Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerance, 40202-40212 [05-13774]
Download as PDF
40202
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Pesticide chemical
CAS reg. No.
Potassium triiodide (KI3)
12298–68–9
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–13701 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0075; FRL–7714–3]
Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of spirodiclofen
(3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate) in or on grape;
grape, raisin; grape, juice; fruit, citrus,
crop group 10; citrus, oil; citrus, juice;
fruit, pome, crop group 11; apple, wet
pomace; fruit, stone, crop group 12; nut,
tree, crop group 14; almond, hulls; and
pistachio; and for residues of
spirodiclofen and its free enol
metabolite (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one)
in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat
byproducts; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat,
meat byproducts; goat, meat; sheep, fat;
sheep, meat byproducts; sheep, meat;
horse, fat; horse, meat byproducts;
horse, meat; milk; and milk, fat. Bayer
CropScience requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective July
13, 2005. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0075. All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed
in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
VerDate jul<14>2003
Limits
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
When applied to growing crops in
foreign countries
*
*
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita
Kumar, Registration Division (7505C),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8291; e-mail
address:kumar.rita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g.,
agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112),
e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy
cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311),
e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Uses
Sfmt 4700
Bananas, grapes, and melons
*
*
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET
(https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the
OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly
to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/
opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of February
18, 2004 (69 FR 7632) (FRL–7343–2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 2F6469) by Bayer
CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27709. The petition requested that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of
the insecticide spirodiclofen (3-(2,4dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3]-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate), in or on citrus fruit
group at 0.3 parts per million (ppm),
citrus pulp, dried, at 0.4 ppm, citrus oil
at 20 ppm, pome fruit group at 0.8 ppm,
pome fruit pomace, wet, at 6.0 ppm,
stone fruit group at 1.0 ppm, tree nut
group at 0.05 ppm, almond hulls at 20
ppm, pistachios at 0.05 ppm, grape at
2.0 ppm and grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm;
and for combined residues of
spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3]-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate), and/or its enol
metabolite, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one,
in or on cattle, fat, at 0.01 ppm and
cattle, meat by-products, at 0.05 parts
per million (ppm). That notice included
a summary of the petition prepared by
Bayer CropScience, the registrant. There
were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. For
further discussion of the regulatory
requirements of section 408 of FFDCA
and a complete description of the risk
assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR
62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL–5754–
7).
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess
the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure,
consistent with section 408(b)(2) of
FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of
spirodiclofen on grape at 2.0 ppm;
grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; grape, juice at
2.4 ppm; citrus, fruit, crop group 10 at
0.50 ppm; citrus, oil at 20 ppm; citrus,
juice at 0.60 ppm; fruit, pome, crop
group 11 at 0.80 ppm; apple, wet
pomace at 2.0 ppm; fruit, stone, crop
group 12 at 1.0 ppm; nut, tree, crop
group 14 at 0.10 ppm; almond, hulls at
20 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; and for
combined residues of spirodiclofen and
its free enol metabolite BAJ 2510 in or
on cattle, meat and cattle, fat at 0.02
ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; goat, meat and goat, fat at 0.02
ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; sheep, meat and sheep, fat at 0.02
40203
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; horse, meat and horse, fat at 0.02
ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm, and milk, fat at
0.03 ppm. EPA’s assessment of
exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
Spirodiclofen has low acute toxicity
via oral, dermal, or inhalation route. It
is not an eye or dermal irritant.
However, it is a potential skin
sensitizer. The nature of the toxic effects
caused by spirodiclofen are discussed in
Table 1 of this unit as well as the no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
and the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
reviewed.
TABLE 1.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY PROFILE FOR SPIRODICLOFEN
Guideline No.
Study Type
Results
870.3100
Subchronic oral - rat
For males, NOAEL = 32.1 milligram/kilogram/
day (mg/kg/day), LOAEL = 166.9 mg/kg/
day based on increased incidence and severity of small cytoplasmic vacuolation in
the cortex of adrenal glands, decreased
cholesterol (week 5 and 13), and decreased triglycerides (week 5),
For females, NOAEL = 8.1 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 47.1 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of small cytoplasmic
vacuolation in the cortex of adrenal glands
870.3100
Subchronic oral - mouse
For males, NOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day, LOAEL=
164 mg/kg/day based on an increased incidence of hypertrophic Leydig cells in the
testes
For females, NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, LOAEL
= 234 mg/kg/day based on an increased
incidence of cytoplasmic vacuolation of the
adrenal cortex
870.3150
Subchronic oral - dog
For males, NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg/day, LOAEL
= 26.6 mg/kg/day based on decreased
body weight gains, increased liver and adrenal weights, decreased prostate weights,
and histopathology findings in the adrenal
glands, testes, epididymis, thymus, and
prostates
For females, NOAEL ≤8.4 mg/kg/day. LOAEL
= 8.4 mg/kg/day based on increased adrenal gland weight (two out of four animals)
which coincided with histopathology findings (cytoplasmic vacuoles in the Zona
fasciculata of the adrenal glands)
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40204
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY PROFILE FOR SPIRODICLOFEN—Continued
Guideline No.
Study Type
Results
870.3200
21–Day dermal toxicity - rat
NOAEL is 1,000 mg/kg/day (highest dose
tested (HDT)); however, the histopathology
was not appropriately conducted as required by the guideline. The study did not
examine all of the tissues, especially the
possible target organs (i.e., uterus, prostate, etc)
870.3700
Prenatal developmental - rat
Maternal: NOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day (HDT)
Developmental: NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day based on an increased incidence of slight dilatation of the
renal pelvis
870.3700
Prenatal developmental - rabbit
Maternal: NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day, LOAEL =
300 mg/kg/day based on body weight loss
and decreased food consumption
Developmental: NOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day
(HDT)
870.3800
Reproduction and fertility effects - rat
Parental/system:
For males: NOAEL = 5.2-6.4 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 26.2- 30.2 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight in F males; decreased absolute and relative liver weight
in F0 males; decreased cholesterol and
triglycerides in F1 males; and increased
severity of adrenal cortical vacuolation in
F1 males. For females, NOAEL = 5.5-7.0
mg/kg/day, LOAEL = 27.6-34.4 mg/kg/day
based on decreased unesterified fatty acids
in F1 females, and increased severity of
adrenal cortical vacuolation in F0 and F1 females
Reproductive:
For males: NOAEL = 26.2-30.2 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 134.8- 177.6 mg/kg/day based
on delayed sexual maturation; decreased
testicular spermatid and epididymal sperm
counts (oligospermia); and atrophy of the
testes, epididymides, prostate and seminal
vesicles. For females: NOAEL = 27.6-34.4
mg/kg/day, LOAEL = 139.2-192.7 mg/kg/
day based on increased severity of ovarian
luteal cell vacuolation/degeneration
Offspring:
NOAEL = 5.2-6.4 (M)/5.5-7.0 (F) mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 26.2-30.2 (M)/ 27.6-34.4(F) mg/
kg/day based on decreased body weight
and weight gain in F1 male and female
pups
870.4100
Chronic toxicity - dog
NOAEL = 1.38 (M)/1.52(F) mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 4.33(M)/4.74 (F) mg/kg/day
based on increased relative adrenal
weights in both sexes, increased relative
testis weight in males and histopathology
findings in the adrenal gland of both sexes
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
40205
TABLE 1.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY PROFILE FOR SPIRODICLOFEN—Continued
Guideline No.
Study Type
Results
870.4200
Carcinogenicity - mouse
NOAEL = 4.1(M)/5.1(F) mg/kg/day, LOAEL =
610 (M) mg/kg/day based on increased absolute and relative liver and adrenal
weights, decreased absolute and relative
kidney weight, enlarged adrenal gland, discolored testis, adrenal gland vacuolization,
interstitial cell degeneration of the testes.
For females, LOAEL = 722 mg/kg/day
based on increased absolute and relative
adrenal weight, decreased absolute and
relative
kidney
weight,
increased
incidences of adrenal gland pigmentation,
and adrenal vacuolization.
Hepatocellular adenoma and carcinoma
870.4300
Chronic toxicity - rat
For males: NOAEL = 14.7 mg/kg/day, LOAEL
= 110.1 mg/kg/day based on decreased
body weights, decreased body weight gain,
increased APh levels, decreased cholesterol and triglyceride levels, increased
vacuolated jejunum enterocytes, and increased
incidences
of
Leydig
cell
hyperplasia
For females: NOAEL = 19.9 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 152.9 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weights, decreased body
weight gain, increased APh levels, increased TSH, uterus nodules, and increased vacuolated jejunum enterocytes
testes Leydig cell adenoma in males, uterine
adenoma and/or adenocarcinoma in females
870.5100
Gene mutation - Salmonella typhimurium
There was no evidence of increased
revertant colonies above control in 5 Salmonella strains (TA1535, TA1537, TA1538,
TA100, TA98) ± S9 at concentrations up to
5,000 µg/plate
870.5300
In vitro mammalian gell gene mutation
Negative, tested in Chinese Hamster lung
fibroblast V79 cells at concentrations up to
300 µg/mL - S9 and +S9. Cytotoxicity was
observed at ≥15 µg/mL -S9 and 80 µg/mL
+S9
870.5375
In vitro mammalian chromosome aberration
Negative, tested in Chinese hamster lung
(V79) cells at concentrations 5-80 µg/mL or
0.75-12 µg/mL -S9 or 10-160 µg/mL +S9
870.5395
In vivo mouse bone morrow micronucleus
Negative, tested at a dose 800 mg/kg (MTD).
Clinical signs and cytotoxicity were seen at
800 mg/kg
870.6200
Acute neurotoxicity - rat
NOAEL = 2,000 mg/kg/day, no neurotoxicity
observed
870.6200
Subchronic neurotoxicity - rat
NOAEL = 70.3(M)/87.3(F) mg/kg/day. LOAEL
= 1088.8(M)/1306.5(F) mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weights, food consumption, and increased urine staining in both
sexes and decreased motor and locomotor
activity (week 4) in females only
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40206
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY PROFILE FOR SPIRODICLOFEN—Continued
Guideline No.
Study Type
870.6300
Results
Developmental neurotoxicity
B. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which no adverse effects
are observed (the NOAEL) from the
toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment is
used to estimate the toxicological level
of concern (LOC). However, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes
used for risk assessment if no NOAEL
was achieved in the toxicology study
selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is
applied to reflect uncertainties inherent
in the extrapolation from laboratory
animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members
of the human population as well as
other unknowns. An UF of 100 is
routinely used, 10X to account for
interspecies differences and 10X for
intraspecies differences.
Three other types of safety or
uncertainty factors may be used: ‘‘
Traditional uncertainty factors;’’ the
‘‘special FQPA safety factor;’’ and the
‘‘default FQPA safety factor.’’ By the
term ‘‘traditional uncertainty factor,’’
EPA is referring to those additional
uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA
passage to account for database
deficiencies. These traditional
uncertainty factors have been
incorporated by the FQPA into the
additional safety factor for the
protection of infants and children. The
Maternal NOAEL = 135.9/273.8 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = Not established
Offspring NOAEL = Not established
LOAEL = 6.5/14.0 mg/kg/day based on effects in memory phase of the water maze
test in PND 60 females
The study classification is reserved for the
guideline requirement pending receipt of
additional morphometric measurements for
the low and mid dose groups
term ‘‘special FQPA safety factor’’ refers
to those safety factors that are deemed
necessary for the protection of infants
and children primarily as a result of the
FQPA. The ‘‘default FQPA safety factor’’
is the additional 10X safety factor that
is mandated by the statute unless it is
decided that there are reliable data to
choose a different additional factor
(potentially a traditional uncertainty
factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
For dietary risk assessment (other
than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to
calculate an acute or chronic reference
dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where
the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided
by an UF of 100 to account for
interspecies and intraspecies differences
and any traditional uncertainty factors
deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF).
Where a special FQPA safety factor or
the default FQPA safety factor is used,
this additional factor is applied to the
RfD by dividing the RfD by such
additional factor. The acute or chronic
Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or
cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to
accommodate this type of safety factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments
(other than cancer) the UF is used to
determine the LOC. For example, when
100 is the appropriate UF (10X to
account for interspecies differences and
10X for intraspecies differences) the
LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of
the NOAEL to exposures (margin of
exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is
calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology
(Q*) is the primary method currently
used by the Agency to quantify
carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of cancer risk.
A Q* is calculated and used to estimate
risk which represents a probability of
occurrence of additional cancer cases
(e.g., risk). An example of how such a
probability risk is expressed would be to
describe the risk as one in one hundred
thousand (1 X 10-5), one in a million (1
X 10-6), or one in ten million (1 X 10-7).
Under certain specific circumstances,
MOE calculations will be used for the
carcinogenic risk assessment. In this
non-linear approach, a ‘‘point of
departure’’ is identified below which
carcinogenic effects are not expected.
The point of departure is typically a
NOAEL based on an endpoint related to
cancer effects though it may be a
different value derived from the dose
response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio
of the point of departure to exposure
(MOEcancer = point of departure/
exposures) is calculated.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for spirodiclofen used for
human risk assessment is shown in
Table 2 of this unit:
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR SPIRODICLOFEN FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure Scenario
Special FQPA SF* and Level of
Concern for Risk Assessment
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF
Acute Dietary
Acute RfD = Not established
Chronic dietary (all populations)
LOAEL = 6.5 mg/kg/day
UF = 1,000
Chronic RfD = 0.0065 mg/kg/day
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Study and Toxicological Effects
An effect of concern attributable to a single dose was not identified
FQPA SF = 1X
cPAD = Chronic RfD/FQPA SF =
0.0065 mg/kg/day
Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Rat
LOAEL of 6.5 mg/kg/day based on
decreased retention (memory) in
females on day 60 in the water
maze at all doses
Classification: ‘‘Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ with Q1* (mg/kg/day)-1 = 1.49 x 10-2
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. Tolerances have not been
established for (40 CFR 180.000) for the
residues of spirodiclofen, in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities.
Risk assessments were conducted by
EPA to assess dietary exposures from
spirodiclofen in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Acute quantitative
dietary risk assessments are performed
for a food-use pesticide, if a
toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1–day or single
exposure. No appropriate single-dose
endpoint was available for the acute oral
exposure of the general population,
including infants and children.
Therefore, an acute quantitative dietary
assessment was not performed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic and cancer dietary risk
assessment EPA used the Lifeline
(version 2.0) and Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM), both of which
incorporates food consumption data as
reported by respondents in the USDA
1994–1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII), and accumulated
exposure to the chemical for each
commodity. The following assumptions
were made for the chronic exposure
assessments: The chronic and cancer
analyses were refined through the use of
average field trial residues,
experimentally determined processing
factors, and projected average percent
crop treated estimates. These averages
were based on the typical average of all
insecticides used to control all pests on
the specific crop.
The projected average percent crop
treated estimates were provided for
apple, peach, grape, orange, and
grapefruit. These averages were based
on the typical average of all insecticides
used to control all pests on the specific
crop. The Agency determined that it is
appropriate to translate the projected
percent crop treated estimates for peach,
apple, and grapefruit to the remaining
crops in the stone fruit, pome fruit, and
citrus crop groups, respectively.
Since the analysis made use of
average residues derived from crop field
trial studies (maximum application rate
and minimum preharvest interval
(PHI)), incorporated maximum
theoretical processing factors for juice,
and surface drinking water estimates
which assumed 87% of the basin
cropped and 100% of the cropped area
treated at the maximum rate (citrus,
pecan, apple, peach, and grape), the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
Agency concluded that the exposure
estimates are unlikely to underestimate
actual exposure.
iii. Cancer. The Agency has classified
spirodiclofen as ‘‘likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.’’
Quantification of cancer risk used a
Q1*(mg/kg/day)-1 of 1.49 x 10-2 in
human equivalents based on male rat
testes Leydig cell adenoma.
As indicated above, the chronic and
cancer analyses incorporated average
field trial residues; processing factors
from the apple, grape, plum, and orange
processing studies (DEEM-FCIDTM (ver.
7.76) default processing factors assumed
for juice commodities); projected
average percent crop treated estimates;
and the SCI-GROW and/or PRZMEXAMS drinking water estimates.
DEEM-FCIDTM resulted in similar
chronic and cancer risk estimates (all
included drinking water), but due to
differing drinking water assumptions,
the result was a higher risk estimate
using DEEM-FCIDTM. Based on a critical
commodity analysis conducted in
DEEM-FCIDTM, the major contributors
to the cancer risk were water (34% of
the total exposure), orange (20% of the
total exposure) and apple (16% of the
total exposure).
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the
Agency may use data on the actual
percent of food treated for assessing
chronic dietary risk only if the Agency
can make the following findings:
Condition 1, that the data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain such pesticide residue;
Condition 2, that the exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group; and
Condition 3, if data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic
evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of
the estimate of PCT as required by
section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may
require registrants to submit data on
PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
A routine chronic dietary exposure
analysis for spirodiclofen was based on
projected PCT for the following crops:
Grapefruit - 20%; oranges except temple
- 10%; grapes - 4%; peaches - 12%;
apples - 13%. These are typical averages
of all insecticides used to control all
pests on the specific crop, taken from
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40207
the Agricultural Chemical Usage 2003
Fruit Summary report published by
United States Department of Agriculture
National Agriculture Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS). The projected percent
crop treated estimates for peach, apple,
and grapefruit were applied to the
remaining crops in the stone fruit, pome
fruit, and citrus crop groups,
respectively.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions previously discussed have
been met. With respect to Condition 1,
EPA finds that the PCT information
described in Unit. C for spirodiclofen is
reliable and has a valid basis. These are
average usage figures of all insecticides
used on the crops in question. EPA has
not taken into account whether the
insecticide use was directed against the
pest that spirodiclofen controls but
instead has averaged each insecticide’s
total usage. Thus, these averages are
likely to overstate spirodiclofen use
because many insecticides are effective
against several pests and total usage of
these pesticides will be significantly
higher than an insecticide, such as
spirodiclofen, which is used primarily
against a single pest. For acute risk
assessment, the highest percentages of
the insecticide used on the specific crop
without naming a specific pest, taken
from USDA/NASS Agricultiral
Chemical Usage 2003 Fruit Summary
was used. This indicates the maximum
use of an insecticide. Spirodiclofen use
could be much lower than this because
its use is targeted at a single pest and
there exist other equally efficacious
pesticides, that treat mites only, that are
priced competitively with spirodiclofen.
As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available information on the
regional consumption of food to which
spirodiclofen may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring exposure data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40208
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
analysis and risk assessment for
spirodiclofen in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have
comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates
are made by reliance on simulation or
modeling taking into account data on
the physical characteristics of
spirodiclofen.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index
Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or the
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS), to produce estimates of
pesticide concentrations in an index
reservoir. The Screening Concentrations
in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) model is
used to predict pesticide concentrations
in shallow ground water. For a
screening-level assessment for surface
water EPA will use FIRST (a Tier 1
model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a
Tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a
subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that
uses a specific high-end runoff scenario
for pesticides. Both FIRST and PRZM/
EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir
environment, and both models include
a percent crop area factor as an
adjustment to account for the maximum
percent crop coverage within a
watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include
consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw
water for distribution as drinking water
would likely have on the removal of
pesticides from the source water. The
primary use of these models by the
Agency at this stage is to provide a
screen for sorting out pesticides for
which it is unlikely that drinking water
concentrations would exceed human
health levels of concern.
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCIGROW models, the EECs of
spirodiclofen (total residue including its
three metabolites: Spirodiclofen-enol,
spirodiclofen-ketohydroxy, and
spirodiclofen-dihydroxy) for acute
exposures are estimated to be 22.86
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 0.44 ppb for ground water. The
EECs for chronic (non-cancer) exposures
are estimated to be 4.99 ppb for surface
water and 0.44 ppb for ground water.
The EECs for chronic (cancer) exposures
are estimated to be 1.67 ppb for surface
water and 0.44 for ground water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Spirodiclofen is not registered for use
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
on any sites that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to
spirodiclofen and any other substances
and spirodiclofen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
not assumed that spirodiclofen has a
common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA’s OPP concerning
common mechanism determinations
and procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA’s web site
at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of the
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold margin of safety
for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the data base on
toxicity and exposure unless EPA
determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for
infants and children. Margins of safety
are incorporated into EPA risk
assessments either directly through use
of a MOE analysis or through using
uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no
appreciable risk to humans. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X when reliable data
do not support the choice of a different
factor, or, if reliable data are available,
EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of
traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as
appropriate.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence of increased
susceptibility following in utero and/or
prenatal/postnatal exposure in the
developmental toxicity studies in
rabbits and 2–generation reproduction
studies in rats.
In the DNT study, toxicity in the
offspring (effects in the memory phase
of the water maze test at post natal day
60 in females) was observed in the
absence of maternal toxicity, indicating
increased susceptibility.
3. Conclusion. The 10X FQPA Safety
Factor was retained for the use of
LOAEL in a critical study in calculating
the reference dose for chronic risk.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
1. Acute risk. There is no risk from
acute dietary exposure, as an
appropriate single-dose endpoint was
not identified for the acute oral
exposure of the general population,
including infants and children.
2. Chronic risk. To assess aggregate
chronic risk, drinking water estimates
were incorporated directly into the
dietary analysis, rather than using backcalculated drinking water levels of
comparison (DWLOCs). To better
evaluate aggregate risk associated with
exposure through food and drinking
water, EPA is no longer comparing
Estimated Drinking Water Concentration
(EDWCs) generated by water quality
models with Drinking Water Levels of
Comparison (DWLOC). Instead, EPA is
now directly incorporating the actual
water quality model output
concentrations into the risk assessment.
This method of incorporating water
concentrations into our aggregate
assessments relies on actual CSFIIreported drinking water consumptions
and more appropriately reflects the full
distribution of drinking water
concentrations. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, the LifelineTM
chronic risk estimates (including
drinking water) were less than the
Agency’s level of concern at ≤6.1%
chronic population-adjusted dose
(cPAD); children 1-2 years old were the
most highly exposed population. The
DEEM-FCIDTM chronic risk estimates
(including drinking water) were also
less than the Agency’s level of concern
at ≤8.0% cPAD; all infants (<1 year old)
were the most highly exposed
population. EPA does not expect the
aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of
the cPAD, as shown in Table 3 of this
unit:
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40209
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3.— AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT (INCLUDING WATER) FOR CHRONIC (NON-CANCER) EXPOSURE TO
SPIRODICLOFEN
cPAD
(mg/kg/
day)
Population Subgroup
Chronic Exposure (mg/
kg/day)
DEEMFCIDTM
LifelineTM
%cPAD
LifelineTM
DEEMFCIDTM
General U.S. population
0.000177
0.000092
3.7
1.4
All Infants (< 1 year old)
0.000517
0.000259
8.0
4.0
Children (1-2 years old)
0.000515
0.000397
7.9
6.1
Children (3-5 years old)
0.000379
0.000290
5.8
4.5
Children (6-12 years old)
0.000209
0.000132
3.2
2.0
0.000129
0.000067
2.0
1.0
Adults (20-49 years old)
0.000140
0.000068
2.2
1.0
Adults (50+ years old)
0.000150
0.000069
2.3
1.1
Females (13-49 years old)
0.000144
0.000077
2.2
1.2
Youth (13-19 years old)
0.0065
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Spirodiclofen is not registered for use
on any sites that would result in
residential exposure. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed
the Agency’s level of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Spirodiclofen is not registered for use
on any sites that would result in
residential exposure. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from
food and water, which do not exceed
the Agency’s level of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Under the reasonable
certainty of no harm standard, in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii), cancer
risks must be no greater than negligible.
EPA has consistently interpreted
negligible cancer risks to be risks within
the range of an increased cancer risk of
1 in 1 million. Risks as high as 3 in 1
million have been considered to be
within this risk range. To assess
aggregate cancer risk, drinking water
estimates were incorporated directly
into the dietary analysis, as explained
above in section 2 for chronic risk.
Lifeline and DEEM are capable of
combining exposure from food and
drinking water sources for an estimate
of aggregate risk from all dietary
sources. Cancer aggregate risk was
calculated for the U.S. population only.
The LifelineTM cancer risk estimates
with drinking water estimates included
was 1.36 in 1 million. Using DEEMFCIDTM, the cancer risk estimate with
drinking water was 1.59 in 1 million.
DEEM-FCIDTM resulted in in a higher
cancer risk estimate due to differing
drinking water assumptions. Lifeline
permits incorporation of the entire
PRZM-EXAMS distribution when
conducting a cancer analysis while
DEEM-FCIDTM permits only a point
estimate. The estimated cancer risk of
1.59 in 1 million is within the negligible
risk range. The Agency also notes that
the cancer risk estimates were generated
using average residues derived from
crop field trial studies (maximum
application rate and minimum
preharvest interval), incorporated
maximum theoretical processing factors
for juice, and incorporated surface
drinking water estimates which
assumed 87% of the basin was cropped
and 100% of the cropped area was
treated at the maximum rate. EPA
concludes that the estimated cancer risk
within the range of a risk of 1 in 1
million and therefore is negligible. A
summary of aggregate cancer risk is
given in Table 4 of this unit:
TABLE 4.—CANCER AGGREGATE RISK (INCLUDING DRINKING WATER) FOR SPIRODICLOFEN
Cancer Exposure (mg/
kg/day)
Population Subgroup
Cancer Risk
Q1*
DEEMFCIDTM
General U.S. population1
0.0149
0.000177
LifelineTM
0.000092
DEEM-FCIDTM
1.59 x 10-6
LifelineTM
1.36 x 10-6
1 differences between DEEM-FCIDTM and LifelineTM cancer risk estimates due to differences in the water estimates permitted in each program; DEEM-FCIDTM permits only a single point drinking water estimate when conducting a cancer analysis; LifelineTM permits incorporation of
the entire PRZM-EXAMS distribution and incorporation of the SCI-GROW point estimate
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40210
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to spirodiclofen
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(HPLC/MS-MS) is available to enforce
the tolerance expression. The method
may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–5350;
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Codex or Mexican
maximum residue limits (MRLs) in/on
the requested crops.
C. Conditions
The following confirmatory data are
needed:
Toxicology. In the developmental
neurotoxicity study, additional
morphometric analyses of the caudate
putamen, parietal cortex, hippocampal
gyrus, and dentate gyrus at the mid and
low doses are requested for both sexes.
Residue chemistry. Apple (juice) and
grape (juice) processing studies which
monitor for residue of spirodiclofen,
BAJ2510, 3-OH-enol, and 4-OH-enol.
Default factors were used for the risk
assessment, and these studies are
needed to refine the risk.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established
for residues of spirodiclofen (3-(2,4dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate) on grape at 2.0 ppm;
grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; grape, juice at
2.4 ppm; citrus, fruit, crop group 10 at
0.50 ppm; citrus, oil at 20 ppm; citrus,
juice at 0.60 ppm; fruit, pome, crop
group 11 at 0.80 ppm; apple, wet
pomace at 2.0 ppm; fruit, stone, crop
group 12 at 1.0 ppm; nut, tree, crop
group 14 at 0.10 ppm; almond, hulls at
20 ppm; pistachio at 0.10 ppm; and for
combined residues of spirodiclofen and
its free enol metabolite BAJ 2510 in or
on cattle, meat and cattle, fat at 0.02
ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; goat, meat and goat, fat at 0.02
ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; sheep, meat and sheep, fat at 0.02
ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; horse, meat and horse, fat at 0.02
ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.10
ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm, and milk, fat at
0.03 ppm.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
VI. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as
amended by FQPA, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to
reflect the amendments made to FFDCA
by FQPA, EPA will continue to use
those procedures, with appropriate
adjustments, until the necessary
modifications can be made. The new
section 408(g) of FFDCA provides
essentially the same process for persons
to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation for an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new
section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and
409 of FFDCA. However, the period for
filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an
Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
you must identify docket ID number
OPP–2005–0075 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk
on or before September 12, 2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection
must specify the specific provisions in
the regulation that you object to, and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of
the factual issues(s) on which a hearing
is requested, the requestor’s contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any
evidence relied upon by the objector (40
CFR 178.27). Information submitted in
connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of
the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
your request to the Office of the Hearing
Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of
the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Office of the Hearing
Clerk is (202) 564–6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition
to filing an objection or hearing request
with the Hearing Clerk as described in
Unit VI.A., you should also send a copy
of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is
described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number
OPP–2005–0075, to: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch,
Information Resources and Services
Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001. In person
or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in
ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via email to:opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use
an ASCII file format and avoid the use
of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic
objections and hearing requests will also
be accepted on disks in WordPerfect
6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not
include any CBI in your electronic copy.
You may also submit an electronic copy
of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a
Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted
if the Administrator determines that the
material submitted shows the following:
There is a genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility
that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established resolve
one or more of such issues in favor of
the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual
issues(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify
the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance
under section 408(d) of FFDCA in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has
been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
significance, this rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This final rule does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any
enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104–4). Nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994); or OMB review or any Agency
action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the
Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect
on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This final rule
directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
40211
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’
as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
Dated: June 30, 2005.
James Jones,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
VIII. Congressional Review Act
(2) Tolerances are established for
residues of spirodiclofen (3-(2,4dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate) and its free enol
metabolite BAJ 2510 (3-(2,4dichlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one) in or on
the following livestock commodities:
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this final
rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.608 is added to read as
follows:
I
§ 180.608 Spirodiclofen; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. (1) Tolerances are
established for residues of spirodiclofen
per se (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2dimethylbutanoate) in or on the
following plant commodities:
Commodity
Almond, hulls ..............................
Apple, wet pomace .....................
Citrus, juice .................................
Citrus, oil .....................................
Fruit, citrus, crop group 10 .........
Fruit, pome, crop group 11 .........
Fruit, stone, crop group 12 .........
Grape ..........................................
Grape, juice ................................
Grape, raisin ...............................
Nut, tree, crop group 14 .............
Pistachio .....................................
Commodity
Cattle, fat ....................................
Cattle, meat byproducts .............
Cattle, meat ................................
Goat, fat ......................................
Goat, meat byproducts ...............
Goat, meat ..................................
Horse, fat ....................................
Horse, meat byproducts .............
Horse, meat ................................
Milk .............................................
Milk, fat .......................................
Sheep, fat ...................................
Sheep. meat byproducts ............
Sheep. meat ...............................
Parts per
million
20.0
2.0
0.60
20.0
0.50
0.80
1.0
2.0
2.4
4.0
0.10
0.10
Parts per
million
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.1
0.02
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional
registrations. [Reserved]
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
40212
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 05–13774 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–1717; MB Docket No. 05–82, RM–
11170; MB Docket No. 05–83, RM–11171;
MB Docket No. 05–84, RM–11172]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Coosada, Livingston, and Rockford,
AL
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to a multi-docket
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR
13002 (March 17, 2005), this Report and
Order allots new FM channels in three
Alabama communities, including
Coosada, Livingston, and Rockford,
Alabama. The Audio Division, at the
request of Tempest Communications,
allots Channel 226A at Coosada,
Alabama. as the community’s first local
aural transmission service. Channel
226A can be allotted to Coosada in
compliance with the Commission’s
technical requirements with a site
restriction of 4.3 kilometers (2.7 miles)
east of Coosada. The reference
coordinates for Channel 226A at
Coosada are 32–30–02 North Latitude
and 86–17–09 West Longitude. See
Supplementary Information, infra.
DATES: Effective August 8, 2005. The
window period for filing applications
for these allotments will not be opened
at this time. Instead, the issue of
opening these allotments for auction
will be addressed by the Commission in
a subsequent order.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.
Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket Nos. 05–82, 05–
83, and 05–84, adopted June 22, 2005
and released June 24, 2005. The full text
of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
regular business hours at the FCC’s
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text of this decision may also
be purchased from the Commission’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:05 Jul 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20054,
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
Order in a report to be sent to Congress
and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
The Audio Division, at the request of
Sumter County Broadcasting, allots
Channel 242A at Livingston, Alabama,
as the community’s first local aural
transmission service. Channel 242A can
be allotted to Livingston in compliance
with the Commission’s technical
requirements with a site restriction of
2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) northeast of
Livingston. The reference coordinates
for Channel 242A at Livingston are 32–
35–36 North Latitude and 88–09–57
West Longitude.
The Audio Division, at the request of
Alatron Corporation, Inc., allots
Channel 286A at Rockford, Alabama, as
the community’s first local aural
transmission service. Channel 286A can
be allotted to Rockford in compliance
with the Commission’s technical
requirements with a site restriction of
11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles) east of
Rockford. The reference coordinates for
Channel 286A at Rockford are 32–52–15
North Latitude and 85–06–04 West
Longitude.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Alabama, is amended
by adding Coosada, Channel 226A;
Livingston, Channel 242A; and
Rockford, Channel 286A.
I
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05–13566 Filed 7–12–05; 8:45 am]
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 05–1733; MB Docket No. 05–80; RM–
11160]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Booneville and Guntown, MS
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 70 FR 13003
(March 17, 2005), this document
substitutes Channel 257C3 for Channel
257A at Booneville, Mississippi, reallots
Channel 257C3 to Guntown,
Mississippi, and modifies the license of
Station WBVV(FM), accordingly. The
coordinates for Channel 257C3 at
Guntown are 34–21–42 North Latitude
and 88–35–34 West Longitude, with a
site restriction of 11.1 kilometers (6.9
miles) southeast of the community.
DATES: Effective August 8, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 05–80,
adopted June 22, 2005, and released
June 24, 2005. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during regular
business hours at the FCC’s Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission
will send a copy of this Report and
Order in a report to be sent to Congress
and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
1. The authority citation for part 73
reads as follows:
I
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM
13JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40202-40212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13774]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0075; FRL-7714-3]
Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-
yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate) in or on grape; grape, raisin; grape, juice;
fruit, citrus, crop group 10; citrus, oil; citrus, juice; fruit, pome,
crop group 11; apple, wet pomace; fruit, stone, crop group 12; nut,
tree, crop group 14; almond, hulls; and pistachio; and for residues of
spirodiclofen and its free enol metabolite (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one) in or on cattle, fat; cattle,
meat byproducts; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat byproducts; goat,
meat; sheep, fat; sheep, meat byproducts; sheep, meat; horse, fat;
horse, meat byproducts; horse, meat; milk; and milk, fat. Bayer
CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective July 13, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 12, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0075. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall2, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Kumar, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-8291; e-mail address:kumar.rita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document,
go directly to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of February 18, 2004 (69 FR 7632) (FRL-
7343-2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F6469) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3]-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate), in or on citrus
fruit group at 0.3 parts per million (ppm), citrus pulp, dried, at 0.4
ppm, citrus oil at 20 ppm, pome fruit group at 0.8 ppm, pome fruit
pomace, wet, at 6.0 ppm, stone fruit group at 1.0 ppm, tree nut group
at 0.05 ppm, almond hulls at 20 ppm, pistachios at 0.05 ppm, grape at
2.0 ppm and grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; and for combined residues of
spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3]-en-4-
yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate), and/or its enol metabolite, 3-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one, in or on
cattle, fat, at 0.01 ppm and cattle, meat by-products, at 0.05 parts
per million (ppm). That notice included a summary of the petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA
[[Page 40203]]
determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings,
but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants
and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of spirodiclofen on
grape at 2.0 ppm; grape, raisin at 4.0 ppm; grape, juice at 2.4 ppm;
citrus, fruit, crop group 10 at 0.50 ppm; citrus, oil at 20 ppm;
citrus, juice at 0.60 ppm; fruit, pome, crop group 11 at 0.80 ppm;
apple, wet pomace at 2.0 ppm; fruit, stone, crop group 12 at 1.0 ppm;
nut, tree, crop group 14 at 0.10 ppm; almond, hulls at 20 ppm;
pistachio at 0.10 ppm; and for combined residues of spirodiclofen and
its free enol metabolite BAJ 2510 in or on cattle, meat and cattle, fat
at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.10 ppm; goat, meat and goat,
fat at 0.02 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.10 ppm; sheep, meat and
sheep, fat at 0.02 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.10 ppm; horse, meat
and horse, fat at 0.02 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.10 ppm; milk at
0.01 ppm, and milk, fat at 0.03 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
Spirodiclofen has low acute toxicity via oral, dermal, or
inhalation route. It is not an eye or dermal irritant. However, it is a
potential skin sensitizer. The nature of the toxic effects caused by
spirodiclofen are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse
effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
Table 1.--Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity Profile for
Spirodiclofen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline No. Study Type Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3100 Subchronic oral - For males, NOAEL =
rat 32.1 milligram/
kilogram/day (mg/
kg/day), LOAEL =
166.9 mg/kg/day
based on
increased
incidence and
severity of small
cytoplasmic
vacuolation in
the cortex of
adrenal glands,
decreased
cholesterol (week
5 and 13), and
decreased
triglycerides
(week 5),
For females, NOAEL
= 8.1 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 47.1 mg/
kg/day based on
increased
incidence of
small cytoplasmic
vacuolation in
the cortex of
adrenal glands
---------------------------------
870.3100 Subchronic oral - For males, NOAEL =
mouse 15 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL= 164 mg/kg/
day based on an
increased
incidence of
hypertrophic
Leydig cells in
the testes
For females, NOAEL
= 30 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 234 mg/kg/
day based on an
increased
incidence of
cytoplasmic
vacuolation of
the adrenal
cortex
---------------------------------
870.3150 Subchronic oral - For males, NOAEL =
dog 7.7 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 26.6 mg/
kg/day based on
decreased body
weight gains,
increased liver
and adrenal
weights,
decreased
prostate weights,
and
histopathology
findings in the
adrenal glands,
testes,
epididymis,
thymus, and
prostates
For females, NOAEL
<=8.4 mg/kg/day.
LOAEL = 8.4 mg/kg/
day based on
increased adrenal
gland weight (two
out of four
animals) which
coincided with
histopathology
findings
(cytoplasmic
vacuoles in the
Zona fasciculata
of the adrenal
glands)
---------------------------------
[[Page 40204]]
870.3200 21-Day dermal NOAEL is 1,000 mg/
toxicity - rat kg/day (highest
dose tested
(HDT)); however,
the
histopathology
was not
appropriately
conducted as
required by the
guideline. The
study did not
examine all of
the tissues,
especially the
possible target
organs (i.e.,
uterus, prostate,
etc)
---------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal Maternal: NOAEL =
developmental - 1,000 mg/kg/day
rat (HDT)
Developmental:
NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/
day, LOAEL =
1,000 mg/kg/day
based on an
increased
incidence of
slight dilatation
of the renal
pelvis
---------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal Maternal: NOAEL =
developmental - 100 mg/kg/day,
rabbit LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/
day based on body
weight loss and
decreased food
consumption
Developmental:
NOAEL = 1,000 mg/
kg/day (HDT)
---------------------------------
870.3800 Reproduction and Parental/system:
fertility effects For males: NOAEL =
- rat 5.2-6.4 mg/kg/
day, LOAEL = 26.2-
30.2 mg/kg/day
based on
decreased body
weight in F
males; decreased
absolute and
relative liver
weight in F0
males; decreased
cholesterol and
triglycerides in
F1 males; and
increased
severity of
adrenal cortical
vacuolation in F1
males. For
females, NOAEL =
5.5-7.0 mg/kg/
day, LOAEL = 27.6-
34.4 mg/kg/day
based on
decreased
unesterified
fatty acids in F1
females, and
increased
severity of
adrenal cortical
vacuolation in F0
and F1 females
Reproductive:
For males: NOAEL =
26.2-30.2 mg/kg/
day, LOAEL =
134.8- 177.6 mg/
kg/day based on
delayed sexual
maturation;
decreased
testicular
spermatid and
epididymal sperm
counts
(oligospermia);
and atrophy of
the testes,
epididymides,
prostate and
seminal vesicles.
For females:
NOAEL = 27.6-34.4
mg/kg/day, LOAEL
= 139.2-192.7 mg/
kg/day based on
increased
severity of
ovarian luteal
cell vacuolation/
degeneration
Offspring:
NOAEL = 5.2-6.4
(M)/5.5-7.0 (F)
mg/kg/day, LOAEL
= 26.2-30.2 (M)/
27.6-34.4(F) mg/
kg/day based on
decreased body
weight and weight
gain in F1 male
and female pups
---------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity - NOAEL = 1.38 (M)/
dog 1.52(F) mg/kg/
day, LOAEL =
4.33(M)/4.74 (F)
mg/kg/day based
on increased
relative adrenal
weights in both
sexes, increased
relative testis
weight in males
and
histopathology
findings in the
adrenal gland of
both sexes
---------------------------------
[[Page 40205]]
870.4200 Carcinogenicity - NOAEL = 4.1(M)/
mouse 5.1(F) mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 610 (M)
mg/kg/day based
on increased
absolute and
relative liver
and adrenal
weights,
decreased
absolute and
relative kidney
weight, enlarged
adrenal gland,
discolored
testis, adrenal
gland
vacuolization,
interstitial cell
degeneration of
the testes. For
females, LOAEL =
722 mg/kg/day
based on
increased
absolute and
relative adrenal
weight, decreased
absolute and
relative kidney
weight, increased
incidences of
adrenal gland
pigmentation, and
adrenal
vacuolization.
Hepatocellular
adenoma and
carcinoma
---------------------------------
870.4300 Chronic toxicity - For males: NOAEL =
rat 14.7 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 110.1 mg/
kg/day based on
decreased body
weights,
decreased body
weight gain,
increased APh
levels, decreased
cholesterol and
triglyceride
levels, increased
vacuolated
jejunum
enterocytes, and
increased
incidences of
Leydig cell
hyperplasia
For females: NOAEL
= 19.9 mg/kg/day,
LOAEL = 152.9 mg/
kg/day based on
decreased body
weights,
decreased body
weight gain,
increased APh
levels, increased
TSH, uterus
nodules, and
increased
vacuolated
jejunum
enterocytes
testes Leydig cell
adenoma in males,
uterine adenoma
and/or
adenocarcinoma in
females
---------------------------------
870.5100 Gene mutation - There was no
Salmonella evidence of
typhimurium increased
revertant
colonies above
control in 5
Salmonella
strains (TA1535,
TA1537, TA1538,
TA100, TA98)
S9
at concentrations
up to 5,000 [mu]g/
plate
---------------------------------
870.5300 In vitro mammalian Negative, tested
gell gene in Chinese
mutation Hamster lung
fibroblast V79
cells at
concentrations up
to 300 [mu]g/mL -
S9 and +S9.
Cytotoxicity was
observed at >=15
[mu]g/mL -S9 and
80 [mu]g/mL +S9
---------------------------------
870.5375 In vitro mammalian Negative, tested
chromosome in Chinese
aberration hamster lung
(V79) cells at
concentrations 5-
80 [mu]g/mL or
0.75-12 [mu]g/mL
S9 or 10-160
[mu]g/mL +S9
---------------------------------
870.5395 In vivo mouse bone Negative, tested
morrow at a dose 800 mg/
micronucleus kg (MTD).
Clinical signs
and cytotoxicity
were seen at 800
mg/kg
---------------------------------
870.6200 Acute NOAEL = 2,000 mg/
neurotoxicity - kg/day, no
rat neurotoxicity
observed
---------------------------------
870.6200 Subchronic NOAEL = 70.3(M)/
neurotoxicity - 87.3(F) mg/kg/
rat day. LOAEL =
1088.8(M)/
1306.5(F) mg/kg/
day based on
decreased body
weights, food
consumption, and
increased urine
staining in both
sexes and
decreased motor
and locomotor
activity (week 4)
in females only
---------------------------------
[[Page 40206]]
870.6300 Developmental Maternal NOAEL =
neurotoxicity 135.9/273.8 mg/kg/
day
LOAEL = Not
established
Offspring NOAEL =
Not established
LOAEL = 6.5/14.0
mg/kg/day based
on effects in
memory phase of
the water maze
test in PND 60
females
The study
classification is
reserved for the
guideline
requirement
pending receipt
of additional
morphometric
measurements for
the low and mid
dose groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from
the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk
assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern
(LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are
identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no
NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty
factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for
interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
Three other types of safety or uncertainty factors may be used: ``
Traditional uncertainty factors;'' the ``special FQPA safety factor;''
and the ``default FQPA safety factor.'' By the term ``traditional
uncertainty factor,'' EPA is referring to those additional uncertainty
factors used prior to FQPA passage to account for database
deficiencies. These traditional uncertainty factors have been
incorporated by the FQPA into the additional safety factor for the
protection of infants and children. The term ``special FQPA safety
factor'' refers to those safety factors that are deemed necessary for
the protection of infants and children primarily as a result of the
FQPA. The ``default FQPA safety factor'' is the additional 10X safety
factor that is mandated by the statute unless it is decided that there
are reliable data to choose a different additional factor (potentially
a traditional uncertainty factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by an UF of
100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies differences and any
traditional uncertainty factors deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF).
Where a special FQPA safety factor or the default FQPA safety factor is
used, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD
by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted
Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this
type of safety factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used
to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X
to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies
differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to
exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and
compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q*
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases
(e.g., risk). An example of how such a probability risk is expressed
would be to describe the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 X
10-5), one in a million (1 X 10-6), or one in ten
million (1 X 10-7). Under certain specific circumstances,
MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In
this non-linear approach, a ``point of departure'' is identified below
which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is
typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though
it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To
estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure
(MOEcancer = point of departure/exposures) is calculated.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirodiclofen used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 2 of this unit:
Table 2.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Spirodiclofen for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special FQPA SF* and
Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Level of Concern for Study and Toxicological
Assessment, UF Risk Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary Acute RfD = Not An effect of concern attributable to a single
established dose was not identified
--------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations) LOAEL = 6.5 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Developmental
UF = 1,000............. cPAD = Chronic RfD/FQPA Neurotoxicity Study -
Chronic RfD = 0.0065 mg/ SF = 0.0065 mg/kg/day. Rat
kg/day. LOAEL of 6.5 mg/kg/day
based on decreased
retention (memory) in
females on day 60 in
the water maze at all
doses
--------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' with Q1* (mg/kg/
day)-1 = 1.49 x 10-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40207]]
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have not
been established for (40 CFR 180.000) for the residues of
spirodiclofen, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk
assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from
spirodiclofen in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Acute quantitative dietary risk assessments are
performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has
indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result
of a 1-day or single exposure. No appropriate single-dose endpoint was
available for the acute oral exposure of the general population,
including infants and children. Therefore, an acute quantitative
dietary assessment was not performed.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic and cancer dietary
risk assessment EPA used the Lifeline (version 2.0) and Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\), both of which incorporates food consumption
data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII),
and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The
following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments:
The chronic and cancer analyses were refined through the use of average
field trial residues, experimentally determined processing factors, and
projected average percent crop treated estimates. These averages were
based on the typical average of all insecticides used to control all
pests on the specific crop.
The projected average percent crop treated estimates were provided
for apple, peach, grape, orange, and grapefruit. These averages were
based on the typical average of all insecticides used to control all
pests on the specific crop. The Agency determined that it is
appropriate to translate the projected percent crop treated estimates
for peach, apple, and grapefruit to the remaining crops in the stone
fruit, pome fruit, and citrus crop groups, respectively.
Since the analysis made use of average residues derived from crop
field trial studies (maximum application rate and minimum preharvest
interval (PHI)), incorporated maximum theoretical processing factors
for juice, and surface drinking water estimates which assumed 87% of
the basin cropped and 100% of the cropped area treated at the maximum
rate (citrus, pecan, apple, peach, and grape), the Agency concluded
that the exposure estimates are unlikely to underestimate actual
exposure.
iii. Cancer. The Agency has classified spirodiclofen as ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans.'' Quantification of cancer risk used a
Q1*(mg/kg/day)-1 of 1.49 x 10-2 in
human equivalents based on male rat testes Leydig cell adenoma.
As indicated above, the chronic and cancer analyses incorporated
average field trial residues; processing factors from the apple, grape,
plum, and orange processing studies (DEEM-FCID\TM\ (ver. 7.76) default
processing factors assumed for juice commodities); projected average
percent crop treated estimates; and the SCI-GROW and/or PRZM-EXAMS
drinking water estimates.
DEEM-FCID\TM\ resulted in similar chronic and cancer risk estimates
(all included drinking water), but due to differing drinking water
assumptions, the result was a higher risk estimate using DEEM-FCID\TM\.
Based on a critical commodity analysis conducted in DEEM-FCID\TM\, the
major contributors to the cancer risk were water (34% of the total
exposure), orange (20% of the total exposure) and apple (16% of the
total exposure).
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on
the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk
only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1, that
the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what
percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such
pesticide residue; Condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not
underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and
Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
A routine chronic dietary exposure analysis for spirodiclofen was
based on projected PCT for the following crops: Grapefruit - 20%;
oranges except temple - 10%; grapes - 4%; peaches - 12%; apples - 13%.
These are typical averages of all insecticides used to control all
pests on the specific crop, taken from the Agricultural Chemical Usage
2003 Fruit Summary report published by United States Department of
Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (USDA/NASS). The
projected percent crop treated estimates for peach, apple, and
grapefruit were applied to the remaining crops in the stone fruit, pome
fruit, and citrus crop groups, respectively.
The Agency believes that the three conditions previously discussed
have been met. With respect to Condition 1, EPA finds that the PCT
information described in Unit. C for spirodiclofen is reliable and has
a valid basis. These are average usage figures of all insecticides used
on the crops in question. EPA has not taken into account whether the
insecticide use was directed against the pest that spirodiclofen
controls but instead has averaged each insecticide's total usage. Thus,
these averages are likely to overstate spirodiclofen use because many
insecticides are effective against several pests and total usage of
these pesticides will be significantly higher than an insecticide, such
as spirodiclofen, which is used primarily against a single pest. For
acute risk assessment, the highest percentages of the insecticide used
on the specific crop without naming a specific pest, taken from USDA/
NASS Agricultiral Chemical Usage 2003 Fruit Summary was used. This
indicates the maximum use of an insecticide. Spirodiclofen use could be
much lower than this because its use is targeted at a single pest and
there exist other equally efficacious pesticides, that treat mites
only, that are priced competitively with spirodiclofen. As to
Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption
information for significant subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
information on the regional consumption of food to which spirodiclofen
may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure
[[Page 40208]]
analysis and risk assessment for spirodiclofen in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of spirodiclofen.
The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or
the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index
reservoir. The Screening Concentrations in Groundwater (SCI-GROW) model
is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water.
For a screening-level assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST
(a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a Tier 2 model). The FIRST
model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end
runoff scenario for pesticides. Both FIRST and PRZM/EXAMS incorporate
an index reservoir environment, and both models include a percent crop
area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop
coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health
levels of concern.
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the EECs of
spirodiclofen (total residue including its three metabolites:
Spirodiclofen-enol, spirodiclofen-ketohydroxy, and spirodiclofen-
dihydroxy) for acute exposures are estimated to be 22.86 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.44 ppb for ground water. The EECs
for chronic (non-cancer) exposures are estimated to be 4.99 ppb for
surface water and 0.44 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
(cancer) exposures are estimated to be 1.67 ppb for surface water and
0.44 for ground water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Spirodiclofen is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to spirodiclofen and any
other substances and spirodiclofen does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that spirodiclofen has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's OPP concerning
common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
MOE analysis or through using uncertainty (safety) factors in
calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility following in utero and/or prenatal/postnatal
exposure in the developmental toxicity studies in rabbits and 2-
generation reproduction studies in rats.
In the DNT study, toxicity in the offspring (effects in the memory
phase of the water maze test at post natal day 60 in females) was
observed in the absence of maternal toxicity, indicating increased
susceptibility.
3. Conclusion. The 10X FQPA Safety Factor was retained for the use
of LOAEL in a critical study in calculating the reference dose for
chronic risk.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
1. Acute risk. There is no risk from acute dietary exposure, as an
appropriate single-dose endpoint was not identified for the acute oral
exposure of the general population, including infants and children.
2. Chronic risk. To assess aggregate chronic risk, drinking water
estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary analysis, rather
than using back-calculated drinking water levels of comparison
(DWLOCs). To better evaluate aggregate risk associated with exposure
through food and drinking water, EPA is no longer comparing Estimated
Drinking Water Concentration (EDWCs) generated by water quality models
with Drinking Water Levels of Comparison (DWLOC). Instead, EPA is now
directly incorporating the actual water quality model output
concentrations into the risk assessment. This method of incorporating
water concentrations into our aggregate assessments relies on actual
CSFII-reported drinking water consumptions and more appropriately
reflects the full distribution of drinking water concentrations. Using
the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure,
the Lifeline\TM\ chronic risk estimates (including drinking water) were
less than the Agency's level of concern at <=6.1% chronic population-
adjusted dose (cPAD); children 1-2 years old were the most highly
exposed population. The DEEM-FCID\TM\ chronic risk estimates (including
drinking water) were also less than the Agency's level of concern at
<=8.0% cPAD; all infants (<1 year old) were the most highly exposed
population. EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100%
of the cPAD, as shown in Table 3 of this unit:
[[Page 40209]]
Table 3.-- Aggregate Risk Assessment (including water) for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to Spirodiclofen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Exposure (mg/kg/ %cPAD
day) -----------------------
Population Subgroup cPAD (mg/--------------------------
kg/day) DEEM- DEEM- Lifeline\TM\
FCID\TM\ Lifeline\TM\ FCID\TM\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General U.S. population 0.000177 0.000092 3.7 1.4
----------------------------------------------------- ------------ < 1 year
----------------------------------------------------- ------------
----------------------------------------------------- ------------
----------------------------------------------------- ------------
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
Spirodiclofen is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the
sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Spirodiclofen is not registered for use on any sites that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the
sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's
level of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Under the reasonable
certainty of no harm standard, in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii),
cancer risks must be no greater than negligible. EPA has consistently
interpreted negligible cancer risks to be risks within the range of an
increased cancer risk of 1 in 1 million. Risks as high as 3 in 1
million have been considered to be within this risk range. To assess
aggregate cancer risk, drinking water estimates were incorporated
directly into the dietary analysis, as explained above in section 2 for
chronic risk. Lifeline and DEEM are capable of combining exposure from
food and drinking water sources for an estimate of aggregate risk from
all dietary sources. Cancer aggregate risk was calculated for the U.S.
population only. The Lifeline\TM\ cancer risk estimates with drinking
water estimates included was 1.36 in 1 million. Using DEEM-FCID\TM\,
the cancer risk estimate with drinking water was 1.59 in 1 million.
DEEM-FCID\TM\ resulted in in a higher cancer risk estimate due to
differing drinking water assumptions. Lifeline permits incorporation of
the entire PRZM-EXAMS distribution when conducting a cancer analysis
while DEEM-FCID\TM\ permits only a point estimate. The estimated cancer
risk of 1.59 in 1 million is within the negligible risk range. The
Agency also notes that the cancer risk estimates were generated using
average residues derived from crop field trial studies (maximum
application rate and minimum preharvest interval), incorporated maximum
theoretical processing factors for juice, and incorporated surface
drinking water estimates which assumed 87% of the basin was cropped and
100% of the cropped area was treated at the maximum rate. EPA concludes
that the estimated cancer risk within the range of a risk of 1 in 1
million and therefore is negligible. A summary of aggregate cancer risk
is given in Table 4 of this unit:
Table 4.--Cancer Aggregate Risk (including drinking water) for Spirodiclofen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Exposure (mg/kg/ Cancer Risk
day) -------------------------------
Population Subgroup Q1* --------------------------
DEEM- DEEM-FCID\TM\ Lifeline\TM\
FCID\TM\ Lifeline\TM\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General U.S. population\1\ 0.0149 0.000177 0.000092 1.59 x 10-6 1.36 x 10-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ differences between DEEM-FCID\TM\ and Lifeline\TM\ cancer risk estimates due to differences in the water
estimates permitted in each program; DEEM-FCID\TM\ permits only a single point drinking water estimate when
conducting a cancer analysis; Lifeline\TM\ permits incorporation of the entire PRZM-EXAMS distribution and
incorporation of the SCI-GROW point estimate
[[Page 40210]]
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spirodiclofen residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC/MS-MS) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905;
e-mail address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are n