Propazine; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food, 36159-36164 [05-12015]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure. A dietary
assessment was conducted to evaluate
the potential risk due to chronic dietary
exposure of the U.S. population and all
sub-populations to residues of
fenpropimorph. Fenpropimorph is not
registered in the United States so no
tolerances have previously been
established.
This dietary analysis was conducted
to evaluate the proposed import
tolerance for banana pulp at 0.3 ppm.
The dietary assessment was conducted
using tolerance level residues, default
processing factors, and 100% crop
treated factors. These assumptions are
conservative because it assumes all
bananas imported into the United States
will be at tolerance level and 100% of
all the import bananas will have been
treated with fenpropimorph. Inadvertent
residues in animal commodities (i.e.,
meat, meat byproducts, milk, eggs) were
not considered because imported
bananas will not be used as an animal
feed commodity.
i. Food. Acute dietary exposure
assessment for fenpropimorph. BASF
believes there is no concern regarding
acute dietary risk since the available
toxicity data do not indicate any
evidence of significant toxicity from a 1
day or single, event exposure by the oral
route.
ii. Chronic dietary exposure
assessment.Achronic assessment was
conducted for all subpopulations. The
chronic dietary exposure assessment
was conducted using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software
with Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID). The chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) used for all
subpopulations was 0.003 mg/kg bwt/
day. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed above, fenpropimorph
chronic dietary exposure from food is
less than 19% cPAD for all
subpopulations. The most highly
exposed subpopulation was children 12 years old and utilized 18.4 % of the
cPAD. The results of the chronic dietary
assessment are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.— SUMMARY OF CHRONIC DIETARY
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
CONSIDERING CROPS WITH ESTABLISHED AND PROPOSED TOLERANCES
FOR FENPROPIMORPH.
Population
Subgroups
U.S. population
VerDate jul<14>2003
Exposure Estimate (mg/kg
bw/day)
0.0001140
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
%cPAD
3.8
Jkt 205001
TABLE 1.— SUMMARY OF CHRONIC DIETARY
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
CONSIDERING CROPS WITH ESTABLISHED AND PROPOSED TOLERANCES
FOR FENPROPIMORPH.—Continued
Population
Subgroups
Exposure Estimate (mg/kg
bw/day)
%cPAD
All Infants
0.0004320
14.4
Children (1-2
years)
0.0005520
18.4
Children (3-5
years)
0.0002880
9.6
Children (6-12
years)
0.0001200
4.0
Females (1319 years)
0.0000720
2.4
Youth (13-19
years)
0.0000480
E. Safety Determination
1. U.S. population. Based on this risk
assessment, BASF concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the general population
from the aggregate exposure to
fenpropimorph residues.
2. Infants and children. Based on this
risk assessment, BASF concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants or children
from the aggregate exposure to
fenpropimorph.
1.6
D. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.
Results for toxicity studies indicate that
toxic effects produced by
fenpropimorph would not be
cumulative with those of any other
chemical.
Frm 00051
F. International Tolerances
A maximum residue level has not
been established under Codex
Alimentarius Commission for
fenpropimorph in bananas.
[FR Doc. 05–12079 Filed 6–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
Results of the chronic dietary
exposure analysis demonstrate a
reasonable certainty that no harm to the
general U.S. population or any
subpopulation would results from
importing bananas treated with
fenpropimorph.
iii. Drinking water. Fenpropimorph is
not registered for use within the United
States and therefore exposure through
drinking water will not occur.
An aggregate exposure assessment for
fenpropimorph is not needed because
the only exposure to fenpropimorph
will occur from the dietary food route.
Fenpropimorph is not registered within
the United States for any uses. The
dietary assessment conducted above
demonstrates that there are no safety
concerns for any subpopulation, and
that the results clearly meet the FQPA
standard of reasonable certainty of no
harm.
2. Non-dietary exposure.
Fenpropimorph is not registered for use
within the United States. Thus,
residential exposure is not possible.
PO 00000
36159
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0032; FRL–7718–7]
Propazine; Notice of Filing a Pesticide
Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a
Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on
Food
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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–
0032, must be received on or before July
22, 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: Jim
Tompkins, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–5697; e-mail address:
tompkins.jim@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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
36160
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
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–
0032. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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–2005–0032. 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,
Attention: Docket ID number OPP–
2005–0032. 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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
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–2005–0032.
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–2005–0032. 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
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: June 3, 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 Griffin Corporation, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36161
pesticide chemical residues or an
explanation of why no such method is
needed.
Griffin Corporation
PP 7F4837
EPA has received a pesticide petition
(PP 7F4837) from Griffin Corporation,
P.O. Box 1847, Valdosta, GA 31603–
1847 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
propazine 2-chloro-4,6bis(isopropyamine)-s-triazine and its 2
chloro metabolites, 2-amino-4-chloro, 6isopropylamino-s-triazine (G–30033)
and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-striazine (G28273) in or on the raw agricultural
commodity sorghum, stover, forage, and
grain at 0.25 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 support granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed
before EPA rules on the petition.
A. Residue Chemistry
1. Plant metabolism. In sorghum,
metabolism occurs by the three
following reactions: N-dealkylation of
the side-chains, hydrolytic
dehalogenation or nucleophilic
displacement of the 2-chloro group with
glutathione (GSH). The dehalogenation
and formation of GSH conjugates are the
two predominant pathways and only
small amounts of the chloro residues
were found in forage and stover. No
chloro residues were detected in
sorghum grain in two propazine
metabolism studies that were
conducted. Griffin believes the
metabolism is well characterized in
plants and animals and the pathways of
metabolism are very similar to those
defined for other triazines. The
metabolism profile supports the use of
an analytical enforcement method that
accounts for parent propazine and its
two chloro metabolites, 2-amino-chloro6-isopropyl-amino-s-triazine (G–30033)
and 2-chloro-4,6-di-amino-s-triazine (G–
28273) in the raw agricultural
commodity (RAC’s) of grain sorghum
and further supports the current
tolerance of 0.25 ppm to include the two
chloro metabolites.
2. Analytical method. A practical
analytical method has been submitted,
as a part of the sorghum residue study.
The method involves extraction,
evaporation solid phase clean-up
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
36162
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
column and quantitation by high
performance liquid chromotography
(HPLC) equipped with a ultraviolet ray
(UV) detector. One aliquot is used for
assaying for propazine and G–30033 and
another aliquot is used for quantitating
G–27283. The limit of quanitation
(LOQ) for propazine and each of its
chloro metabolites in each raw
agricultural commodities (RAC) and
each chloro residue is 0.05 ppm.
3. Magnitude of residues. A total of 13
sorghum field residue trails were
conducted in the major sorghum
growing areas of the United States. No
quantifiable residues of parent or the
two chloro metabolites were detected in
the RAC’s of the 13 field residue studies
when treated at the 1x rate. Only four
samples for sorghum forage contained
residues of G–28273 which were
quantifiable and residues ranged from
0.05 ppm to 0.087 ppm. The treatment
rate for these studies exceeded the
maximum proposed use rate and the
extrapolated range of residues for the
four samples was 0.024 to 0.069 ppm.
The RAC’s of sorghum are only used
as feed for cattle and poultry. Only the
grain is fed to chickens and there were
no chloro residues present in grain;
therefore, no chloro residues would be
expected in eggs and poultry products.
The level of chloro residues in forage
and fodder are sufficiently low in the
metabolism and residue studies to
demonstrate that any potential transfer
of propazine and its chloro metabolites
to milk and meat is not expected. For
rotational crops, no chloro residues
were present in root and grain crops
when planted more than 129 days after
treatment. Chloro residues were present
in leafy vegetables grown in soils with
pH values above 7 and under inclimate
growing conditions. One field sample of
wheat forage contained low levels of
parent propazine but this sample was
taken at an interval shorter than will be
proposed on the label for plant back
and, in addition, the pH of the soil was
above 7.
An amendment of the current
tolerance of 0.25 ppm to include parent
propazine and its two chloro
metabolites, G–30033 and G–28273, is
proposed for each of the RAC’s of grain
sorghum. The metabolism and field
residue results show that chloro
residues of propazine should not exceed
0.25 ppm in any of the RAC’s. Potential
transfer of propazine and its two chloro
metabolites to milk and meat is not
expected. Therefore, tolerances in milk,
meat, poultry and eggs are not required.
The data show that root and grain crops
can be rotated with sorghum treated
with propazine, but leafy vegetable
crops should not be rotated with
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
sorghum in soils with pH values above
7.
B. Toxicological Profile
1. Acute toxicity. A complete battery
of acute toxicity studies for propazine
technical was completed. The acute oral
toxicity study resulted in a LD50 of
greater than 5,050 milligram kilogram
(mg/kg) for both sexes. The acute dermal
toxicity in rabbits resulted in an LD50 in
either sex of greater than 5,050 mg/kg.
The acute inhalation study in rats
resulted in an LC50 of greater than 1.22
mg/l. Propazine was non-irritating to the
skin of rabbits in the primary dermal
irritation study. In the primary eye
irritation study in rabbits, no irritation
was noted. The dermal sensitization
study in guinea pigs indicated that
propazine is not a sensitizer. Based on
these results, propazine technical is
placed in toxicity Category III.
2. Genotoxicity Propazine was
positive without activation and weakly
positive with activation in an in vitro
Chinese hamster cell point mutation
assay. It did not affect DNA repair in rat
hepatocytes. In in vivo assays, propazine
was negative for both production
anomalies in Chinese hamster somatic
cell nuclei in interphase and induction
structural damage (chromosome
aberrations) in mouse spermatogonial
cells.
3. Reproductive and developmental
toxicity. The potential maternal and
developmental toxicity of propazine
were evaluated in rabbits. Propazine
technical was suspended in corn oil and
administered orally by gavage to three
groups of 20 artificially inseminated
New Zealand White rabbits as a single
daily dose from gestation days 6–18. In
the range-finding study, rabbits were
dosed at levels of 0, 10, 50, 100, 200,
and 400 milligram kilogram/day (mg/kg/
day). Maternal toxicity was exhibited by
decreased defecation, body weight
losses and decreased food consumption
during the treatment period at 50, 100,
200 and 400 mg/kg/day. Abortions also
occurred at levels of 200 and 400 mg/
kg/day. Dose levels of 0, 2, 10, and 50
mg/kg/day were selected based on the
results of this study. In the definitive
study, no test article related deaths
occurred at any dose level tested. The
only clinical sign observed was
decreased defecation in the 50 mg/kg/
day group. Inhibition of body weight
gain occurred during the first 6 days of
dosing and inhibition of food
consumption occurred throughout the
treatment period in the 50 mg/kg/day
group. No other treatment related
findings were noted in the dams at any
dose level. Intrauterine parameters were
unaffected by treatment. There were no
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
treatment related effects on fetal
malformations or developmental
variations.
The data from the developmental
toxicity studies on propazine show no
evidence of a potential for
developmental effects (malformations or
variations) at doses that are not
maternally toxic. The no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) for
maternal toxicity in rabbits was 10 mg/
kg/day and the NOAEL for
developmental toxicity was 50 mg/kg/
day.
4. Subchronic toxicity. No test article
related deaths occurred at any dose
level. Very minimal dermal irritation
was noted in the 100 and 1,000 mg/kg/
day females. Body weight gain was
slightly inhibited in the high dose group
during weeks 0–1 (both sexes) and 2–3
(males only). There were no treatment
related effects on the clinical
observations, food consumption,
hematology and serum chemistry
parameters or organ weights were
observed at any dose level. Macroscopic
and microscopic examinations revealed
no treatment related lesions at any dose
level. Based on the 21 day dermal study
in rats, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity
was 100 mg/kg/day due to reduced body
weight gain at 1,000 mg/kg/day.
5. Chronic toxicity. Griffin conclude
that the body weight gain and survival
data clearly indicate that the high
dietary concentration of 1,000 ppm (68
mg/kg/day) for female rats exceeded the
maximum tolerance dose (MTD), and
therefore, the high dose female group
should be excluded from any risk
assessment or weight-of-evidence
arguments concerning this study.
Additionally, the incidence of
mammary gland tumors in all doses in
this study were within the range of
current laboratory historical control
incidences and those reported by the
breeder, Charles River. No adverse
treatment related effects were observed
at levels below the MTD (100 ppm or
lower for females).
6. Animal metabolism. The
absorption, distribution, excretion, and
metabolism of propazine (ring-UL-14C
propazine) was investigated in SpragueDawley CD rats. One group of rats was
administered a single oral dose at 1.0
mg/kg (low dose), one group was
administered a single oral dose at 100
mg/kg (high dose), and a third group
was administered fourteen consecutive
oral daily doses of non-radioactive
propazine at 1.0 mg/kg, followed by a
single oral dose of 14C-propazine at 1.0
mg/kg (consecutive dose group). A
fourth group of animals (3 rats/sex) was
administered a single oral dose of the
vehicle only (corn oil), and served as
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
controls. Since propazine is not soluble
in water, it was not possible to include
an intravenous dose group. Excretion
patterns were very similar in all dose
groups. Nearly all of the radioactivity
administered was recovered in the
excreta within 24 to 48 hours after
dosing. The majority of the
administered radioactivity was excreted
in the urine (66.2–70.5%), and this
finding shows that the majority of the
administered dose was bioavailable and
rapidly absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract. High performance
liquid chromotography (HPLC) analysis
of the urine indicated a similar profile
among all dose groups and both sexes.
The excretion of radioactivity in the
feces was significantly lower than in the
urine (range: 19.9–28.6%) in all dose
groups and both sexes. Analysis of this
radioactivity demonstrated a relatively
consistent pattern among the various
dose groups with females containing a
quantitatively higher level of the parent
compound. The recovery of expired
radioactivity was shown in a pilot study
to be negligible (< 0.1%), indicating
little or no 14CO2 production during the
metabolism of propazine.
Seven days post-treatment all animals
were sacrificed and the total radioactive
residue was quantified in bone, brain,
fat (visceral), gastrointestinal tract
(including contents), heart, kidney,
liver, lung, muscle (thigh), ovary,
plasma, red blood cells (RBC), skin,
spleen, testis, thyroid, uterus, and
residual carcass. Highest concentrations
were found in the RBCs of all dose
groups (0.472–0.577 ppm parent
equivalents at 1.0 mg/kg and 44.649–
55.287 ppm at 100 mg/kg). Residue
concentration in the remaining tissues
ranged from 0.007 to 0.468 ppm at the
low and consecutive dose groups, and
from 0.859 to 13.246 ppm at the high
dose. Mean body burdens for the low,
high, and consecutive dose groups
accounted for 10.3, 5.9 and 7.1% of the
dose, respectively. Material balances
were quantitative and accounted for
102.5, 101.1 and 96.3% of the dose,
respectively. Metabolite characterization
of excreta indicated a biotransformation
pathway consistent with historical
metabolism of alkylated s-triazines.
Confirmed metabolite identification
showed that propazine was metabolized
via Ndealkylation mechanisms and
excreted in urine primarily as the G–
27283 metabolite (approximately 27%
of the total dose). Unmetabolized parent
propazine was the predominant
identified compound in the feces
(13.8% in the high dose male group).
The fact that a greater percentage of
administered 14C-propazine was found
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
in the feces of the high dose group
probably indicated some degree of
saturation of the absorption mechanism.
Propazine technical is not metabolized
to breakdown products which
accumulate in sufficient quantities that
can be reasonably expected to present
any chronic dietary risk.
7. Metabolite toxicology. The hydroxy
metabolite of atrazine, an analog of
propazine has been shown not to exhibit
carcinogenic effects.
8. Endocrine disruption. There is no
evidence that propazine has
endocrinemodulation characteristics as
demonstrated by the lack of endocrine
effects in developmental, subchronic
and chronic studies.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure—i. Food. A
dietary risk exposure study dietary risk
evaluation system (DRES) for Griffin for
the purpose of estimating dietary
exposure to propazine residues. Grain
sorghum is the only proposed food or
food use of propazine. Therefore, there
exists no potential for human
consumption of crops treated with
propazine. Sorghum (grain, forage and
stover) is, however, fed to livestock.
Grain is the only sorghum commodity
fed to poultry. There are no chloro
residues, the residues of toxicological
concern, in the grain. In turn, there is no
potential for poultry to be exposed to
propazine or related residues. Beef and
dairy cattle are fed all sorghum
commodities: grain, forage, stover, and
aspirated grain fractions. Therefore, in
evaluating potential human dietary
exposure to propazine, the potential
exposure via secondary residues in meat
and milk must be considered. The total
chloro residues for a goat dosed at 9.9
ppm in a metabolism study were low.
Specifically, the highest total residue
while the lowest residue of < 0.002 ppm
was observed in kidney.
These tissues to feed ratios can then
be combined with the worst-case diets
derived from a sorghum only ration
which includes propazine residues at
the tolerance level of 0.25 ppm. (It
should be noted that this worst-case diet
is not a ration that would be fed to
cattle). The results of this indicate that
even under theoretically worst-case
conditions all meat and milk residues
are extremely low (all less than 0.01
ppm; the LOQ in plant matrices is 0.05
ppm). In turn, there is no potential for
dietary exposure to propazine via
secondary residues in meat and milk.
Therefore, tolerances for meat and milk
are not required for propazine.
ii. Drinking water. Griffin conclude
that environmental fate and behavior
studies, including aerobic soil
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36163
metabolism, field lysimeter, and long
term soil dissipation, indicate little
potential for propazine to reach surface
or ground water from its proposed use
on grain sorghum. Griffin concludes
that, there is little potential for dietary
exposure to propazine residues in water
exists.
2. Non-dietary exposure. There are no
residential uses for propazine in the
United States, therefore, there is no
potential for residential exposure.
D. Cumulative Effects
Because of the benefits of propazine,
most of the propazine use on sorghum
will be substituted for other triazines
and since the proposed use rate is lower
than the other triazines the cumulative
will not increase and could possibly be
reduced as a result of registering
propazine for use on grain sorghum.
E. Safety Determination
The reference dose (RfD) is based on
the rat chronic study. Using the (no
adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 5 mg/
kg/day in this study and an additional
uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 (100
intraspecies and interspecies
uncertainty factor plus an additional
uncertainty factor of 3X for lack of a
chronic study in dogs) an RfD of 0.02
mg/kg/day was established as the
chronic dietary endpoint.
1. U.S. population. In the DRES
analysis referenced above, it was
determined that there is no potential
exposure to propazine via dietary,
water, or nonoccupational routes.
2. Infants and children. In assessing
the potential for additional sensitivity of
infants and children to residues of
propazine, the available developmental
toxicity study and the potential for
endocrine modulation by propazine
were considered. The data from the
developmental toxicity studies on
propazine show no evidence of a
potential for developmental effects
(malformations or variations) at doses
that are not maternally toxic. The
developmental NOAELs and lowest
observed effect levels (LOAELs) were at
higher dose levels (less toxic),
indicating no increase in susceptibility
of developing organisms. No evidence of
endocrine effects were noted in any
study. It is therefore concluded that
propazine poses no additional risk for
infants and children and no additional
uncertainty factor is warranted. Federal
food, drug and cosmetic act (FFDCA)
section 408 provides that an additional
safety factor for infants and children
may be applied in the case of threshold
effects. Since, as discussed in the
previous section, the toxicology studies
do not indicate that young animals are
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
36164
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 22, 2005 / Notices
any more susceptible than adult animals
and the fact that the current RfD
calculated from the NOAEL from the rat
chronic study already incorporates a
300x uncertainty factor, Griffin believes
that an adequate margin of safety is,
therefore, provided by the RfD
established by EPA. There is no
evidence that propazine has endocrinemodulation characteristics as
demonstrated by the lack of endocrine
effects in developmental, subchronic,
and chronic studies. There is no
potential exposure to propazine via
dietary, water, or non-occupational
routes based on the proposed use on
grain sorghum. No additional
uncertainty factor for infants and
children is warranted based on the
completeness and reliability of the data
base, the demonstrated lack of increased
risk to developing organisms, and the
lack of endocrine-modulating effects.
F. International Tolerances
There are no Codex Alimentarius
Commission (CODEX) maximum
residue levels (MRLs) established for
residues of propazine and its chloro
metabolites in or on raw agricultural
commodities.
[FR Doc. 05–12015 Filed 6–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP–2005–0140; FRL–7715–6]
Tralkoxydim; Notice of Filing a
Pesticide Petition to Establish a
Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide
Chemical in or on Food
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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–
0140, must be received on or before July
22, 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: Jim
Tompkins, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:12 Jun 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–5697; e-mail
address:Tompkins.Jim@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–
0140. 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, 1801S. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 in 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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36159-36164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12015]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-2005-0032; FRL-7718-7]
Propazine; 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-
2005-0032, must be received on or before July 22, 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: Jim Tompkins, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-5697; e-mail address: tompkins.jim@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
[[Page 36160]]
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-2005-0032. 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-2005-0032. 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,
Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2005-0032. 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
[[Page 36161]]
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-2005-0032.
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-2005-0032. 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: June 3, 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 Griffin Corporation, 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.
Griffin Corporation
PP 7F4837
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 7F4837) from Griffin
Corporation, P.O. Box 1847, Valdosta, GA 31603-1847 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 propazine 2-chloro-4,6- bis(isopropyamine)-s-
triazine and its 2 chloro metabolites, 2-amino-4-chloro, 6-
isopropylamino-s-triazine (G-30033) and 2,4-diamino-6-chloro-striazine
(G-28273) in or on the raw agricultural commodity sorghum, stover,
forage, and grain at 0.25 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 support granting of the petition. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on the petition.
A. Residue Chemistry
1. Plant metabolism. In sorghum, metabolism occurs by the three
following reactions: N-dealkylation of the side-chains, hydrolytic
dehalogenation or nucleophilic displacement of the 2-chloro group with
glutathione (GSH). The dehalogenation and formation of GSH conjugates
are the two predominant pathways and only small amounts of the chloro
residues were found in forage and stover. No chloro residues were
detected in sorghum grain in two propazine metabolism studies that were
conducted. Griffin believes the metabolism is well characterized in
plants and animals and the pathways of metabolism are very similar to
those defined for other triazines. The metabolism profile supports the
use of an analytical enforcement method that accounts for parent
propazine and its two chloro metabolites, 2-amino-chloro- 6-isopropyl-
amino-s-triazine (G-30033) and 2-chloro-4,6-di-amino-s-triazine (G-
28273) in the raw agricultural commodity (RAC's) of grain sorghum and
further supports the current tolerance of 0.25 ppm to include the two
chloro metabolites.
2. Analytical method. A practical analytical method has been
submitted, as a part of the sorghum residue study. The method involves
extraction, evaporation solid phase clean-up
[[Page 36162]]
column and quantitation by high performance liquid chromotography
(HPLC) equipped with a ultraviolet ray (UV) detector. One aliquot is
used for assaying for propazine and G-30033 and another aliquot is used
for quantitating G-27283. The limit of quanitation (LOQ) for propazine
and each of its chloro metabolites in each raw agricultural commodities
(RAC) and each chloro residue is 0.05 ppm.
3. Magnitude of residues. A total of 13 sorghum field residue
trails were conducted in the major sorghum growing areas of the United
States. No quantifiable residues of parent or the two chloro
metabolites were detected in the RAC's of the 13 field residue studies
when treated at the 1x rate. Only four samples for sorghum forage
contained residues of G-28273 which were quantifiable and residues
ranged from 0.05 ppm to 0.087 ppm. The treatment rate for these studies
exceeded the maximum proposed use rate and the extrapolated range of
residues for the four samples was 0.024 to 0.069 ppm.
The RAC's of sorghum are only used as feed for cattle and poultry.
Only the grain is fed to chickens and there were no chloro residues
present in grain; therefore, no chloro residues would be expected in
eggs and poultry products. The level of chloro residues in forage and
fodder are sufficiently low in the metabolism and residue studies to
demonstrate that any potential transfer of propazine and its chloro
metabolites to milk and meat is not expected. For rotational crops, no
chloro residues were present in root and grain crops when planted more
than 129 days after treatment. Chloro residues were present in leafy
vegetables grown in soils with pH values above 7 and under inclimate
growing conditions. One field sample of wheat forage contained low
levels of parent propazine but this sample was taken at an interval
shorter than will be proposed on the label for plant back and, in
addition, the pH of the soil was above 7.
An amendment of the current tolerance of 0.25 ppm to include parent
propazine and its two chloro metabolites, G-30033 and G-28273, is
proposed for each of the RAC's of grain sorghum. The metabolism and
field residue results show that chloro residues of propazine should not
exceed 0.25 ppm in any of the RAC's. Potential transfer of propazine
and its two chloro metabolites to milk and meat is not expected.
Therefore, tolerances in milk, meat, poultry and eggs are not required.
The data show that root and grain crops can be rotated with sorghum
treated with propazine, but leafy vegetable crops should not be rotated
with sorghum in soils with pH values above 7.
B. Toxicological Profile
1. Acute toxicity. A complete battery of acute toxicity studies for
propazine technical was completed. The acute oral toxicity study
resulted in a LD50 of greater than 5,050 milligram kilogram
(mg/kg) for both sexes. The acute dermal toxicity in rabbits resulted
in an LD50 in either sex of greater than 5,050 mg/kg. The
acute inhalation study in rats resulted in an LC50 of
greater than 1.22 mg/l. Propazine was non-irritating to the skin of
rabbits in the primary dermal irritation study. In the primary eye
irritation study in rabbits, no irritation was noted. The dermal
sensitization study in guinea pigs indicated that propazine is not a
sensitizer. Based on these results, propazine technical is placed in
toxicity Category III.
2. Genotoxicity Propazine was positive without activation and
weakly positive with activation in an in vitro Chinese hamster cell
point mutation assay. It did not affect DNA repair in rat hepatocytes.
In in vivo assays, propazine was negative for both production anomalies
in Chinese hamster somatic cell nuclei in interphase and induction
structural damage (chromosome aberrations) in mouse spermatogonial
cells.
3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The potential maternal
and developmental toxicity of propazine were evaluated in rabbits.
Propazine technical was suspended in corn oil and administered orally
by gavage to three groups of 20 artificially inseminated New Zealand
White rabbits as a single daily dose from gestation days 6-18. In the
range-finding study, rabbits were dosed at levels of 0, 10, 50, 100,
200, and 400 milligram kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Maternal toxicity was
exhibited by decreased defecation, body weight losses and decreased
food consumption during the treatment period at 50, 100, 200 and 400
mg/kg/day. Abortions also occurred at levels of 200 and 400 mg/kg/day.
Dose levels of 0, 2, 10, and 50 mg/kg/day were selected based on the
results of this study. In the definitive study, no test article related
deaths occurred at any dose level tested. The only clinical sign
observed was decreased defecation in the 50 mg/kg/ day group.
Inhibition of body weight gain occurred during the first 6 days of
dosing and inhibition of food consumption occurred throughout the
treatment period in the 50 mg/kg/day group. No other treatment related
findings were noted in the dams at any dose level. Intrauterine
parameters were unaffected by treatment. There were no treatment
related effects on fetal malformations or developmental variations.
The data from the developmental toxicity studies on propazine show
no evidence of a potential for developmental effects (malformations or
variations) at doses that are not maternally toxic. The no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal toxicity in rabbits was 10
mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was 50 mg/kg/day.
4. Subchronic toxicity. No test article related deaths occurred at
any dose level. Very minimal dermal irritation was noted in the 100 and
1,000 mg/kg/day females. Body weight gain was slightly inhibited in the
high dose group during weeks 0-1 (both sexes) and 2-3 (males only).
There were no treatment related effects on the clinical observations,
food consumption, hematology and serum chemistry parameters or organ
weights were observed at any dose level. Macroscopic and microscopic
examinations revealed no treatment related lesions at any dose level.
Based on the 21 day dermal study in rats, the NOAEL for systemic
toxicity was 100 mg/kg/day due to reduced body weight gain at 1,000 mg/
kg/day.
5. Chronic toxicity. Griffin conclude that the body weight gain and
survival data clearly indicate that the high dietary concentration of
1,000 ppm (68 mg/kg/day) for female rats exceeded the maximum tolerance
dose (MTD), and therefore, the high dose female group should be
excluded from any risk assessment or weight-of-evidence arguments
concerning this study. Additionally, the incidence of mammary gland
tumors in all doses in this study were within the range of current
laboratory historical control incidences and those reported by the
breeder, Charles River. No adverse treatment related effects were
observed at levels below the MTD (100 ppm or lower for females).
6. Animal metabolism. The absorption, distribution, excretion, and
metabolism of propazine (ring-UL-14C propazine) was investigated in
Sprague-Dawley CD rats. One group of rats was administered a single
oral dose at 1.0 mg/kg (low dose), one group was administered a single
oral dose at 100 mg/kg (high dose), and a third group was administered
fourteen consecutive oral daily doses of non-radioactive propazine at
1.0 mg/kg, followed by a single oral dose of 14C-propazine at 1.0 mg/kg
(consecutive dose group). A fourth group of animals (3 rats/sex) was
administered a single oral dose of the vehicle only (corn oil), and
served as
[[Page 36163]]
controls. Since propazine is not soluble in water, it was not possible
to include an intravenous dose group. Excretion patterns were very
similar in all dose groups. Nearly all of the radioactivity
administered was recovered in the excreta within 24 to 48 hours after
dosing. The majority of the administered radioactivity was excreted in
the urine (66.2-70.5%), and this finding shows that the majority of the
administered dose was bioavailable and rapidly absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract. High performance liquid chromotography (HPLC)
analysis of the urine indicated a similar profile among all dose groups
and both sexes. The excretion of radioactivity in the feces was
significantly lower than in the urine (range: 19.9-28.6%) in all dose
groups and both sexes. Analysis of this radioactivity demonstrated a
relatively consistent pattern among the various dose groups with
females containing a quantitatively higher level of the parent
compound. The recovery of expired radioactivity was shown in a pilot
study to be negligible (< 0.1%), indicating little or no 14CO2
production during the metabolism of propazine.
Seven days post-treatment all animals were sacrificed and the total
radioactive residue was quantified in bone, brain, fat (visceral),
gastrointestinal tract (including contents), heart, kidney, liver,
lung, muscle (thigh), ovary, plasma, red blood cells (RBC), skin,
spleen, testis, thyroid, uterus, and residual carcass. Highest
concentrations were found in the RBCs of all dose groups (0.472-0.577
ppm parent equivalents at 1.0 mg/kg and 44.649-55.287 ppm at 100 mg/
kg). Residue concentration in the remaining tissues ranged from 0.007
to 0.468 ppm at the low and consecutive dose groups, and from 0.859 to
13.246 ppm at the high dose. Mean body burdens for the low, high, and
consecutive dose groups accounted for 10.3, 5.9 and 7.1% of the dose,
respectively. Material balances were quantitative and accounted for
102.5, 101.1 and 96.3% of the dose, respectively. Metabolite
characterization of excreta indicated a biotransformation pathway
consistent with historical metabolism of alkylated s-triazines.
Confirmed metabolite identification showed that propazine was
metabolized via Ndealkylation mechanisms and excreted in urine
primarily as the G-27283 metabolite (approximately 27% of the total
dose). Unmetabolized parent propazine was the predominant identified
compound in the feces (13.8% in the high dose male group). The fact
that a greater percentage of administered 14C-propazine was found in
the feces of the high dose group probably indicated some degree of
saturation of the absorption mechanism. Propazine technical is not
metabolized to breakdown products which accumulate in sufficient
quantities that can be reasonably expected to present any chronic
dietary risk.
7. Metabolite toxicology. The hydroxy metabolite of atrazine, an
analog of propazine has been shown not to exhibit carcinogenic effects.
8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence that propazine has
endocrinemodulation characteristics as demonstrated by the lack of
endocrine effects in developmental, subchronic and chronic studies.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure--i. Food. A dietary risk exposure study dietary
risk evaluation system (DRES) for Griffin for the purpose of estimating
dietary exposure to propazine residues. Grain sorghum is the only
proposed food or food use of propazine. Therefore, there exists no
potential for human consumption of crops treated with propazine.
Sorghum (grain, forage and stover) is, however, fed to livestock. Grain
is the only sorghum commodity fed to poultry. There are no chloro
residues, the residues of toxicological concern, in the grain. In turn,
there is no potential for poultry to be exposed to propazine or related
residues. Beef and dairy cattle are fed all sorghum commodities: grain,
forage, stover, and aspirated grain fractions. Therefore, in evaluating
potential human dietary exposure to propazine, the potential exposure
via secondary residues in meat and milk must be considered. The total
chloro residues for a goat dosed at 9.9 ppm in a metabolism study were
low. Specifically, the highest total residue while the lowest residue
of < 0.002 ppm was observed in kidney.
These tissues to feed ratios can then be combined with the worst-
case diets derived from a sorghum only ration which includes propazine
residues at the tolerance level of 0.25 ppm. (It should be noted that
this worst-case diet is not a ration that would be fed to cattle). The
results of this indicate that even under theoretically worst-case
conditions all meat and milk residues are extremely low (all less than
0.01 ppm; the LOQ in plant matrices is 0.05 ppm). In turn, there is no
potential for dietary exposure to propazine via secondary residues in
meat and milk. Therefore, tolerances for meat and milk are not required
for propazine.
ii. Drinking water. Griffin conclude that environmental fate and
behavior studies, including aerobic soil metabolism, field lysimeter,
and long term soil dissipation, indicate little potential for propazine
to reach surface or ground water from its proposed use on grain
sorghum. Griffin concludes that, there is little potential for dietary
exposure to propazine residues in water exists.
2. Non-dietary exposure. There are no residential uses for
propazine in the United States, therefore, there is no potential for
residential exposure.
D. Cumulative Effects
Because of the benefits of propazine, most of the propazine use on
sorghum will be substituted for other triazines and since the proposed
use rate is lower than the other triazines the cumulative will not
increase and could possibly be reduced as a result of registering
propazine for use on grain sorghum.
E. Safety Determination
The reference dose (RfD) is based on the rat chronic study. Using
the (no adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 5 mg/kg/day in this study and
an additional uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 (100 intraspecies and
interspecies uncertainty factor plus an additional uncertainty factor
of 3X for lack of a chronic study in dogs) an RfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day was
established as the chronic dietary endpoint.
1. U.S. population. In the DRES analysis referenced above, it was
determined that there is no potential exposure to propazine via
dietary, water, or nonoccupational routes.
2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of propazine, the
available developmental toxicity study and the potential for endocrine
modulation by propazine were considered. The data from the
developmental toxicity studies on propazine show no evidence of a
potential for developmental effects (malformations or variations) at
doses that are not maternally toxic. The developmental NOAELs and
lowest observed effect levels (LOAELs) were at higher dose levels (less
toxic), indicating no increase in susceptibility of developing
organisms. No evidence of endocrine effects were noted in any study. It
is therefore concluded that propazine poses no additional risk for
infants and children and no additional uncertainty factor is warranted.
Federal food, drug and cosmetic act (FFDCA) section 408 provides that
an additional safety factor for infants and children may be applied in
the case of threshold effects. Since, as discussed in the previous
section, the toxicology studies do not indicate that young animals are
[[Page 36164]]
any more susceptible than adult animals and the fact that the current
RfD calculated from the NOAEL from the rat chronic study already
incorporates a 300x uncertainty factor, Griffin believes that an
adequate margin of safety is, therefore, provided by the RfD
established by EPA. There is no evidence that propazine has endocrine-
modulation characteristics as demonstrated by the lack of endocrine
effects in developmental, subchronic, and chronic studies. There is no
potential exposure to propazine via dietary, water, or non-occupational
routes based on the proposed use on grain sorghum. No additional
uncertainty factor for infants and children is warranted based on the
completeness and reliability of the data base, the demonstrated lack of
increased risk to developing organisms, and the lack of endocrine-
modulating effects.
F. International Tolerances
There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX) maximum residue
levels (MRLs) established for residues of propazine and its chloro
metabolites in or on raw agricultural commodities.
[FR Doc. 05-12015 Filed 6-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S