dated: February 9, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 05–3446 Filed 2–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
South Dakota
Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of
flufenacet on wheat to control Italian
ryegrass; October 20, 2004 to December
31, 2004. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
List of Subjects
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 3, 2004 to December 1,
2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of
trifloxystrobin on soybeans to control
soybean rust; December 13, 2004, to
December 1, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Specific: EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 29, 2004 to December
1, 2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
North Carolina
Specific: EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
Texas
Department of Agriculture
Crisis: On December 21, 2004, for the
use of triflumizole on parsley,
dandelion, Swiss chard, collards, kale,
kohlrabi, mustard greens, napa cabbage,
and cilantro to control powdery mildew.
This program is expected to end on
October 1, 2005. Contact: (Libby
Pemberton)
Specific: EPA authorized the use of
fenbuconazole on grapefruit to control
greasy spot disease; November 5, 2004
to November 4, 2005. Contact: (Andrea
Conrath)
EPA authorized the use of the
formulated product ApiLife VAR
containing thymol, eucalyptus oil, and
L-menthol in beehives to control varroa
mites; December 3, 2004 to December 1,
2005. Contact: (Barbara Madden)
Virginia
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of
myclobutanil on soybeans to control
soybean rust; November 15, 2004, to
March 1, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0023; FRL–7698–8]
Dichlormid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide
Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a
Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on
Food
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
initial filing of a pesticide petition
proposing the establishment of
regulations for residues of a certain
pesticide chemical in or on various food
commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0023, must be received on or before
March 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow
the detailed instructions as provided in
Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri
Grinstead, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
(703) 308–8373; e-mail address:
grinstead.keri@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
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. How Can I Get Copies of this
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under docket ID number OPP–2005–
0023. The official public docket consists
of the documents specifically referenced
in this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although, a part of the
official docket, the public docket does
not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the Public
Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
#2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This
docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305–5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA
Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
to submit or view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents
of the official public docket, and to
access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically.
Although, not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in
the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in
the appropriate docket ID number.
Certain types of information will not
be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not
included in the official public docket,
will not be available for public viewing
in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s
policy is that copyrighted material will
not be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public
docket. To the extent feasible, publicly
available docket materials will be made
available in EPA’s electronic public
docket. When a document is selected
from the index list in EPA Dockets, the
system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in
EPA’s electronic public docket.
Although, not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket
facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA
intends to work towards providing
electronic access to all of the publicly
available docket materials through
EPA’s electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or on paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
EPA’s electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on
computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be
transferred to EPA’s electronic public
docket. Public comments that are
mailed or delivered to the docket will be
scanned and placed in EPA’s electronic
public docket. Where practical, physical
objects will be photographed, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8807
photograph will be placed in EPA’s
electronic public docket along with a
brief description written by the docket
staff.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket ID number in the subject line on
the first page of your comment. Please
ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment
period. Comments received after the
close of the comment period will be
marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to
consider these late comments. If you
wish to submit CBI or information that
is otherwise protected by statute, please
follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do
not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit
CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an
electronic comment as prescribed in this
unit, EPA recommends that you include
your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact
information in the body of your
comment. Also, include this contact
information on the outside of any disk
or CD ROM you submit, and in any
cover letter accompanying the disk or
CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the
comment and allows EPA to contact you
in case EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties or needs
further information on the substance of
your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any
identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will
be included as part of the comment that
is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA’s electronic
public docket. 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.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s
electronic public docket to submit
comments to EPA electronically is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/, and
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once in the
system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in
docket ID number OPP–2005–0023. The
system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity, e-mail address, or
other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by
e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
8808
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
Attention: Docket ID number OPP–
2005–0023. In contrast to EPA’s
electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail
system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to the docket without going
through EPA’s electronic public docket,
EPA’s e-mail system automatically
captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically
captured by EPA’s e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA’s electronic
public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit
comments on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the mailing address
identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in
WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any
form of encryption.
2. By mail. Send your comments to:
Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001, Attention: Docket ID
number OPP–2005–0023.
3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver
your comments to: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
number OPP–2005–0023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
docket’s normal hours of operation as
identified in Unit I.B.1.
D. How Should I Submit CBI to the
Agency?
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through EPA’s electronic public docket
or by e-mail. You may claim
information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD ROM, 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
CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes any
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 and EPA’s electronic public
docket. If you submit the copy that does
not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be
included in the public docket and EPA’s
electronic public docket without prior
notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you
used.
3. Provide copies of any technical
information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at the
estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your
comments by the deadline in this
notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
be sure to identify the docket ID number
assigned to this action in the subject
line on the first page of your response.
You may also provide the name, date,
and Federal Register citation.
II. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA has received a pesticide petition
as follows proposing the establishment
and/or amendment of regulations for
residues of a certain pesticide chemical
in or on various food commodities
under section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that
this petition 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 support
granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection,
Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 10, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Summary of Petition
The petitioner’s summary of the
pesticide petition is printed below as
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3).
The summary of the petition was
prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC,
and represents the view of the
petitioner. The petition summary
announces the availability of a
description of the analytical methods
available to EPA for the detection and
measurement of the pesticide chemical
residues or an explanation of why no
such method is needed.
Dow AgroSciences LLC
PP 4F6858
EPA has received a pesticide petition
(PP 4F6858) 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, by establishing a tolerance for
residues of dichlormid in or on the raw
agricultural commodity corn (forage,
grain, stover) at (0.05) parts per million
(ppm). EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in
section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
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 qualitative
nature of the residue in plants is
adequately understood based on a study
depicting the metabolism of dichlormid
in corn plants. The metabolism of
dichlormid in corn is extensive and
occurs via two metabolite pathways. In
one pathway dichlormid is dechlorinated and oxidised to generate
N,N-diallyl glycolamide. An alternative
pathway is the loss of an allyl group
followed by oxidation to form
dichloroacetic acid. There is also
extensive incorporation into natural
constituents. EPA has previously
determined that dichlormid is the
residue of concern for tolerance setting
purposes.
2. Analytical method. An adequate
enforcement method for residues of
dichlormid in corn has been developed
and validated by the Analytical
Chemical Laboratory (ACL) of EPA.
Analysis is carried out using gas
chromatography with nitrogen selective
thermionic detection. The limit of
determination is 0.01 ppm.
3. Magnitude of residues. Fifteen (15)
field trials in field corn with dichlormid
were submitted and reviewed. The
submitted data support the tolerance
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
level of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) for
all corn commodities.
B. Toxicological Profile
1. Acute toxicity. Dichlormid has low
acute toxicity as indicated by a range of
studies including: a rat acute oral study
with an LD50 of 2,816 mg/kg for males
and 2,146 mg/kg for females,
respectively; a rat acute dermal study
with an LD50 of >2,040 mg/kg, and a
rabbit acute dermal study with an LD50
of >5,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation study
with an LD50 of >5.5 milligrams/Liter
(mg/L); a primary eye irritation study in
the rabbit showing mild ocular
irritation; a primary dermal irritation
study in the rabbit showing severe skin
irritation; and a skin sensitization study
which showed that dichlormid was a
mild skin sensitizer in the guinea pig.
An acute neurotoxicity study was
conducted in rats and a single oral
administration of 1,500 mg dichlormid/
kg was not associated with any
histopathological changes and no
functional changes indicative of
neurotoxicity. The NOAEL for
neurotoxicity in this study was 1,500
mg dichlormid/kg.
2. Genotoxicty. Dichlormid was not
mutagenic in a range of in vitro assays,
including the Salmonella/microsome
(Ames) assay, the human lymphocyte
cytogenetic assay (both assays with and
without metabolic activation), and an
unscheduled DNA synthesis (DNA
repair) assay in hepatocytes. In the
L5178Y mouse lymphoma assay, small
increases in mutant frequency were
observed only at cytotoxic
concentrations, and were not considered
to be significant. In vivo, dichlormid
was negative in the mouse micronucleus
test and in the rat unscheduled DNA
synthesis assay, when tested at the
maximum tolerated dose.
3. Reproductive and developmental
toxicity. In a developmental toxicity
study, rats were dosed orally by gavage
with 0, 10, 40 or 160 mg/kg/day. The no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
for maternal toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day
based on a reduction in body weight
gain and food consumption at 40 and
160 mg/kg/day. The developmental
NOAEL was determined to be 40 mg/kg/
day based on marginal foetotoxic effects,
including extra 14th ribs probably due to
maternal stress, slight sternebra
misalignment and some centra
unossified, at 160 mg/kg/day.
In a developmental toxicity study,
rabbits were dosed orally by gavage with
0, 5, 30 or 180 mg/kg/day. The lowest
observed effect level (LOAEL) for both
maternal and fetotoxicity was 180 mg/
kg/day characterized by reduced body
weight gain and food consumption, and
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
a small increase in post-implantation
loss, an increased number of early
resorptions, a decreased number of
fetuses per litter and evidence of
fetotoxicity (partial ossification and
misshapen/fused sternebrae). The
NOAEL for both maternal and
developmental toxicity was 30 mg/kg/
day.
In a two-generation reproduction
study in rats fed diets of 0, 15, 75 and
500 ppm of dichlormid, dietary
administration of 500 ppm dichlormid
(48.5 mg/kg/day) for two successive
generations resulted in decreased body
weights and increased liver weights in
parents and pups of both generations.
There were no effects on reproductive
performance or reproductive organs at
dose levels up to and including 500
ppm dichlormid. There were no
toxicologically significant effects in
parents or offspring at a dose level of 75
ppm dichlormid (>7.4 mg/kg/day).
4. Subchronic toxicity. In a
subchronic toxicity study, groups of 12
male and 12 female Wistar-derived
alpk:ApfSD rats were fed diets
containing 0, 20, 200 or 2,000 ppm
dichlormid for 90 days. Significant
reductions in body weight gain and food
consumption were seen in male and
female rats receiving 2,000 ppm
dichlormid, and to a lesser degree, in
females at 200 ppm. The liver was
identified as the principal target organ
(enlargement increased APDM activity
in females, centrilobular hypertrophy,
increased bile duct pigmentation) in the
2,000 ppm group. The NOAEL was 20
ppm (equivalent to approximately 1.8
mg/kg/day - see discussion under
Chronic toxicity, Section B.5.), and the
LOAEL was 200 ppm based on reduced
body weight gain and food
consumption, and a marginal increase
in APDM activity in females and liver
enlargement in males.
In a 90–day dog feeding study,
previously submitted and reviewed by
EPA, animals were dosed (4 dogs/sex/
dose) at 0, 1, 5, 25 and 50 mg/kg/day.
The NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day, and the
LOAEL 25 mg/kg/day based on reduced
body weight gain, increased liver weight
and degenerative changes involuntary
muscle with an associated increase in
plasma creatine kinase and alkaline
phosphatase activity between 6 and 10
weeks.
In a 14–week rat inhalation study,
groups of 18 male and 18 female
Sprague-Dawley CD rats were subjected
to a whole body exposure of 0, 2.0, 19.9
or 192.5 mg/m3 for 6 hours per day, 5
days per week. The NOAEL was 2.0 mg/
m3 based on histopathologic tissue
alterations to the nasal olfactory
epithelium at 19.9 and 192.5 mg/m3,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8809
suggesting that dichlormid was a mild
irritant to the nasal cavity. An increase
in relative liver, kidney and lung
weights at 19.9 and 192.5 mg/m3 was
not supported by gross or
histopathological observations.
A subchronic neurotoxicity study was
conducted in rats and groups of male
and females rats were fed diets
containing 0, 100, 250, or 750 ppm
dichlormid for 90–days. There were no
compound related effects in either sex
throughout the study and there was no
evidence of neurotoxicity. The NOEL for
neurotoxicity was 750 ppm (55.4 mg/kg
bwt/day for males, 61.2 mg/kg bodyn
weight (bwt/day for females).
5. Chronic toxicity. A 1–year chronic
toxicity study was conducted in dogs
with a NOAEL of 5 mg dichlormid/kg
bwt/day for both males and females.
The LOAEL from this study was 20 mg
dichlormid/kg bwt/day based on
minimal muscle fiber degeneration and
slight to moderate vacuolation of the
adrenal cortex. Adaptive changes
consisting of increased plasma alkaline
phosphatase activity and increased liver
weights, were present at this dose level.
There were no other signs of overt
toxicity.
Rats (64/sex/group) were fed diets
containing 0, 20, 100 or 500 ppm
dichlormid (0, 1.3, 6.5, 32.8 mg/kg/day
for males and 0, 1.5, 7.5, 37.1 mg/kg/day
for females) for up to 2 years. At 500
ppm in both males and females, there
were treatment related effects on growth
and food consumption, minor
reductions in plasma triglycerides, and
in males, increased liver weights
accompanied by hepatocyte
vaculolation and pigmentation effects.
In females, there was a slight overall
increase in malignant tumors, primarily
uterine adenocarcinomas, at 500 ppm,
but this specific increase was within the
spontaneous incidence observed in
historical data. It was concluded that
there was no evidence of oncogenicity
associated with dichlormid treatment.
The NOAEL for chronic toxicity was
100 ppm (6.5 and 7.5 mg/kg/day for
males and females, respectively).
In an 18–month oncogenicity study,
mice (55/sex/group) were fed
dichlormid at doses of 0, 10, 50 or 500
ppm (0, 1.4, 7.0, 70.7 mg/kg for males
and 0, 1.84, 9.2, 92.4 mg/kg for females).
At 500 ppm, there was a slight increase
in mortality for females from week 64
onward, and body weights and food
utilization were reduced in males, and
to a lesser extent, in females. Also, mice
fed 500 ppm dichlormid showed nonneoplastic changes which were minor
and consisted of changes in severity or
incidence of common spontaneous
findings. Based on these effects, the
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
8810
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
chronic NOAEL was 50 ppm (7.0 and
9.2 mg/kg/day for males and females,
respectively). There was a marginal
increase in Harderian gland adenomas
in males at 500 ppm, but this was
considered to reflect the variable
spontaneous tumor rate seen in this
strain and sex of mouse. It was
concluded, there was no evidence of
oncogenicity associated with
dichlormid treatment.
Based on available chronic toxicity
data, the RfD for dichlormid is 0.07 mg/
kg/day. This RfD is based on the 2–year
feeding study in rats with a NOAEL of
7 mg/kg/day. An uncertainty factor of
100 was used to account for interspecies
extrapolation and intraspecies
variability. The 2–year rat study is
consistent with, but supersedes the 90–
day rat study. The 2–year rat of NOAEL
of 7 mg/kg/day lies between 1.8 and 18
mg/kg/day derived from the NOAEL and
LOAEL figures of 20 and 200 ppm,
respectively, for the most recent 90–day
rat study. Thus, the overall NOAEL in
the rat for both chronic and subchronic
exposure should be regarded as 7 mg/
kg/day. Based on the proposed
Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment (July 1999), dichlormid is
not likely to be a human carcinogen,
and a margin of exposure (MOE)
approach should be used for human risk
assessment.
6. Animal metabolism. Dichlormid
was well absorbed, extensively
metabolized and eliminated mainly in
the urine within 24 hours. A significant
proportion of the dose, up to 11%, was
exhaled as CO2. Two routes of
biotransformation have been identified.
One route involved the formation of an
alcohol N,N-diallylglycolamide before
subsequent oxidation to N,Ndiallyloxamic acid, a major metabolite
present in the urine and feces of both
sexes. N,N-diallylglycolamide also
undergoes further biotransformation to
minor dechlorinated metabolites. In the
second metabolic pathway,
dichloroacetic acid present in the urine
of both sexes is formed either directly
from dichlormid or indirectly by
transformation of N-allyl-2,2-dichloroN-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)acetamide.
Entero- hepatic recirculation plays a
major role in the distribution,
metabolism and excretion of
dichlormid. The elimination as CO2, the
even elimination in urine over the first
24 hours, and wide distribution of
retained radioactivity indicates some
incorporation into endogenous
metabolic processes.
7. Metabolite toxicology. No unique
plant or soil metabolites have been
identified that warrant a separate
toxicological assessment.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
8. Endocrine disruption. There is no
overall trend in the toxicology database
that indicates that dichlormid would
have endocrine disrupting activity. The
mammalian and ecotoxicology
databases do not indicate significant
adverse effects associated with
endocrine disrupter activity.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure—i. Food.In
conducting a chronic dietary risk
assessment, reference is made to the
conservative assumptions made by EPA
in establishing dichlormid time-limited
tolerances on March 27, 2000 (65 FR
16143) (FRL–6498–7), 100% crop
treated (CT), and that all commodities
contain residues at the tolerance or
proposed tolerance. The analysis was
determined using the Novigen Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM
Version 6.2) software and the United
States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Nationwide Continuing Surveys
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII)
survey that was conducted from 1994
through 1996.
ii. Drinking water. Dichlormid is very
rapidly degraded in soil (laboratory
measured aerobic half-life of 8 days) and
applied at a maximum rate of 0.5 lb/
acre, so despite only exhibiting
moderate adsorption to soil (Koc 36–49),
the leaching potential for dichlormid to
reach groundwater is expected to be
low. The impact of the interactive
processes of adsorption and degradation
on leaching have been assessed using
EPA mathematical models of pesticide
movement in soil. Drinking water
estimate concentrations (DWEC) were
calculated for groundwater using
Screening Concentration in
Groundwater (SCI-GROW) modeling
and surface water estimate
concentrations were calculated using
Generic Estimated Environmental
Concentration (GENEEC) modeling.
These models predict a groundwater
concentration of 0.05 ppb and
surfacewater concentrations of 27.3 ppb
for an instantaneous peak, and 26.9 ppb
for a 56–day average. However, the
Interim Agency policy allows the
average 56–day GENEEC values to be
divided by 3 (9.0 ppb) to obtain a value
for chronic risk assessments. Drinking
water levels of concern (DWLOC) were
calculated for both chronic and acute
exposure. As stated in the March 27,
2000 final rule: ‘‘the modeled
groundwater and surfacewater
concentrations are less than the
DWLOCs for dichlormid in drinking
water for acute and chronic aggregate
exposures. Thus, the Agency is able to
screen out dichlormid drinking water
risks’’. Dow AgroSciences LLC does not
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
expect exposure to dichlormid residues
in drinking water to be a concern, as a
result of the increased exposure pattern.
2. Non-dietary exposure. The general
population is not expected to be
exposed to dichlormid through nondietary routes since dichlormid is used
only on agricultural crops and is not
used in or around the home.
3. Cumulative effects. The potential
for cumulative effects of dichlormid and
other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity have been
considered. There is no reliable
information to suggest that dichlormid
has any toxic effects that arise from
toxic mechanisms common to other
substances. Therefore, a consideration
of common mechanism and cumulative
effects with other substances is not
appropriate for dichlormid.
D. Safety Determination
1. U.S. population—i. Chronic risk.
Using the conservative exposure
assumptions described earlier, and
based on the completeness and
reliability of the toxicity data base for
dichlormid, the theoretical maximum
residue concentration (TMRC) for the
general U.S. population is calculated to
be 0.0009 mg/kg/day, or 4.1% of the
cPAD (0.0022 mg/kg/day). The most
highly exposed subgroup are children
aged 1–6 years with a TMRC of
0.000211 mg/kg/day, or 9.6% of the
cPAD. As EPA generally has no concern
for exposures below 100% of the RfD
because the RfD represents the level at
or below which daily aggregate dietary
exposure over a lifetime will not pose
appreciable risks to human health, Dow
AgroSciences LLC believes that there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to
dichlormid residues.
ii. Acute risk. The acute toxicity of
dichlormid is low, and there are no
concerns for acute-dietary, occupational
or non-occupational exposures to
dichlormid.
2. Infants and children. In assessing
the potential for additional sensitivity of
infants and children to residues of
dichlormid, data from developmental
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit
have been considered. The
developmental toxicity studies are
designed to evaluate adverse effects on
the developing organism resulting from
maternal pesticide exposure during
gestation. There was no evidence to
suggest that dichlormid was
developmental toxicant in either the rat
or rabbit. It was also observed, that there
was no risk below maternally toxic
doses as the NOAEL for developmental
effects in the rat was 40 mg/kg/day,
compared to the maternal NOAEL of 10
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 23, 2005 / Notices
mg/kg/day; and in the rabbit study, the
NOEL for both maternal and
developmental effects was 30 mg/kg/
day. EPA has previously concluded, that
the additional 10x safety factor should
be retained due to the qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility
demonstrated following in utero
exposure in the prenatal developmental
toxicity in rabbits and an incomplete
toxicity data base. It should be noted
that in the rabbit developmental toxicity
study, the LOAEL for both maternal and
developmental toxicity was 180 mg/kg/
day. The effects on resorptions at this
dose were observed in dams which
showed an average weight loss (–3.8g)
during the treatment period compared
with an average weight gain in controls
of 272g. Also, a multigeneration study
has now been completed, and therefore,
Dow AgroSciences LLC believes that an
additional safety factor should no longer
be necessary.
Additional uncertainty factors are not
warranted for the safety of infants and
children as reliable data support the
appropriate use of a 100–fold
uncertainty factor (MOE) to account for
interspecies extrapolation and
intraspecies variability. However, using
the conservative exposure assumptions
above for the determination in the
general population, it is concluded that,
the percentage of cPAD that will be
utilized by aggregate exposure to
dichlormid is 9.6% for children aged 1–
6 years (the group at highest risk).
Therefore, based on the completeness
and reliability of the toxicity data base
and the conservative exposure
assessment, Dow AgroSciences LLC
concludes, that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dichlormid residues.
E. International Tolerances
There is neither a codex proposal nor
Canadian or Mexican limits for residues
of dichlormid in corn commodities.
[FR Doc. 05–3361 Filed 2–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[DA 05–270]
Media Bureau Implements Mandatory
Electronic Filing of FCC Form 321 via
COALS
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In this Document the Media
Bureau announces mandatory electronic
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:28 Feb 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
filing via the Cable Operations and
Licensing System (COALS) for FCC
Form 321, Aeronautical Frequency
Notification.
DATES: September 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Lance at (202) 418–7000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission’s Public Notice, released
February 2, 2005. The complete text of
the Public Notice and related
Commission documents are available for
public inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The Public
Notice and related Commission
documents may also be purchased from
the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile
(202) 488–5563, or you may contact
BCPI at its Web site: https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Public Notice
and related documents are also available
on the Internet at the Commission’s Web
site: https://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
Daily_Business/2005/db0202/DA–05–
270A1.pdf.
The Media Bureau announces
mandatory electronic filing via the
Cable Operations and Licensing System
(COALS) for FCC Forms 321,
Aeronautical Frequency Notification.
Mandatory electronic filing will
commence on September 1, 2005. Paper
versions of these forms will not be
accepted for filing after August 31, 2005.
The Commission will consider waivers
where filers can show that electronic
filing would cause them hardship. Users
can access the electronic filing system
for these forms via the Internet from the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fcc.gov/coals. Instructions for use
of the COALS and assistance are
available from https://www.fcc.gov/coals.
under ‘‘download instructions.’’ Internet
access to the COALS public access
system requires a user to have a browser
such as Netscape version 3.04 or
Internet Explorer version 3.51, or later.
For technical assistance using the
system or to report problems, please
contact the Media Bureau, Engineering
Division at (202) 418–7000 or
COALS_help@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
John P. Wong,
Chief, Engineering Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–3431 Filed 2–22–05; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Notice of Proposals to Engage in
Permissible Nonbanking Activities or
to Acquire Companies that are
Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking
Activities
The companies listed in this notice
have given notice under section 4 of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12
CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to
acquire or control voting securities or
assets of a company, including the
companies listed below, that engages
either directly or through a subsidiary or
other company, in a nonbanking activity
that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y
(12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has
determined by Order to be closely
related to banking and permissible for
bank holding companies. Unless
otherwise noted, these activities will be
conducted throughout the United States.
Each notice is available for inspection
at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.
The notice also will be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing on the
question whether the proposal complies
with the standards of section 4 of the
BHC Act. Additional information on all
bank holding companies may be
obtained from the National Information
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding the applications must be
received at the Reserve Bank indicated
or the offices of the Board of Governors
not later than March 18, 2005.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of
Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105–
1521:
1. KNBT Bancorp, Inc., Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania; to acquire Northeast
Pennsylvania Financial Corp., Hazleton,
Pennsylvania, and thereby indirectly
acquire First Federal Bank, Hazleton,
Pennsylvania, and thereby engage in
operating a savings association,
pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(i) of
Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, February 16, 2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05–3416 Filed 2–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–S
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8811
E:\FR\FM\23FEN1.SGM
23FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8806-8811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2005-0023; FRL-7698-8]
Dichlormid; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a
Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a
certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-
2005-0023, must be received on or before March 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keri Grinstead, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:
[[Page 8807]]
(703) 308-8373; e-mail address: grinstead.keri@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 111)
Animal production (NAICS 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 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. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0023. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-
5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA
Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in
EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted
material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will
be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.
To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be
made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is
selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify
whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.
EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the
publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public
docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information
protected by statute.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in
the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/
edocket/, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number
OPP-2005-0023. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov,
[[Page 8808]]
Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2005-0023. In contrast to EPA's
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2005-0023.
3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID
number OPP-2005-0023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.
D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM,
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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this
notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.
II. What Action is the Agency Taking?
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the
establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain
pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.
EPA has determined that this petition 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 support granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed
additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 10, 2005.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Summary of Petition
The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below
as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was
prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC, and represents the view of the
petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a
description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the
detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an
explanation of why no such method is needed.
Dow AgroSciences LLC
PP 4F6858
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 4F6858) 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, by
establishing a tolerance for residues of dichlormid in or on the raw
agricultural commodity corn (forage, grain, stover) at (0.05) parts per
million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of
the FFDCA; 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 qualitative nature of the residue in
plants is adequately understood based on a study depicting the
metabolism of dichlormid in corn plants. The metabolism of dichlormid
in corn is extensive and occurs via two metabolite pathways. In one
pathway dichlormid is de-chlorinated and oxidised to generate N,N-
diallyl glycolamide. An alternative pathway is the loss of an allyl
group followed by oxidation to form dichloroacetic acid. There is also
extensive incorporation into natural constituents. EPA has previously
determined that dichlormid is the residue of concern for tolerance
setting purposes.
2. Analytical method. An adequate enforcement method for residues
of dichlormid in corn has been developed and validated by the
Analytical Chemical Laboratory (ACL) of EPA. Analysis is carried out
using gas chromatography with nitrogen selective thermionic detection.
The limit of determination is 0.01 ppm.
3. Magnitude of residues. Fifteen (15) field trials in field corn
with dichlormid were submitted and reviewed. The submitted data support
the tolerance
[[Page 8809]]
level of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) for all corn commodities.
B. Toxicological Profile
1. Acute toxicity. Dichlormid has low acute toxicity as indicated
by a range of studies including: a rat acute oral study with an
LD50 of 2,816 mg/kg for males and 2,146 mg/kg for females,
respectively; a rat acute dermal study with an LD50 of
>2,040 mg/kg, and a rabbit acute dermal study with an LD50
of >5,000 mg/kg; a rat inhalation study with an LD50 of >5.5
milligrams/Liter (mg/L); a primary eye irritation study in the rabbit
showing mild ocular irritation; a primary dermal irritation study in
the rabbit showing severe skin irritation; and a skin sensitization
study which showed that dichlormid was a mild skin sensitizer in the
guinea pig.
An acute neurotoxicity study was conducted in rats and a single
oral administration of 1,500 mg dichlormid/kg was not associated with
any histopathological changes and no functional changes indicative of
neurotoxicity. The NOAEL for neurotoxicity in this study was 1,500 mg
dichlormid/kg.
2. Genotoxicty. Dichlormid was not mutagenic in a range of in vitro
assays, including the Salmonella/microsome (Ames) assay, the human
lymphocyte cytogenetic assay (both assays with and without metabolic
activation), and an unscheduled DNA synthesis (DNA repair) assay in
hepatocytes. In the L5178Y mouse lymphoma assay, small increases in
mutant frequency were observed only at cytotoxic concentrations, and
were not considered to be significant. In vivo, dichlormid was negative
in the mouse micronucleus test and in the rat unscheduled DNA synthesis
assay, when tested at the maximum tolerated dose.
3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental
toxicity study, rats were dosed orally by gavage with 0, 10, 40 or 160
mg/kg/day. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal
toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day based on a reduction in body weight gain and
food consumption at 40 and 160 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOAEL was
determined to be 40 mg/kg/day based on marginal foetotoxic effects,
including extra 14th ribs probably due to maternal stress,
slight sternebra misalignment and some centra unossified, at 160 mg/kg/
day.
In a developmental toxicity study, rabbits were dosed orally by
gavage with 0, 5, 30 or 180 mg/kg/day. The lowest observed effect level
(LOAEL) for both maternal and fetotoxicity was 180 mg/kg/day
characterized by reduced body weight gain and food consumption, and a
small increase in post-implantation loss, an increased number of early
resorptions, a decreased number of fetuses per litter and evidence of
fetotoxicity (partial ossification and misshapen/fused sternebrae). The
NOAEL for both maternal and developmental toxicity was 30 mg/kg/day.
In a two-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets of 0, 15,
75 and 500 ppm of dichlormid, dietary administration of 500 ppm
dichlormid (48.5 mg/kg/day) for two successive generations resulted in
decreased body weights and increased liver weights in parents and pups
of both generations. There were no effects on reproductive performance
or reproductive organs at dose levels up to and including 500 ppm
dichlormid. There were no toxicologically significant effects in
parents or offspring at a dose level of 75 ppm dichlormid (>7.4 mg/kg/
day).
4. Subchronic toxicity. In a subchronic toxicity study, groups of
12 male and 12 female Wistar-derived alpk:ApfSD rats were fed diets
containing 0, 20, 200 or 2,000 ppm dichlormid for 90 days. Significant
reductions in body weight gain and food consumption were seen in male
and female rats receiving 2,000 ppm dichlormid, and to a lesser degree,
in females at 200 ppm. The liver was identified as the principal target
organ (enlargement increased APDM activity in females, centrilobular
hypertrophy, increased bile duct pigmentation) in the 2,000 ppm group.
The NOAEL was 20 ppm (equivalent to approximately 1.8 mg/kg/day - see
discussion under Chronic toxicity, Section B.5.), and the LOAEL was 200
ppm based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption, and a
marginal increase in APDM activity in females and liver enlargement in
males.
In a 90-day dog feeding study, previously submitted and reviewed
by EPA, animals were dosed (4 dogs/sex/dose) at 0, 1, 5, 25 and 50 mg/
kg/day. The NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day, and the LOAEL 25 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight gain, increased liver weight and degenerative
changes involuntary muscle with an associated increase in plasma
creatine kinase and alkaline phosphatase activity between 6 and 10
weeks.
In a 14-week rat inhalation study, groups of 18 male and 18 female
Sprague-Dawley CD rats were subjected to a whole body exposure of 0,
2.0, 19.9 or 192.5 mg/m3 for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week. The
NOAEL was 2.0 mg/m3 based on histopathologic tissue alterations to the
nasal olfactory epithelium at 19.9 and 192.5 mg/m3, suggesting that
dichlormid was a mild irritant to the nasal cavity. An increase in
relative liver, kidney and lung weights at 19.9 and 192.5 mg/m3 was not
supported by gross or histopathological observations.
A subchronic neurotoxicity study was conducted in rats and groups
of male and females rats were fed diets containing 0, 100, 250, or 750
ppm dichlormid for 90-days. There were no compound related effects in
either sex throughout the study and there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity. The NOEL for neurotoxicity was 750 ppm (55.4 mg/kg bwt/
day for males, 61.2 mg/kg bodyn weight (bwt/day for females).
5. Chronic toxicity. A 1-year chronic toxicity study was conducted
in dogs with a NOAEL of 5 mg dichlormid/kg bwt/day for both males and
females. The LOAEL from this study was 20 mg dichlormid/kg bwt/day
based on minimal muscle fiber degeneration and slight to moderate
vacuolation of the adrenal cortex. Adaptive changes consisting of
increased plasma alkaline phosphatase activity and increased liver
weights, were present at this dose level. There were no other signs of
overt toxicity.
Rats (64/sex/group) were fed diets containing 0, 20, 100 or 500
ppm dichlormid (0, 1.3, 6.5, 32.8 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 1.5, 7.5,
37.1 mg/kg/day for females) for up to 2 years. At 500 ppm in both males
and females, there were treatment related effects on growth and food
consumption, minor reductions in plasma triglycerides, and in males,
increased liver weights accompanied by hepatocyte vaculolation and
pigmentation effects. In females, there was a slight overall increase
in malignant tumors, primarily uterine adenocarcinomas, at 500 ppm, but
this specific increase was within the spontaneous incidence observed in
historical data. It was concluded that there was no evidence of
oncogenicity associated with dichlormid treatment. The NOAEL for
chronic toxicity was 100 ppm (6.5 and 7.5 mg/kg/day for males and
females, respectively).
In an 18-month oncogenicity study, mice (55/sex/group) were fed
dichlormid at doses of 0, 10, 50 or 500 ppm (0, 1.4, 7.0, 70.7 mg/kg
for males and 0, 1.84, 9.2, 92.4 mg/kg for females). At 500 ppm, there
was a slight increase in mortality for females from week 64 onward, and
body weights and food utilization were reduced in males, and to a
lesser extent, in females. Also, mice fed 500 ppm dichlormid showed
non-neoplastic changes which were minor and consisted of changes in
severity or incidence of common spontaneous findings. Based on these
effects, the
[[Page 8810]]
chronic NOAEL was 50 ppm (7.0 and 9.2 mg/kg/day for males and females,
respectively). There was a marginal increase in Harderian gland
adenomas in males at 500 ppm, but this was considered to reflect the
variable spontaneous tumor rate seen in this strain and sex of mouse.
It was concluded, there was no evidence of oncogenicity associated with
dichlormid treatment.
Based on available chronic toxicity data, the RfD for dichlormid
is 0.07 mg/kg/day. This RfD is based on the 2-year feeding study in
rats with a NOAEL of 7 mg/kg/day. An uncertainty factor of 100 was used
to account for interspecies extrapolation and intraspecies variability.
The 2-year rat study is consistent with, but supersedes the 90-day rat
study. The 2-year rat of NOAEL of 7 mg/kg/day lies between 1.8 and 18
mg/kg/day derived from the NOAEL and LOAEL figures of 20 and 200 ppm,
respectively, for the most recent 90-day rat study. Thus, the overall
NOAEL in the rat for both chronic and subchronic exposure should be
regarded as 7 mg/kg/day. Based on the proposed Guidelines for
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (July 1999), dichlormid is not likely to
be a human carcinogen, and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach should
be used for human risk assessment.
6. Animal metabolism. Dichlormid was well absorbed, extensively
metabolized and eliminated mainly in the urine within 24 hours. A
significant proportion of the dose, up to 11%, was exhaled as CO2. Two
routes of biotransformation have been identified. One route involved
the formation of an alcohol N,N-diallylglycolamide before subsequent
oxidation to N,N-diallyloxamic acid, a major metabolite present in the
urine and feces of both sexes. N,N-diallylglycolamide also undergoes
further biotransformation to minor dechlorinated metabolites. In the
second metabolic pathway, dichloroacetic acid present in the urine of
both sexes is formed either directly from dichlormid or indirectly by
transformation of N-allyl-2,2-dichloro-N-(2,3-
dihydroxypropyl)acetamide. Entero- hepatic recirculation plays a major
role in the distribution, metabolism and excretion of dichlormid. The
elimination as CO2, the even elimination in urine over the first 24
hours, and wide distribution of retained radioactivity indicates some
incorporation into endogenous metabolic processes.
7. Metabolite toxicology. No unique plant or soil metabolites have
been identified that warrant a separate toxicological assessment.
8. Endocrine disruption. There is no overall trend in the
toxicology database that indicates that dichlormid would have endocrine
disrupting activity. The mammalian and ecotoxicology databases do not
indicate significant adverse effects associated with endocrine
disrupter activity.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure--i. Food.In conducting a chronic dietary risk
assessment, reference is made to the conservative assumptions made by
EPA in establishing dichlormid time-limited tolerances on March 27,
2000 (65 FR 16143) (FRL-6498-7), 100% crop treated (CT), and that all
commodities contain residues at the tolerance or proposed tolerance.
The analysis was determined using the Novigen Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM Version 6.2) software and the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII) survey that was conducted from 1994
through 1996.
ii. Drinking water. Dichlormid is very rapidly degraded in soil
(laboratory measured aerobic half-life of 8 days) and applied at a
maximum rate of 0.5 lb/acre, so despite only exhibiting moderate
adsorption to soil (Koc 36-49), the leaching potential for dichlormid
to reach groundwater is expected to be low. The impact of the
interactive processes of adsorption and degradation on leaching have
been assessed using EPA mathematical models of pesticide movement in
soil. Drinking water estimate concentrations (DWEC) were calculated for
groundwater using Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-GROW)
modeling and surface water estimate concentrations were calculated
using Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) modeling.
These models predict a groundwater concentration of 0.05 ppb and
surfacewater concentrations of 27.3 ppb for an instantaneous peak, and
26.9 ppb for a 56-day average. However, the Interim Agency policy
allows the average 56-day GENEEC values to be divided by 3 (9.0 ppb) to
obtain a value for chronic risk assessments. Drinking water levels of
concern (DWLOC) were calculated for both chronic and acute exposure. As
stated in the March 27, 2000 final rule: ``the modeled groundwater and
surfacewater concentrations are less than the DWLOCs for dichlormid in
drinking water for acute and chronic aggregate exposures. Thus, the
Agency is able to screen out dichlormid drinking water risks''. Dow
AgroSciences LLC does not expect exposure to dichlormid residues in
drinking water to be a concern, as a result of the increased exposure
pattern.
2. Non-dietary exposure. The general population is not expected to
be exposed to dichlormid through non-dietary routes since dichlormid is
used only on agricultural crops and is not used in or around the home.
3. Cumulative effects. The potential for cumulative effects of
dichlormid and other substances that have a common mechanism of
toxicity have been considered. There is no reliable information to
suggest that dichlormid has any toxic effects that arise from toxic
mechanisms common to other substances. Therefore, a consideration of
common mechanism and cumulative effects with other substances is not
appropriate for dichlormid.
D. Safety Determination
1. U.S. population--i. Chronic risk. Using the conservative
exposure assumptions described earlier, and based on the completeness
and reliability of the toxicity data base for dichlormid, the
theoretical maximum residue concentration (TMRC) for the general U.S.
population is calculated to be 0.0009 mg/kg/day, or 4.1% of the cPAD
(0.0022 mg/kg/day). The most highly exposed subgroup are children aged
1-6 years with a TMRC of 0.000211 mg/kg/day, or 9.6% of the cPAD. As
EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD
because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate
dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to
human health, Dow AgroSciences LLC believes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
dichlormid residues.
ii. Acute risk. The acute toxicity of dichlormid is low, and there
are no concerns for acute-dietary, occupational or non-occupational
exposures to dichlormid.
2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of dichlormid, data
from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit have been
considered. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate
adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from maternal
pesticide exposure during gestation. There was no evidence to suggest
that dichlormid was developmental toxicant in either the rat or rabbit.
It was also observed, that there was no risk below maternally toxic
doses as the NOAEL for developmental effects in the rat was 40 mg/kg/
day, compared to the maternal NOAEL of 10
[[Page 8811]]
mg/kg/day; and in the rabbit study, the NOEL for both maternal and
developmental effects was 30 mg/kg/day. EPA has previously concluded,
that the additional 10x safety factor should be retained due to the
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility demonstrated following
in utero exposure in the prenatal developmental toxicity in rabbits and
an incomplete toxicity data base. It should be noted that in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study, the LOAEL for both maternal and
developmental toxicity was 180 mg/kg/day. The effects on resorptions at
this dose were observed in dams which showed an average weight loss (-
3.8g) during the treatment period compared with an average weight gain
in controls of 272g. Also, a multigeneration study has now been
completed, and therefore, Dow AgroSciences LLC believes that an
additional safety factor should no longer be necessary.
Additional uncertainty factors are not warranted for the safety of
infants and children as reliable data support the appropriate use of a
100-fold uncertainty factor (MOE) to account for interspecies
extrapolation and intraspecies variability. However, using the
conservative exposure assumptions above for the determination in the
general population, it is concluded that, the percentage of cPAD that
will be utilized by aggregate exposure to dichlormid is 9.6% for
children aged 1-6 years (the group at highest risk). Therefore, based
on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data base and the
conservative exposure assessment, Dow AgroSciences LLC concludes, that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to dichlormid residues.
E. International Tolerances
There is neither a codex proposal nor Canadian or Mexican limits
for residues of dichlormid in corn commodities.
[FR Doc. 05-3361 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S