Zeta-Cypermethrin; Pesticide Tolerance, 78374-78382 [E6-22288]
Download as PDF
78374
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: December 22, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
I
FR cite], shall comply with the
requirements of this subpart, as they
apply to those operations, by December
31, 2007.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–22426 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PART 63—[AMENDED]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
40 CFR Part 180
Subpart II—[Amended]
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0769; FRL–8093–6]
2. Section 63.781 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)
as (c), (d) and (e) respectively and
adding a new paragraph (b).
Zeta–Cypermethrin; Pesticide
Tolerance
I
§ 63.781
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to coating activities subject to
emission limitations or work practices
under 40 CFR part 63 subpart VVVV.
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Section 63.782 is amended by
adding a definition for ‘‘Commercial’’,
removing the definition of ‘‘Pleasure
craft’’, and revising the definition of
‘‘Ship’’:
§ 63.782
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Commercial means any enterprise or
activity that receives compensation for
products and/or services rendered.
*
*
*
*
*
Ship means all marine or fresh-water
vessels that are either 20 meters or more
in length regardless of the purpose for
which the vessel is constructed or used,
or that are less than 20 meters in length
and are designed and built specifically
for military or commercial purposes.
This definition includes, but is not
limited to, all military and Coast Guard
vessels, commercial cargo and passenger
(cruise) ships, ferries, tankers, container
ships, patrol and pilot boats, yachts, and
dredges. For purposes of this subpart,
offshore oil and gas drilling platforms
are not ships.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Section 63.784(a) is revised to read
as follows:
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
§ 63.784
Compliance dates.
(a) Each owner or operator of an
existing affected source shall comply
within two years after the effective date
of this subpart, except that the owner or
operator of an existing affected source
that conducts shipbuilding and ship
repair operations that first became
subject to this NESHAP on [date of
publication of this direct final rule and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:43 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide
zeta–cypermethrin, in or on almond,
hulls; animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
forage; animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
hay; berry, group 13; cilantro, leaves;
food/feed items (other than those
covered by a higher tolerance as a result
of use on growing crops) in food/feed
handling establishments; fruit, pome,
group 11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape;
grass, forage, group 17; grass, hay, group
17; nut, tree, group 14; peanut;
rapeseed; sunflower; sunflower, refined
oil; turnip, greens; vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9; and vegetable, root and tuber,
group 1, except sugar beet. FMC
Corporation and Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested this
tolerance 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
December 29, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before February 27, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0769. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the
docket. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
available in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Room S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 South Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202–3553. The 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:
Linda DeLuise, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (703) 305–5428; e–mail
address: deluise.linda@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 andfarmers, 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?
In addition to accessing an electronic
copy of this Federal Register document
through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s pilot e–CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as
amended by the 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.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0769 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 February 27, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your
copies, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0769, by one of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Room S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777
South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA
22202-3553. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays). Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of November
8, 2000 (65 FR 67003) (FRL–6750–2);
August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50430) (FRL–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
7185–9); July 16, 2003 (68 FR 42030)
(FRL–7314–7); March 16, 2005 (70 FR
12874) (FRL–7705–2); May 10, 2006 (71
FR 27243) (FRL–8067–8); and August
25, 2006 (71 FR 50414) (FRL–8088–9),
EPA issued notices pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of
pesticide petitions (PP 1F3994; PP
2F6444; PP 3E6677; PP 3F6577; PP
4F6893; and PP 5F6896) by FMC
Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7597 and
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South,
North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. These
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.418
be amended by establishing a tolerance
for residues of the insecticide zetacypermethrin, (S)-cyano(3phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cis-trans-3(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on barley, grain at 0.5 parts per
million (ppm) (5F6896); barley, hay at 2
ppm (5F6896); barley, straw at 4 ppm
(5F6896); berries group at 0.5 ppm
(5F6896); canola, meal at 0.05 ppm
(5F6896); canola, oil at 0.6 ppm
(5F6896); canola, seed at 0.05 ppm
(5F6896); cilantro at 10 ppm (3E6677);
cucurbit vegetables at 0.1 ppm (2F6444);
food/feed items (other than those
covered by a higher tolerance as a result
of use on growing crops) in food/feed
handling establishments at 0.05 ppm
(4F6893); fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.6
ppm (3F6577); fruit, stone, group 12 at
0.9 ppm (3F6577); grapes at 1 ppm
(5F6896); grass, forage at 7 ppm
(5F6896); grass, hay at 22 ppm (5F6896);
grass, straw at 8 ppm (5F6896); grass,
screenings at 12 ppm (5F6896); juice,
grape at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); nongrass
animal feed, forage at 10 ppm (5F6896);
nongrass animal feed, hay at 33 ppm
(5F6896); peanuts at 0.05 ppm (2F6444);
raisins at 0.2 ppm (5F6896); root and
tuber vegetables, roots at 0.1 ppm
(2F6444); sunflower at 0.2 ppm
(1F3994); sunflower oil at 0.2 ppm
(1F3994); tree nut group, nutmeat at
0.05 ppm (5F6896); tree nut group, hulls
at 3 ppm (5F6896); and turnip greens at
14 ppm (3E6677). These notices
included a summary of the petition
prepared by FMC Corporation, the
registrant, and IR-4. There were no
comments received in response to these
notices of filing.
The proposed tolerances were later
amended as follows: almond, hulls at 6
ppm (5F6896); animal feed, nongrass,
group 18, forage at 8 ppm (5F6896);
animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at
40 ppm (5F6896); berry, group 13 at 0.8
ppm (5F6896); cilantro, leaves at 10
ppm (3E6677); food/feed items (other
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78375
than those covered by a higher tolerance
as a result of use on growing crops) in
food/feed handling establishments at
0.05 ppm (4F6893); fruit, pome, group
11 at 2 ppm (3F6577); fruit, stone, group
12 at 1 ppm (3F6577); grape at 2 ppm
(5F6896); grass, forage, group 17 at 10
ppm (5F6896); grass, hay, group 17 at 35
ppm (5F6896); nut, tree, group 14 at
0.05 ppm (5F6896); peanut at 0.05 ppm
(2F6444); rapeseed at 0.2 ppm (5F6896);
sunflower at 0.2 ppm (1F3994);
sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm
(1F3994); turnip, greens at 14 ppm
(3E6677); vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at
0.2 ppm (2F6444); and vegetable, root
and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at
0.1 ppm (2F6444).
For various reasons, EPA has decided
not to establish several of the proposed
tolerances. The proposed tolerances for
canola meal, canola oil, grape juice and
raisins oil are not being established
because grape and canola processing
studies indicate that residues in these
processed commodities do not
concentrate above the tolerance level in
raw commodity. The proposed
tolerances in barley grain, hay and straw
are not being established because there
was an inadequate number of residue
field trials submitted in support of these
tolerances. The proposed tolerances for
grass screenings and grass straw are not
being established because these
commodities are not significant
livestock feed items.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
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 the
FFDCA and a complete description of
the risk assessment process, see https://
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
78376
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
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
zeta-cypermethrin, in or on almond,
hulls at 6 ppm; animal feed, nongrass,
group 18, forage at 8 ppm; animal feed,
nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm;
berry, group 13 at 0.8 ppm; cilantro,
leaves at 10 ppm; food/feed items (other
than those covered by a higher tolerance
as a result of use on growing crops) in
food/feed handling establishments at
0.05 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11 at 2
ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm;
grape at 2 ppm; grass, forage, group 17
at 10 ppm; grass, hay, group 17 at 35
ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm;
peanut at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed at 0.2
ppm; sunflower at 0.2 ppm; sunflower,
refined oil at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens at
14 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at
0.2 ppm; and vegetable, root and tuber,
group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 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. The toxicology
database for zeta-cypermethrin/
cypermethrin is complete, and there are
no data gaps. The specific quality is
relatively high and the toxicity profile of
zeta-cypermethrin can be characterized
for all effects, including potential
developmental, reproductive,
neurotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic
effects.
More detailed information on the
studies received and the nature of the
toxic effects caused by zetacypermethrin as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found in the document entitled,
zeta-cypermethrin: Revised Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
Uses on Numerous Raw Agricultural
Commodities. Petitions: 3F6577,
3E6677, 2F6444, 4F6893 and 5F6896 for
the Establishment of Tolerances on
Various Raw Agricultural, Processed
Commodities and Food Items in Food
Handling Establishments. PC Code:
109702, D334263. Regulatory Action:
Section 3. Risk Assessment Type: ZetaCypermethrin/Cypermethrin
Aggregate,’’ dated November 29, 2006,
by going to https://www.regulations.gov,
and searching for docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0769. Locate and
click on the hyperlink for EPA
document ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2006–0769–0031. Double-click on the
document to view the referenced
information on pages 16-20.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, 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.
The linear default risk methodology
(Q*) is the primary method currently
used by the Agency to quantify nonthreshold hazards such as cancer. The
Q* approach assumes that any amount
of exposure will lead to some degree of
cancer risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of
additional cancer cases. More
information can be found on the general
principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/health/human.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for zeta-cypermethrin used
for human risk assessment is shown
below in Table 1 of this unit:
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF*
Exposure/Scenario
FQPA SF and Level of Concern for
Risk Assessment
Study and Toxicological Effects
NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
UF = 100x
Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/day
FQPA SF = 1x
aPAD = acute RfD ÷ FQPA SF = 0.1
mg/kg/day
Acute neurotoxicity study - rat
(zeta-cypermethrin);
LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on
clinical signs of neurotoxicity
and changes in the FOB.
Chronic Dietary (All populations)
NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day
UF = 100x
Chronic RfD = 0.06 mg/kg/
day
FQPA SF = 1x
cPAD = chronic RfD ÷ FQPA SF =
0.06 mg/kg/day
Chronic feeding study - dog;
LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/day
based on clinical signs of
neurotoxicity and mortality in
males, and decreased body
weight and body weight gain in
females.
Short- and Intermediate-Term Incidental Oral (1 day to 6
months)
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Acute Dietary (U.S. general population including infants and children)
NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day
Residential LOC for MOE = 100
Occupational LOC for MOE = N/A
Developmental
neurotoxicity
study - rat (zeta-cypermethrin);
LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight in the
offspring.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
78377
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/Scenario
Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF*
FQPA SF and Level of Concern for
Risk Assessment
Short- and Intermediate-Term
Dermal (Infants and Children
Only; 1 day to 6 months)
NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day
(dermal absorption rate =
2.5%)
Residential LOC for MOE = 100
Developmental
neurotoxicity
study - rat (zeta-cypermethrin);
LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight in the
offspring.
Short- and Intermediate-Term
Dermal (Adults, Workers; 1 day
to 6 months)
None.
Occupational LOC for MOE = N/A
No systemic effects were observed in a 21-day dermal
study (zeta-cypermethrin) up to
1,000 mg/kg/day and there is
no developmental concern. No
hazard identified to support
quantification of risk.
Long-Term Dermal (≤6 months)
NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate =
2.5%)
Residential LOC for MOE = 100
Occupational LOC for MOE = 100
Chronic feeding study - dog;
LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/day
based on clinical signs of
neurotoxicity and mortality in
males, and decreased body
weight and body weight gain in
females.
Short- and Intermediate-Term Inhalation (1 to 6 months)
NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate =
100% oral equivalent)
Residential LOC for MOE = 100
Occupational LOC for MOE = 100
21-day inhalation study - rat;
LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day based
on decreases in body weight
and salivation.
Long-Term Inhalation (≤6 months)
NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate =
100% oral equivalent)
Residential LOC for MOE = 300
Occupational LOC for MOE = 300
(For the lack of an alternative study.
Route-to-route estimation would result in a less protective endpoint.)
21-day inhalation study - rat;
LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day based
on decreases in body weight
and salivation.
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Zeta-Cypermethrin has been classified as a Category C (possible human carcinogen); therefore, no quantification is required. The chronic RfD/PAD will adequately account for all chronic toxicity effects, including
carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to this pesticide.
Study and Toxicological Effects
*UF = uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = any additional safety factor retained to account for data deficiencies or residual concerns unique to the
FQPA; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c
= chronic); RfD = reference dose; MOE = margin of exposure; LOC = level of concern; and N/A = not applicable.
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.418) for the
residues of zeta-cypermethrin, (S)cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cistrans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on a variety of raw agricultural
commodities. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary
exposures from zeta-cypermethrin in
food. Modeled drinking water estimates
were included in both the acute and
chronic dietary exposure analyses as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a one-day or
single exposure.
The Agency conducted an unrefined
acute dietary exposure assessment using
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM,
Version 2.03). This analysis evaluated
the individual food consumption 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 acute analysis is based
on Tier 1 assumptions of tolerance-level
residues for existing uses and Agencyrecommended tolerance levels for the
numerous proposed new uses and 100%
crop treated (CT) for all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, the DEEM-FCIDTM analysis
evaluated the individual food
consumption data as reported by
respondents in the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 nationwide CSFII and
accumulated exposure to the chemical
for each commodity.Anticipated
residues (averages for crop field trials)
were calculated for the numerous
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
proposed new uses from field trial data.
100% CT was assumed for all proposed
new uses except for non-grass animal
feed; and grass fodder, forage and hay.
For existing uses, anticipated residues
are based on USDA PDP monitoring
data, crop field trial data and empirical
processing factors and may be
considered refined.
iii. Cancer. Zeta-cypermethrin was
classified as a group ‘‘C’’ (possible
human carcinogen), based on an
increased incidence of lung adenonas
and adenomas plus carcinomas
combined in female mice. The evidence
was not considered strong enough to
warrant a quantitative estimation of
human cancer risk. Risk assessments
based on endpoint selected for the
chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD) will be protective of any
potential carcinogenic risk from
exposure to zeta-cypermethrin for the
U.S. general population and all
population subgroups, including infants
and children. Additionally, EPA relied
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
78378
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
on the chronic exposure assessment in
assessing cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. Section
408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes
EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue
levels of pesticide residues in food and
the actual levels of pesticide chemicals
that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must,
pursuant to section 408(f)(1), require
that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified or left
in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels
anticipated. Following the initial data
submission, EPA is authorized to
require similar data on a time frame it
deems appropriate. For the present
action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
for information relating to anticipated
residues as are required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized
under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Such
data call-ins will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of this tolerance.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the 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 the FFDCA, EPA
may require registrants to submit data
on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
For cypermethrin: broccoli, 6%; bulb
crops, 16%; cabbage, 3%; cauliflower,
13%; celery, 1%; cole crops, 3%;
collards, 9%; cotton, 5%; garlic, 13%;
greens, mustard, 8%; greens, turnips,
4%; kale, 13%; lettuce, 26%; onions,
15%; pecans, 5%; and spinach, 2%.
For zeta-cypermethrin: bulb crops,
4%; cabbage, 1%; carrots, 1%; cole
crops, 1%; corn, field, <1%; cotton, 4%;
lettuce, 17%; onions, 13%; peanuts,
<1%; pecans, 9%; sorghum, <1%;
soybeans, <1%; sweet corn, <1%; and
wheat, winter, <1%.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
The Agency believes that the three
conditions, listed in Unit III.C.1.iv.,
have been met with regard to the PCT
estimates. With respect to Condition 1,
PCT estimates for existing uses are
derived from Federal and private market
survey data, which are reliable and have
a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably
certain that the percentage of the food
treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. EPA estimates
projected percent crop treated (PPCT)
for a new pesticide use by assuming that
the PCT during the pesticide’s initial 5
years of use on a specific use site will
not exceed the average PCT of the
market leader (i.e., the one with the
greatest PCT) on that site over the three
most recent surveys. Comparisons are
only made among pesticides of the same
pesticide types (i.e., the dominant
insecticide on the use site is selected for
comparison with the new insecticide).
The PCTs included in the average may
be each for the same pesticide or for
different pesticides since the same or
different pesticides may dominate for
each year selected. Typically, EPA uses
data from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS) as the
source for the PCT data because they are
publicly available. When a specific use
site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS,
EPA uses proprietary data and
calculates the estimated PCT.
The estimated PPCT, based on the
average PCT of the market leader, is
appropriate for use in the chronic
dietary risk assessment. This method of
estimating a PPCT for a new use of a
registered pesticide or a new pesticide
produces a high-end estimate that is
unlikely, in most cases, to be exceeded
during the initial 5 years of actual use.
Predominant factors that bear on
whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded include pest pressure
concerns, relative efficacies, pest
prevalence and other factors. Although
PPCT data (estimates) for crop group 18:
nongrass animal feeds (forage and hay)
and crop group 17: grass forage, fodder
and hay are limited, estimates are
provided (PPCT) for alfalfa hay, other
hay and pasture/rangeland. The
estimate for pasture/rangeland may
understate the PPCT for grasses since
the rangeland component probably
receives less treatment than the pasture
component (the latter which contains
more grass than does rangeland). It is
unlikely that actual PCT for zetacypermethrin will exceed the estimated
PPCT for this chemical on each of these
3 crops during the next 5 years.
As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
zeta-cypermethrin 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
analysis and risk assessment for zetacypermethrin 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 zetacypermethrin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS (surface
water) and SCI-GROW (ground water)
models, the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of zetacypermethrin for acute exposures are
estimated to be 1.04 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 0.0036 ppb
for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 0.013 ppb
for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for
ground water.
The estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) for zetacypermethrin were calculated based on
6 aerial applications of cypermethrin at
a maximum application rate of 0.10 lbs.
a.i./acre/season to Brassica leafy
vegetables with a 7–day re-treatment
interval (RTI). Modeled estimates of
drinking water concentrations were
directly entered into the dietary
exposure model (DEEM-FCIDTM,
Version 2.03). For acute dietary risk
assessment, the peak water
concentration value of 1.04 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the annual average
concentration of 0.013 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking
water.
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
The ground water screening
concentration is 0.0036 ppb. These
values generally represent upper-bound
estimates of the concentrations that
might be found in surface water and
ground water due to the use of
cypermethrin on Brassica leafy
vegetables, which has the highest
application rate among both
cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin on
all crops over which the chemicals are
applied.
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/or
flea and tick control on pets).
For zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin,
there is a potential for exposure in
residential settings during application
by homeowners who use products
containing zeta-cypermethrin/
cypermethrin. There is a potential for
exposure in residential settings from
entering areas treated with zetacypermethrin/cypermethrin, such as
residential lawns, indoor surfaces and
spaces, outdoor surfaces, and animal
premises that could lead to nonoccupational exposure to adults and
children. As a result, risk assessments
have been completed for residential
handler scenarios and for postapplication scenarios.
Short- and intermediate-term dermal
exposure risk assessments were not
conducted for adults, due to the lack of
an appropriate toxicity endpoint of
concern for this population subgroup.
Short- and intermediate-term dermal
exposure risk assessments were not
conducted for infants and children
because no potential exposure to infants
and children is anticipated under the
residential handler scenarios.
A long-term dermal exposure
assessment was not conducted, since
there is no potential for long-term
exposures via the proposed uses of zetacypermethrin. There is potential for
short- and intermediate-term inhalation
exposure in residential handler settings
during the application process for adult
homeowners who use products
containing zeta-cypermethrin.
Short- and intermediate-term
inhalation exposure assessments were
not conducted for infants and children
because no potential exposure to infants
and children is anticipated under the
residential handler scenarios. A longterm inhalation exposure assessment
was not conducted, since there are no
potential long-term exposures via the
proposed uses of zeta-cypermethrin.
These residential risk assessments
assumed the maximum application rates
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
allowed by product labels and that
residents would wear shorts and shortsleeved shirts with no gloves when
applying zeta-cypermethrin. It was also
assumed that the size of a lawn or
garden treated by a homeowner is 0.5
acres.There is also a potential for
exposure in residential settings from
entering areas treated with zetacypermethrin, such as residential lawns,
indoor surfaces and spaces and outdoor
surfaces that could lead to nonoccupational exposures to adults and
children.
The post-application risk assessment
included high-end assumptions for
factors such as exposure duration and
skin surface area. The 0.15 lb. a.i./acre
application rate for turf was used in the
model to estimate post-application
residential exposure of toddlers. Since
this rate is equal to or higher than many
of the agricultural application rates, this
scenario is protective of any exposure of
farm children via spray drift from
agricultural zeta-cypermethrin/
cypermethrin applications. Such use of
the Agency’s Standard Operating
Procedures for Residential Assessment
results in reasonable worst case
estimates of risks.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.’’ Cypermethrin
is a member of the pyrethroid class of
pesticides. Although all pyrethroids
alter nerve function by modifying the
normal biochemistry and physiology of
nerve membrane sodium channels, EPA
is not currently following a cumulative
risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity for the
pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids
interact with sodium channels, there are
multiple types of sodium channels and
it is currently unknown whether the
pyrethroids have similar effects on all
channels.
EPA does not have a clear
understanding at this time of effects on
key downstream neuronal function (e.g.,
nerve excitability). Further, EPA has not
determined how these key events
interact to produce their compoundspecific patterns of neurotoxicity. There
is ongoing research by the Agency’s
Office of Research and Development
and pyrethroid registrants to evaluate
the differential biochemical and
physiological actions of pyrethroids in
mammals. This research is expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78379
be completed by 2007. When available,
the Agency will consider this research
and make a determination of common
mechanism as a basis for assessing
cumulative risk. Information regarding
EPA’s procedures for cumulating effects
from substances found to have a
common mechanism can be found on
EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional ten-fold margin of safety for
infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for preand/or post-natal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. 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. Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity.
In the last tolerance rulemaking for zetacypermethrin, February 12, 2002 (67 FR
6422), EPA removed the FQPA 10x
safety factor based on its conclusion that
the data showed no concern for
increased sensitivity due to pre- and/or
post-natal exposure and that the lack of
a required developmental neurotoxicity
(DNT) study in the rat did not raise
residual concerns regarding the safety of
children, because the DNT study had
not been required based on special
concern for the developing fetuses or
young. After release of its revised policy
statement on the FQPA children’s safety
factor, EPA revisited its FQPA safety
factor decision and determined that,
given the lack of certainty regarding the
results of the then absent DNT study, it
was necessary to retain the full 10x
FQPA safety factor as a database
uncertainty factor. In 2005, that
additional safety factor was
incorporated into the preliminary risk
assessment for cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin in connection with the
reregistration and tolerance
reassessment decision for these
pesticides.With the subsequent receipt
and evaluation of the DNT study for
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
78380
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
zeta-cypermethrin (2005, MRID
46670402), the toxicology database for
FQPA assessment is now complete.
In the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies, clinical signs of
neurotoxicity typical of pyrethroids
were observed (i.e., gait abnormalities,
decreased motor activity, notable
changes in the functional observational
battery (FOB) and tremors); however, no
neuropathology was observed. In the
other guideline studies, tremors and gait
abnormalities were observed in both
dogs and rats following oral exposure,
and similar clinical signs were seen in
the rat inhalation study. There is no
evidence of increased susceptibility of
fetuses following in utero exposure in
the developmental toxicity studies in
rats or rabbits or in the offspring
following pre- and/or post-natal
exposure in the 2-generation rat
reproduction study.
In the DNT study, there was limited
evidence of increased susceptibility of
the offspring. No toxicity was observed
in the maternal animals at the highest
dose tested, while decreased body
weight, decreased subsession motor
activity and changes in brain
morphometry were seen in the offspring
at this same dose. An in-depth analysis
of the effects seen in the pups revealed
that these effects were of low concern
because: Body weight decreases were
seen only during late lactation (postnatal days 13-21) when the pups are
potentially exposed to higher levels of
the chemical via both milk and feed; the
decreases in motor activity are not
considered biologically significant since
they were seen only in the subsession
data (not in total or ambulatory counts),
only in one sex (females), only on postnatal day 21 (not in measurements taken
at three other time periods) and the
differences did not reach statistical
significance; and the sole brain
morphometric change (statistically
significant increase in the mean vertical
thickness of the cortex) was determined
to occur in isolation, only in female
pups on day 21, and was not considered
biologically significant because when
the values of individual treated animals
were compared with individual control
animals, the incidence and magnitude
of the change suggested a low
concern.No statistically or biologically
significant changes were seen in any
other brain areas in male or female pups
at any time period. Thus, the only
biologically significant effect observed
in the DNT study was the change in
offspring body weights.
Based on these factors, the limited
susceptibility seen in the DNT was
determined to be of low concern.
Therefore, there are no residual
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal
toxicity. There are no residual
uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic and cancer
dietary food exposure assessments
utilize anticipated residues calculated
from field trial data and PCT data for all
commodities. Although refined, the
assessments are based on reliable data
and will not underestimate exposure/
risk. The drinking water exposure is
based on conservative modeling
estimates. The residential exposure
assessment utilizes residential SOPs for
the adult handler and post-application
scenarios and to assess post-application
exposure to children, as well as
incidental oral ingestion by toddlers.
The residential SOPs are based on
reasonable worst-case assumptions and
will not likely underestimate exposure/
risk. These assessments are unlikely to
underestimate the potential exposure to
infants and children resulting from the
use of zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin.
3. Conclusion. Based on the data
discussed above, the FQPA safety factor
can be removed (i.e., reduced to 1x) due
to the completeness of the toxicology
database, the lack of residual concerns
regarding pre- and/or post-natal toxicity
and the reliance on exposure data
unlikely to underestimate exposure to
the pesticide. Thus, a FQPA safety
factor of 1x is appropriate for zetacypermethrin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
The Agency currently has two ways to
estimate total aggregate exposure to a
pesticide from food, drinking water and
residential uses. First, a screening
assessment can be used, in which the
Agency calculates drinking water levels
of comparison (DWLOCs) which are
used as a point of comparison against
EDWCs. The DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water,
but are theoretical upper limits on a
pesticide’s concentration in drinking
water in light of total aggregate exposure
to a pesticide in food and residential
uses. More information on the use of
DWLOCs in dietary risk assessments can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/
oppfead1/trac/science/
screeningsop.pdf.
More recently, the Agency has used
another approach to estimate aggregate
exposure through food, drinking water
and residential pathways. In this
approach, modeled surface and ground
water EDWCs are directly incorporated
into the dietary exposure analysis, along
with food. This provides a more realistic
estimate of exposure because actually
body weights and water consumption
from the CSFII are used. The combined
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
food and water exposures are then
added to estimated exposure from
residential uses to calculate aggregate
risks. The resulting exposure and risk
estimates are still considered to be high
end, due to the assumptions used in
developing drinking water modeling
inputs.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in Unit III.C.1.i.,
the acute dietary exposure from food
and drinking water to zeta-cypermethrin
will occupy 30% of the aPAD for the
U.S. general population and 54% of the
aPAD for children (1-2 years old), the
most highly exposed population
subgroup.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that exposure to zeta-cypermethrin from
food and drinking water will utilize 1%
of the cPAD for the U.S. general
population and 3% of the cPAD for
children (1-2 years old), the most highly
exposed population subgroup.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus average
(chronic) exposure levels to food and
water (considered to be a background
exposure level).Zeta-cypermethrin is
currently registered for use that could
result in short-term residential exposure
and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic food
and water and short-term exposures for
zeta-cypermethrin. Short-term risks
were estimated for toddlers’ incidental
oral exposures outdoors on turf and
indoors on treated surfaces. The latter
were based on uses of cypermethrin,
due to its higher application rate
compared to zeta-cypermethrin. Shortterm risks for adult dermal exposure
were not evaluated because no shortterm dermal endpoint applicable to the
adult population was identified.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded that
food, water and residential exposures
aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of
8,600 for the U.S. general population;
8,500 for all infants (<1 year old); and
780 for children (1-2 years old), the
population subgroup at greatest
exposure. These aggregated MOEs do
not exceed the Agency’s LOC for
aggregate exposure to food, water and
residential uses.
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). Intermediate-term
exposure is not expected from
residential uses of zeta-cypermethrin.
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. The Agency considers the
chronic aggregate risk assessment,
making use of the cPAD, to be protective
of any aggregate cancer risk. See Unit
III.E.2. for more detail.
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, estimates of
acute aggregate, chronic aggregate and
short-term aggregate (food, water and
residential uses) risk do not exceed
EPA’s level of concern. As a result, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. general population and all
population subgroups, including infants
and children from aggregate exposure to
zeta-cypermethrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement analytical
methodology for cypermethrin and;
therefore, zeta-cypermethrin residues is
available in PAM Volume II. PAM
Volume II lists Methods I and II for the
determination of residues of
cypermethrin per se in/on plant and
livestock commodities, respectively.
Both are gas chromatography (GC)
methods with electron capture detection
and have undergone successful Agency
method tryout. Method I has a detection
limit of 0.01 ppm and Method II has
detection limits of 0.005 ppm for milk
and 0.01 ppm for livestock tissues.These
methods are not stereo specific; thus no
distinction is made between residues of
cypermethrin (all 8 stereoisomers) and
zeta-cypermethrin (an enriched isomer
form of cypermethrin). Agency reviews
of recent zeta-cypermethrin petitions
(PP 8F4970, PP 4F3012, PP 9F6040, PP
9F6037 and PP 0F6207) required the
petitioner to submit a revised section F
to add the phrase ‘‘and its inactive Risomers’’ after the chemical name zetacypermethrin in the tolerance
expression, since the PAM Volume II
method is not stereospecific.
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
B. International Residue Limits
No specific CODEX, Canadian or
Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs) or tolerances have been
established for zeta-cypermethrin. There
are CODEX MRLs for cypermethrin
residues in/on various plant and
livestock commodities and the CODEX
and U.S. tolerances are in harmony with
respect to MRL/tolerance expression in
that both regulate the parent compound,
cypermethrin, since enforcement
methods do not distinguish between
cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin.
During review of residue data associated
with the current pesticide petitions
(zeta-cypermethrin), attempts were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
made to harmonize residue levels
whenever possible.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established
for residues of zeta-cypermethrin, (S)cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (±)-cistrans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on almond, hulls at 6 ppm; animal
feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 8
ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
hay at 40 ppm; berry, group 13 at 0.8
ppm; cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm; food/
feed items (other than those covered by
a higher tolerance as a result of use on
growing crops) in food/feed handling
establishments at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 2 ppm; fruit, stone, group
12 at 1 ppm; grape at 2 ppm; grass,
forage, group 17 at 10 ppm; grass, hay,
group 17 at 35 ppm; nut, tree, group 14
at 0.05 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm;
rapeseed at 0.2 ppm; sunflower at 0.2
ppm; sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm;
turnip, greens at 14 ppm; vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; and
vegetable, root and tuber, group 1,
except sugar beet at 0.1 ppm.
VI. 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
78381
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
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
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
78382
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
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.
VII. Congressional Review Act
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
Parts
per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
*
Berry, group 13 ...................................
*
*
*
*
*
Cilantro, leaves ...................................
*
*
*
*
*
Food/feed items (other than those
covered by a higher tolerance as a
result of use on growing crops) in
food/feed handling establishments
Fruit, pome, group 11 .........................
Fruit, stone, group 12 .........................
*
*
*
*
*
Grape ..................................................
Grass, forage, group 17 .....................
Grass, hay, group 17 ..........................
*
*
*
*
*
Nut, tree, group 14 .............................
*
*
*
*
*
Peanut ................................................
*
*
*
*
*
Rapeseed ...........................................
*
*
*
*
*
Sunflower ............................................
Sunflower, refined oil ..........................
*
*
*
*
*
Turnip, greens ....................................
*
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 ..............
*
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1,
except sugar beet ...........................
*
*
*
*
*
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
10
0.05
2
1
2
10
35
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.5
14
0.2
0.1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.418 is amended by
alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
I
*
*
*
*
*
Almond, hulls ......................................
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage ..................................................
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Dec 28, 2006
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Tilefish Fishery; Quota
Harvested for Part-time Category
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; tilefish Parttime permit category closure.
AGENCY:
§ 180.418 Cypermethrin and an isomer
zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances for residues.
Commodity
*
[Docket No. 010319075–1217–02; I.D.
121806C]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
(a)* * *
(2) * * *
*
[FR Doc. E6–22288 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
50 CFR Part 648
PART 180—[AMENDED]
rmajette on PROD1PC72 with RULES
0.8
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the
percentage of the tilefish annual total
Parts allowable landings (TAL) available to
per
the Part-time permit category for the
million 2007 fishing year has been harvested.
Commercial vessels fishing under the
6 Part-time tilefish category may not
harvest tilefish from within the Golden
8 Tilefish Management Unit for the
40 remainder of the 2007 fishing year
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(through October 31, 2007). Regulations
governing the tilefish fishery require
publication of this notification to advise
the public of this closure.
DATES: Effective 0001 hrs local time,
December 29, 2006, through 2400 hrs
local time, October 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian R. Hooker, Fishery Policy Analyst,
at (978) 281–9220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations governing the tilefish
fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648.
The regulations require annual
specification of a TAL for federally
permitted tilefish vessels harvesting
tilefish from within the Golden Tilefish
Management Unit. The Golden Tilefish
Management Unit is defined as an area
of the Atlantic Ocean from the latitude
of the VA and NC border (36°33.36′ N.
lat.), extending eastward from the shore
to the outer boundary of the exclusive
economic zone, and northward to the
U.S.-Canada border. After 5 percent of
the TAL is deducted to reflect landings
by vessels issued an open-access
Incidental permit category, and after up
to 3 percent of the TAL is set aside for
research purposes, should research TAL
be set aside, the remaining TAL is
distributed among three tilefish limited
access permit categories: Full-time tier 1
category (66 percent), Full-time tier 2
category (15 percent), and the Part-time
category (19 percent).
The TAL for tilefish for the 2007
fishing year was set at 1.995 million lb
(905,172 kg) and then adjusted
downward by 5 percent to 1,895,250 lb
(859,671 kg) to account for incidental
catch. There was no research set-aside
for the 2007 fishing year. Thus, the Parttime permit category quota for the 2007
fishing year, which is equal to 19
percent of the TAL, was specified at
360,098 lb (163,338 kg). However, due
to an over-harvest in the 2006 fishing
year, the quota for the Part-time permit
category was adjusted downward by
92,935 lb (42,155 kg) to 267,163 lb
(121,183 kg). Notification of the 2007
Part-time permit category quota for the
2007 fishing year was published in the
Federal Register on October 31, 2006
(71 FR 63703).
The Administrator, Northeast Region,
NMFS (Regional Administrator)
monitors the commercial tilefish quota
for each fishing year using dealer
reports, vessel catch reports, and other
available information to determine
when the quota for each limited access
permit category is projected to have
been harvested. NMFS is required to
publish notification in the Federal
Register notifying commercial vessels
and dealer permit holders that, effective
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78374-78382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22288]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769; FRL-8093-6]
Zeta-Cypermethrin; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide zeta-cypermethrin, in or on almond, hulls; animal feed,
nongrass, group 18, forage; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay;
berry, group 13; cilantro, leaves; food/feed items (other than those
covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in
food/feed handling establishments; fruit, pome, group 11; fruit, stone,
group 12; grape; grass, forage, group 17; grass, hay, group 17; nut,
tree, group 14; peanut; rapeseed; sunflower; sunflower, refined oil;
turnip, greens; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9; and vegetable, root and
tuber, group 1, except sugar beet. FMC Corporation and Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance 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 December 29, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 27, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 in the electronic docket at https://www.regulations.gov or, if
only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Room S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 South Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3553. The 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: Linda DeLuise, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-5428; e-mail address: deluise.linda@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
andfarmers, 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?
In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
[[Page 78375]]
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the 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. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769 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 February 27, 2007.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Room S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202-3553.
Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of November 8, 2000 (65 FR 67003) (FRL-
6750-2); August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50430) (FRL-7185-9); July 16, 2003 (68
FR 42030) (FRL-7314-7); March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12874) (FRL-7705-2); May
10, 2006 (71 FR 27243) (FRL-8067-8); and August 25, 2006 (71 FR 50414)
(FRL-8088-9), EPA issued notices pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide
petitions (PP 1F3994; PP 2F6444; PP 3E6677; PP 3F6577; PP 4F6893; and
PP 5F6896) by FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103-7597 and Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S.
Highway 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. These
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.418 be amended by establishing a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide zeta-cypermethrin, (S)-
cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ()-cis-trans-3-(2,2-
dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on barley,
grain at 0.5 parts per million (ppm) (5F6896); barley, hay at 2 ppm
(5F6896); barley, straw at 4 ppm (5F6896); berries group at 0.5 ppm
(5F6896); canola, meal at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); canola, oil at 0.6 ppm
(5F6896); canola, seed at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); cilantro at 10 ppm
(3E6677); cucurbit vegetables at 0.1 ppm (2F6444); food/feed items
(other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on
growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm
(4F6893); fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.6 ppm (3F6577); fruit, stone,
group 12 at 0.9 ppm (3F6577); grapes at 1 ppm (5F6896); grass, forage
at 7 ppm (5F6896); grass, hay at 22 ppm (5F6896); grass, straw at 8 ppm
(5F6896); grass, screenings at 12 ppm (5F6896); juice, grape at 0.05
ppm (5F6896); nongrass animal feed, forage at 10 ppm (5F6896); nongrass
animal feed, hay at 33 ppm (5F6896); peanuts at 0.05 ppm (2F6444);
raisins at 0.2 ppm (5F6896); root and tuber vegetables, roots at 0.1
ppm (2F6444); sunflower at 0.2 ppm (1F3994); sunflower oil at 0.2 ppm
(1F3994); tree nut group, nutmeat at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); tree nut group,
hulls at 3 ppm (5F6896); and turnip greens at 14 ppm (3E6677). These
notices included a summary of the petition prepared by FMC Corporation,
the registrant, and IR-4. There were no comments received in response
to these notices of filing.
The proposed tolerances were later amended as follows: almond,
hulls at 6 ppm (5F6896); animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at 8
ppm (5F6896); animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm (5F6896);
berry, group 13 at 0.8 ppm (5F6896); cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm
(3E6677); food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher
tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling
establishments at 0.05 ppm (4F6893); fruit, pome, group 11 at 2 ppm
(3F6577); fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm (3F6577); grape at 2 ppm
(5F6896); grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm (5F6896); grass, hay, group
17 at 35 ppm (5F6896); nut, tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm (5F6896); peanut
at 0.05 ppm (2F6444); rapeseed at 0.2 ppm (5F6896); sunflower at 0.2
ppm (1F3994); sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm (1F3994); turnip,
greens at 14 ppm (3E6677); vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm
(2F6444); and vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at
0.1 ppm (2F6444).
For various reasons, EPA has decided not to establish several of
the proposed tolerances. The proposed tolerances for canola meal,
canola oil, grape juice and raisins oil are not being established
because grape and canola processing studies indicate that residues in
these processed commodities do not concentrate above the tolerance
level in raw commodity. The proposed tolerances in barley grain, hay
and straw are not being established because there was an inadequate
number of residue field trials submitted in support of these
tolerances. The proposed tolerances for grass screenings and grass
straw are not being established because these commodities are not
significant livestock feed items.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
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 the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://
[[Page 78376]]
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
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 zeta-cypermethrin,
in or on almond, hulls at 6 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
forage at 8 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm; berry,
group 13 at 0.8 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm; food/feed items (other
than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing
crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 2 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm; grape at 2 ppm;
grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm; grass, hay, group 17 at 35 ppm; nut,
tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed at 0.2 ppm;
sunflower at 0.2 ppm; sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens
at 14 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; and vegetable, root
and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 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. The toxicology database for zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin is
complete, and there are no data gaps. The specific quality is
relatively high and the toxicity profile of zeta-cypermethrin can be
characterized for all effects, including potential developmental,
reproductive, neurotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic effects.
More detailed information on the studies received and the nature of
the toxic effects caused by zeta-cypermethrin as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the
document entitled, zeta-cypermethrin: Revised Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Numerous Raw Agricultural Commodities.
Petitions: 3F6577, 3E6677, 2F6444, 4F6893 and 5F6896 for the
Establishment of Tolerances on Various Raw Agricultural, Processed
Commodities and Food Items in Food Handling Establishments. PC Code:
109702, D334263. Regulatory Action: Section 3. Risk Assessment Type:
Zeta-Cypermethrin/Cypermethrin Aggregate,'' dated November 29, 2006, by
going to https://www.regulations.gov, and searching for docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769. Locate and click on the hyperlink for EPA
document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0769-0031. Double-click on the
document to view the referenced information on pages 16-20.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, 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.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk and estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for zeta-cypermethrin used
for human risk assessment is shown below in Table 1 of this unit:
Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF and Level of
Exposure/Scenario Dose Used in Risk Concern for Risk Study and Toxicological
Assessment, UF* Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (U.S. general NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1x Acute neurotoxicity
population including infants and UF = 100x.............. aPAD = acute RfD / FQPA study - rat (zeta-
children) Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/ SF = 0.1 mg/kg/day. cypermethrin);
day. LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day
based on clinical
signs of neurotoxicity
and changes in the
FOB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1x Chronic feeding study -
UF = 100x.............. cPAD = chronic RfD / dog;
Chronic RfD = 0.06 mg/ FQPA SF = 0.06 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/
kg/day. day. day based on clinical
signs of neurotoxicity
and mortality in
males, and decreased
body weight and body
weight gain in
females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short- and Intermediate-Term NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE Developmental
Incidental Oral (1 day to 6 months) = 100 neurotoxicity study -
Occupational LOC for rat (zeta-
MOE = N/A. cypermethrin);
LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day
based on decreased
body weight in the
offspring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78377]]
Short- and Intermediate-Term Dermal NOAEL = 7.4 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE Developmental
(Infants and Children Only; 1 day to (dermal absorption = 100 neurotoxicity study -
6 months) rate = 2.5%) rat (zeta-
cypermethrin);
LOAEL = 17 mg/kg/day
based on decreased
body weight in the
offspring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short- and Intermediate-Term Dermal None. Occupational LOC for No systemic effects
(Adults, Workers; 1 day to 6 months) MOE = N/A were observed in a 21-
day dermal study (zeta-
cypermethrin) up to
1,000 mg/kg/day and
there is no
developmental concern.
No hazard identified
to support
quantification of
risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Dermal (>6 months) NOAEL = 6 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE Chronic feeding study -
(dermal absorption = 100 dog;
rate = 2.5%) Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 20.4/18.1 mg/kg/
MOE = 100. day based on clinical
signs of neurotoxicity
and mortality in
males, and decreased
body weight and body
weight gain in
females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short- and Intermediate-Term NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE 21-day inhalation study
Inhalation (1 to 6 months) (inhalation absorption = 100 - rat;
rate = 100% oral Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day
equivalent) MOE = 100. based on decreases in
body weight and
salivation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Inhalation (>6 months) NOAEL = 2.7 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE 21-day inhalation study
(inhalation absorption = 300 - rat;
rate = 100% oral Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg/day
equivalent) MOE = 300 (For the based on decreases in
lack of an alternative body weight and
study. Route-to-route salivation.
estimation would
result in a less
protective endpoint.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Zeta-Cypermethrin has been classified as a Category C (possible human
carcinogen); therefore, no quantification is required. The chronic RfD/
PAD will adequately account for all chronic toxicity effects, including
carcinogenicity, likely to result from exposure to this pesticide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\UF = uncertainty factor; FQPA SF = any additional safety factor retained to account for data deficiencies or
residual concerns unique to the FQPA; NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level; LOAEL = lowest observed
adverse effect level; PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic); RfD = reference dose; MOE =
margin of exposure; LOC = level of concern; and N/A = not applicable.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.418) for the residues of zeta-cypermethrin,
(S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ()-cis-trans-3-(2,2-
dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from zeta-cypermethrin in
food. Modeled drinking water estimates were included in both the acute
and chronic dietary exposure analyses as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a one-day or single exposure.
The Agency conducted an unrefined acute dietary exposure assessment
using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\, Version 2.03). This analysis
evaluated the individual food consumption 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 acute analysis is based on Tier 1 assumptions
of tolerance-level residues for existing uses and Agency-recommended
tolerance levels for the numerous proposed new uses and 100% crop
treated (CT) for all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, the DEEM-FCID\TM\ analysis evaluated the individual food
consumption data as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and
1998 nationwide CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity.Anticipated residues (averages for crop field trials) were
calculated for the numerous proposed new uses from field trial data.
100% CT was assumed for all proposed new uses except for non-grass
animal feed; and grass fodder, forage and hay. For existing uses,
anticipated residues are based on USDA PDP monitoring data, crop field
trial data and empirical processing factors and may be considered
refined.
iii. Cancer. Zeta-cypermethrin was classified as a group ``C''
(possible human carcinogen), based on an increased incidence of lung
adenonas and adenomas plus carcinomas combined in female mice. The
evidence was not considered strong enough to warrant a quantitative
estimation of human cancer risk. Risk assessments based on endpoint
selected for the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) will be
protective of any potential carcinogenic risk from exposure to zeta-
cypermethrin for the U.S. general population and all population
subgroups, including infants and children. Additionally, EPA relied
[[Page 78378]]
on the chronic exposure assessment in assessing cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data
and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues
in food and the actual levels of pesticide chemicals that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must, pursuant
to section 408(f)(1), require that data be provided 5 years after the
tolerance is established, modified or left in effect, demonstrating
that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. Following
the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data
on a time frame it deems appropriate. For the present action, EPA will
issue such data call-ins for information relating to anticipated
residues as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized
under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Such data call-ins will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this
tolerance.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the 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 the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to
submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
For cypermethrin: broccoli, 6%; bulb crops, 16%; cabbage, 3%;
cauliflower, 13%; celery, 1%; cole crops, 3%; collards, 9%; cotton, 5%;
garlic, 13%; greens, mustard, 8%; greens, turnips, 4%; kale, 13%;
lettuce, 26%; onions, 15%; pecans, 5%; and spinach, 2%.
For zeta-cypermethrin: bulb crops, 4%; cabbage, 1%; carrots, 1%;
cole crops, 1%; corn, field, <1%; cotton, 4%; lettuce, 17%; onions,
13%; peanuts, <1%; pecans, 9%; sorghum, <1%; soybeans, <1%; sweet corn,
<1%; and wheat, winter, <1%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions, listed in Unit
III.C.1.iv., have been met with regard to the PCT estimates. With
respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates for existing uses are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
EPA estimates projected percent crop treated (PPCT) for a new pesticide
use by assuming that the PCT during the pesticide's initial 5 years of
use on a specific use site will not exceed the average PCT of the
market leader (i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that site over
the three most recent surveys. Comparisons are only made among
pesticides of the same pesticide types (i.e., the dominant insecticide
on the use site is selected for comparison with the new insecticide).
The PCTs included in the average may be each for the same pesticide or
for different pesticides since the same or different pesticides may
dominate for each year selected. Typically, EPA uses data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS) as the source for the PCT data because they are publicly
available. When a specific use site is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA
uses proprietary data and calculates the estimated PCT.
The estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leader,
is appropriate for use in the chronic dietary risk assessment. This
method of estimating a PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or
a new pesticide produces a high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most
cases, to be exceeded during the initial 5 years of actual use.
Predominant factors that bear on whether the estimated PPCT could be
exceeded include pest pressure concerns, relative efficacies, pest
prevalence and other factors. Although PPCT data (estimates) for crop
group 18: nongrass animal feeds (forage and hay) and crop group 17:
grass forage, fodder and hay are limited, estimates are provided (PPCT)
for alfalfa hay, other hay and pasture/rangeland. The estimate for
pasture/rangeland may understate the PPCT for grasses since the
rangeland component probably receives less treatment than the pasture
component (the latter which contains more grass than does rangeland).
It is unlikely that actual PCT for zeta-cypermethrin will exceed the
estimated PPCT for this chemical on each of these 3 crops during the
next 5 years.
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 zeta-
cypermethrin 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 analysis and risk assessment for zeta-cypermethrin 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 zeta-cypermethrin. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS (surface water) and SCI-GROW (ground water)
models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of zeta-
cypermethrin for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.04 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water. The
EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.013 ppb for surface
water and 0.0036 ppb for ground water.
The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for zeta-
cypermethrin were calculated based on 6 aerial applications of
cypermethrin at a maximum application rate of 0.10 lbs. a.i./acre/
season to Brassica leafy vegetables with a 7-day re-treatment interval
(RTI). Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model (DEEM-FCID\TM\, Version 2.03).
For acute dietary risk assessment, the peak water concentration value
of 1.04 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the annual average concentration of
0.013 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
[[Page 78379]]
The ground water screening concentration is 0.0036 ppb. These
values generally represent upper-bound estimates of the concentrations
that might be found in surface water and ground water due to the use of
cypermethrin on Brassica leafy vegetables, which has the highest
application rate among both cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin on all
crops over which the chemicals are applied.
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/or flea and tick control on pets).
For zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin, there is a potential for
exposure in residential settings during application by homeowners who
use products containing zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin. There is a
potential for exposure in residential settings from entering areas
treated with zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin, such as residential lawns,
indoor surfaces and spaces, outdoor surfaces, and animal premises that
could lead to non-occupational exposure to adults and children. As a
result, risk assessments have been completed for residential handler
scenarios and for post-application scenarios.
Short- and intermediate-term dermal exposure risk assessments were
not conducted for adults, due to the lack of an appropriate toxicity
endpoint of concern for this population subgroup. Short- and
intermediate-term dermal exposure risk assessments were not conducted
for infants and children because no potential exposure to infants and
children is anticipated under the residential handler scenarios.
A long-term dermal exposure assessment was not conducted, since
there is no potential for long-term exposures via the proposed uses of
zeta-cypermethrin. There is potential for short- and intermediate-term
inhalation exposure in residential handler settings during the
application process for adult homeowners who use products containing
zeta-cypermethrin.
Short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposure assessments were
not conducted for infants and children because no potential exposure to
infants and children is anticipated under the residential handler
scenarios. A long-term inhalation exposure assessment was not
conducted, since there are no potential long-term exposures via the
proposed uses of zeta-cypermethrin.
These residential risk assessments assumed the maximum application
rates allowed by product labels and that residents would wear shorts
and short-sleeved shirts with no gloves when applying zeta-
cypermethrin. It was also assumed that the size of a lawn or garden
treated by a homeowner is 0.5 acres.There is also a potential for
exposure in residential settings from entering areas treated with zeta-
cypermethrin, such as residential lawns, indoor surfaces and spaces and
outdoor surfaces that could lead to non-occupational exposures to
adults and children.
The post-application risk assessment included high-end assumptions
for factors such as exposure duration and skin surface area. The 0.15
lb. a.i./acre application rate for turf was used in the model to
estimate post-application residential exposure of toddlers. Since this
rate is equal to or higher than many of the agricultural application
rates, this scenario is protective of any exposure of farm children via
spray drift from agricultural zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin
applications. Such use of the Agency's Standard Operating Procedures
for Residential Assessment results in reasonable worst case estimates
of risks.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.'' Cypermethrin is a member of
the pyrethroid class of pesticides. Although all pyrethroids alter
nerve function by modifying the normal biochemistry and physiology of
nerve membrane sodium channels, EPA is not currently following a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for
the pyrethroids. Although all pyrethroids interact with sodium
channels, there are multiple types of sodium channels and it is
currently unknown whether the pyrethroids have similar effects on all
channels.
EPA does not have a clear understanding at this time of effects on
key downstream neuronal function (e.g., nerve excitability). Further,
EPA has not determined how these key events interact to produce their
compound-specific patterns of neurotoxicity. There is ongoing research
by the Agency's Office of Research and Development and pyrethroid
registrants to evaluate the differential biochemical and physiological
actions of pyrethroids in mammals. This research is expected to be
completed by 2007. When available, the Agency will consider this
research and make a determination of common mechanism as a basis for
assessing cumulative risk. Information regarding EPA's procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism can
be found on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional ten-fold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for pre- and/or post-natal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. 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. Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity. In the last tolerance
rulemaking for zeta-cypermethrin, February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6422), EPA
removed the FQPA 10x safety factor based on its conclusion that the
data showed no concern for increased sensitivity due to pre- and/or
post-natal exposure and that the lack of a required developmental
neurotoxicity (DNT) study in the rat did not raise residual concerns
regarding the safety of children, because the DNT study had not been
required based on special concern for the developing fetuses or young.
After release of its revised policy statement on the FQPA children's
safety factor, EPA revisited its FQPA safety factor decision and
determined that, given the lack of certainty regarding the results of
the then absent DNT study, it was necessary to retain the full 10x FQPA
safety factor as a database uncertainty factor. In 2005, that
additional safety factor was incorporated into the preliminary risk
assessment for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin in connection with
the reregistration and tolerance reassessment decision for these
pesticides.With the subsequent receipt and evaluation of the DNT study
for
[[Page 78380]]
zeta-cypermethrin (2005, MRID 46670402), the toxicology database for
FQPA assessment is now complete.
In the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, clinical signs
of neurotoxicity typical of pyrethroids were observed (i.e., gait
abnormalities, decreased motor activity, notable changes in the
functional observational battery (FOB) and tremors); however, no
neuropathology was observed. In the other guideline studies, tremors
and gait abnormalities were observed in both dogs and rats following
oral exposure, and similar clinical signs were seen in the rat
inhalation study. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of
fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental toxicity
studies in rats or rabbits or in the offspring following pre- and/or
post-natal exposure in the 2-generation rat reproduction study.
In the DNT study, there was limited evidence of increased
susceptibility of the offspring. No toxicity was observed in the
maternal animals at the highest dose tested, while decreased body
weight, decreased subsession motor activity and changes in brain
morphometry were seen in the offspring at this same dose. An in-depth
analysis of the effects seen in the pups revealed that these effects
were of low concern because: Body weight decreases were seen only
during late lactation (post-natal days 13-21) when the pups are
potentially exposed to higher levels of the chemical via both milk and
feed; the decreases in motor activity are not considered biologically
significant since they were seen only in the subsession data (not in
total or ambulatory counts), only in one sex (females), only on post-
natal day 21 (not in measurements taken at three other time periods)
and the differences did not reach statistical significance; and the
sole brain morphometric change (statistically significant increase in
the mean vertical thickness of the cortex) was determined to occur in
isolation, only in female pups on day 21, and was not considered
biologically significant because when the values of individual treated
animals were compared with individual control animals, the incidence
and magnitude of the change suggested a low concern.No statistically or
biologically significant changes were seen in any other brain areas in
male or female pups at any time period. Thus, the only biologically
significant effect observed in the DNT study was the change in
offspring body weights.
Based on these factors, the limited susceptibility seen in the DNT
was determined to be of low concern. Therefore, there are no residual
uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity. There are no residual
uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic and
cancer dietary food exposure assessments utilize anticipated residues
calculated from field trial data and PCT data for all commodities.
Although refined, the assessments are based on reliable data and will
not underestimate exposure/risk. The drinking water exposure is based
on conservative modeling estimates. The residential exposure assessment
utilizes residential SOPs for the adult handler and post-application
scenarios and to assess post-application exposure to children, as well
as incidental oral ingestion by toddlers. The residential SOPs are
based on reasonable worst-case assumptions and will not likely
underestimate exposure/risk. These assessments are unlikely to
underestimate the potential exposure to infants and children resulting
from the use of zeta-cypermethrin/cypermethrin.
3. Conclusion. Based on the data discussed above, the FQPA safety
factor can be removed (i.e., reduced to 1x) due to the completeness of
the toxicology database, the lack of residual concerns regarding pre-
and/or post-natal toxicity and the reliance on exposure data unlikely
to underestimate exposure to the pesticide. Thus, a FQPA safety factor
of 1x is appropriate for zeta-cypermethrin.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
The Agency currently has two ways to estimate total aggregate
exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water and residential uses.
First, a screening assessment can be used, in which the Agency
calculates drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) which are used
as a point of comparison against EDWCs. The DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water, but are theoretical upper
limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of
total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses.
More information on the use of DWLOCs in dietary risk assessments can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/screeningsop.pdf.
More recently, the Agency has used another approach to estimate
aggregate exposure through food, drinking water and residential
pathways. In this approach, modeled surface and ground water EDWCs are
directly incorporated into the dietary exposure analysis, along with
food. This provides a more realistic estimate of exposure because
actually body weights and water consumption from the CSFII are used.
The combined food and water exposures are then added to estimated
exposure from residential uses to calculate aggregate risks. The
resulting exposure and risk estimates are still considered to be high
end, due to the assumptions used in developing drinking water modeling
inputs.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.i., the acute dietary exposure from food and drinking water to
zeta-cypermethrin will occupy 30% of the aPAD for the U.S. general
population and 54% of the aPAD for children (1-2 years old), the most
highly exposed population subgroup.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to zeta-
cypermethrin from food and drinking water will utilize 1% of the cPAD
for the U.S. general population and 3% of the cPAD for children (1-2
years old), the most highly exposed population subgroup.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus average (chronic) exposure levels to
food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).Zeta-
cypermethrin is currently registered for use that could result in
short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term
exposures for zeta-cypermethrin. Short-term risks were estimated for
toddlers' incidental oral exposures outdoors on turf and indoors on
treated surfaces. The latter were based on uses of cypermethrin, due to
its higher application rate compared to zeta-cypermethrin. Short-term
risks for adult dermal exposure were not evaluated because no short-
term dermal endpoint applicable to the adult population was identified.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 8,600 for the U.S.
general population; 8,500 for all infants (<1 year old); and 780 for
children (1-2 years old), the population subgroup at greatest exposure.
These aggregated MOEs do not exceed the Agency's LOC for aggregate
exposure to food, water and residential uses.
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). Intermediate-
term exposure is not expected from residential uses of zeta-
cypermethrin.
[[Page 78381]]
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency considers
the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be
protective of any aggregate cancer risk. See Unit III.E.2. for more
detail.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments,
estimates of acute aggregate, chronic aggregate and short-term
aggregate (food, water and residential uses) risk do not exceed EPA's
level of concern. As a result, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. general population and
all population subgroups, including infants and children from aggregate
exposure to zeta-cypermethrin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement analytical methodology for cypermethrin and;
therefore, zeta-cypermethrin residues is available in PAM Volume II.
PAM Volume II lists Methods I and II for the determination of residues
of cypermethrin per se in/on plant and livestock commodities,
respectively. Both are gas chromatography (GC) methods with electron
capture detection and have undergone successful Agency method tryout.
Method I has a detection limit of 0.01 ppm and Method II has detection
limits of 0.005 ppm for milk and 0.01 ppm for livestock tissues.These
methods are not stereo specific; thus no distinction is made between
residues of cypermethrin (all 8 stereoisomers) and zeta-cypermethrin
(an enriched isomer form of cypermethrin). Agency reviews of recent
zeta-cypermethrin petitions (PP 8F4970, PP 4F3012, PP 9F6040, PP 9F6037
and PP 0F6207) required the petitioner to submit a revised section F to
add the phrase ``and its inactive R-isomers'' after the chemical name
zeta-cypermethrin in the tolerance expression, since the PAM Volume II
method is not stereospecific.
B. International Residue Limits
No specific CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs) or tolerances have been established for zeta-cypermethrin. There
are CODEX MRLs for cypermethrin residues in/on various plant and
livestock commodities and the CODEX and U.S. tolerances are in harmony
with respect to MRL/tolerance expression in that both regulate the
parent compound, cypermethrin, since enforcement methods do not
distinguish between cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin. During review
of residue data associated with the current pesticide petitions (zeta-
cypermethrin), attempts were made to harmonize residue levels whenever
possible.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of zeta-
cypermethrin, (S)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ()-cis-
trans-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate), in
or on almond, hulls at 6 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage
at 8 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 40 ppm; berry, group
13 at 0.8 ppm; cilantro, leaves at 10 ppm; food/feed items (other than
those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing
crops) in food/feed handling establishments at 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 2 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 1 ppm; grape at 2 ppm;
grass, forage, group 17 at 10 ppm; grass, hay, group 17 at 35 ppm; nut,
tree, group 14 at 0.05 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm; rapeseed at 0.2 ppm;
sunflower at 0.2 ppm; sunflower, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; turnip, greens
at 14 ppm; vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.2 ppm; and vegetable, root
and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet at 0.1 ppm.
VI. 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
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 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
[[Page 78382]]
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.
VII. Congressional Review Act
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.
Dated: December 21, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Section 180.418 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.418 Cypermethrin and an isomer zeta-cypermethrin; tolerances
for residues.
(a)* * *
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodity per
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Almond, hulls.................................................. 6
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage........................ 8
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay........................... 40
* * * * *
Berry, group 13................................................ 0.8
* * * * *
Cilantro, leaves............................................... 10
* * * * *
Food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance 0.05
as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling
establishments................................................
Fruit, pome, group 11.......................................... 2
Fruit, stone, group 12......................................... 1
* * * * *
Grape.......................................................... 2
Grass, forage, group 17........................................ 10
Grass, hay, group 17........................................... 35
* * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14............................................ 0.05
* * * * *
Peanut......................................................... 0.05
* * * * *
Rapeseed....................................................... 0.2
* * * * *
Sunflower...................................................... 0.2
Sunflower, refined oil......................................... 0.5
* * * * *
Turnip, greens................................................. 14
* * * * *
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................... 0.2
* * * * *
Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet.......... 0.1
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-22288 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S