Coumaphos; Pesticide Tolerance, 28871-28877 [E7-9813]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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: May 14, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1206 is amended by
designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
I
§ 180.1206 Aspergillus flavus AF36 on
pistachio; exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance.
(a) * * *
(b) Apergillus flavus AF36 is
temporarily exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance on pistachio
when used in accordance with the
Experimental Use Permit 71693-EUP-1.
This temporary exemption from
tolerance will expire on May 14, 2010.
[FR Doc. E7–9729 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-6463; e-mail
address:madden.barbara@epa.gov.
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
Coumaphos; Pesticide Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. General Information
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0820; FRL–8131–4]
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of coumaphos in
or on honey and honeycomb.
Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4)
requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
17:09 May 22, 2007
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0820. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
the docket ID number where indicated
and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
web site to view the docket index or
access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available in
regulations.gov. 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 Rm. S-4400,
One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777
S. Crystal Dr. Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
VerDate Aug<31>2005
This regulation is effective May
23, 2007. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 23, 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).
DATES:
Jkt 211001
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 those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28871
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 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 to provide 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
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 EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 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,
any person may file an objection to any
aspect of this regulation and may also
request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0820 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
as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before July 23, 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
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
28872
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2006–0820, by one of the
followingmethods:
• 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 Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460-0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. 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 Facility telephone number is
(703) 305-5805.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
ADDRESSES.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of October 18,
2006 (71 FR 61465) (FRL–8097–9), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 2E6504) by
Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4),
Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.189 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide coumaphos
(O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl
phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog
(O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) in
or on honey at 0.10 parts per million
(ppm) and honeycomb at 100 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience,
the registrant, which is available to the
public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA’s
response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
determined tolerance levels for honey
and honeycomb should be modified.
The reason for these changes is
explained in Unit V. EPA is also
deleting the established tolerances in
§180.189(b) for honey and honeycomb
that are no longer needed. The tolerance
deletions under §180.189(b) are timelimited tolerances established under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
section 18 emergency exemptions that
are superceded by the establishment of
general tolerances for coumaphos under
§180.189(a).
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . . .’’ These
provisions were added to the FFDCA by
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
of 1996.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of the FFDCA, and the factors specified
in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for residues of coumaphos
(O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl
phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog
( O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate)
on honey at 0.15 ppm and honeycomb
at 45 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. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by coumaphos as well as the NOAEL
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies
can be found in the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for
coumaphos (https://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/REDs/0018.pdf), the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision
Addendum and FQPA Tolerance
Reassessment Progress Report (TRED)
for coumaphos (https://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf) and at
www.regulations.gov in document
Coumaphos: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey
and Honeycomb page 11 in Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0820.
The mammalian toxicology database
for coumaphos is complete. Acute
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits; an
acute delayed neurotoxicity study in
hens; subchronic oral and dermal
studies in rats; chronic/carcinogenicity
studies in rats, mice, and dogs;
developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits; a 2-generation study in rats;
mutagenicity studies; and a metabolism
study were discussed and considered in
the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
(RED) for coumaphos (https://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018.pdf).
Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies in rats were received subsequent
to the RED and were considered in the
RED Addendum and FQPA Tolerance
Reassessment Progress Report (TRED)
for coumaphos (https://www.epa.gov/
oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf).
Subsequent to the TRED, a
developmental neurotoxicity study and
a comparative cholinesterase study in
rats were received; these studies are
discussed in detail at
www.regulations.gov in document
Coumaphos: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey
and Honeycomb at page 11 in Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0820.
The acute toxicity of coumaphos is
high via the oral route of exposure
(Category I), moderate via the inhalation
route (Category II), and slight via the
dermal route (Category III). Coumaphos
is not a dermal sensitizer or a dermal
irritant.
Coumaphos, an organophosphate
insecticide, primarily affects the
nervous system through cholinesterase
(ChE) inhibition. Females are
consistently more sensitive to the
cholinergic effects than males. In the
acute oral toxicity studies, female rats
are approximately 17 times more
sensitive to the toxic and lethal effects
of coumaphos compared to male rats. In
a single dose oral study, female rats had
ChE inhibition and cholinergic
symptoms at much lower doses than
male rats. In a short-term (5 days)
dermal toxicity study, brain ChE
inhibition was the most sensitive
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
indication of the toxic effects of
coumaphos dermal treatment. In
subchronic and chronic studies in rats,
the magnitude of ChE inhibition in red
blood cell and plasma and brain was
also more pronounced in females,
compared to males. Coumaphos does
not cause delayed neuropathy. In
chronic studies, systemic effects other
than cholinergic toxicity include
decreases in body weight gain.
There was no evidence of
malformations or decreases in the
number of pups and/or litter or
surviving offspring in any of the
developmental toxicity or reproduction
studies. In developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, no
developmental toxicity was observed,
while clinical signs of ChE toxicity were
seen in the maternal animals. In a 2generation reproduction study, ChE
inhibition was noted in both parents
and offspring, with parents more
susceptible. Reproductive toxicity was
not observed in this study.
The developmental neurotoxicity
study showed no increased
susceptibility of the young. The
maternal ChE activity was inhibited at
both the mid and high does. Consistent
with the other mammalian toxicity
studies, female pups were more
sensitive to cholinergic effects than
males; at the high dose, female plasma,
erythrocyte, and brain ChE activities
were inhibited 27%, 33%, and 8%,
respectively, but only plasma ChE
activity was significantly inhibited
(30%) at this dose in males. In the
comparative ChE study increased
quantitative susceptibility of the
offspring was observed in that ChE
inhibition was seen at a lower dose in
neonatal rats, compared to young adult
rats. The relative sensitivities to ChE
inhibition at peak inhibition by
coumaphos were measured in neonatal
and young adult rats. This comparative
ChE study does demonstrate increased
quantitative susceptibility of the
offspring. However, the degree of
concern for this comparative ChE study
is low because the effects are well
characterized and there are clear no
observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs)
and lowest observed adverse effect
levels (LOAELs) for both neonatal and
adult animals. Furthermore, there are no
residual uncertainties for prenatal and/
or postnatal toxicity for the comparative
ChE study because the endpoint of
concern is the one used for the acute
dietary exposure risk assessment and a
more protective endpoint (based on long
term-exposure) is used for chronic
dietary exposure risk assessment.
Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is
classified as a Group E chemical,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
indicating that it is ‘‘Not Likely’’ to be
carcinogenic in humans via relevant
routes of exposure. This classification is
based on adequate studies in two animal
species. No evidence of mutagenicity
was seen in any study.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, the toxicological level of concern
(LOC) is derived from the highest dose
at which the NOAEL in the toxicology
study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the
lowest dose at which the LOAEL of
concern are identified is sometimes
used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/
safety factors (UF) are used in
conjunction with the LOC to take into
account 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. Safety is assessed for acute
and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to
the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population (cPAD)
adjusted dose. The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable uncertainty/safety factors.
Short-term, intermediate, and long-term
risks are evaluated by comparing
aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure
that the margin of exposure (MOE)
called for by the product of all
applicable uncertainty/safety factors is
not exceeded.
For non-threhold risk, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk and
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of occurrence of additional adverse
cases. Generally, cancer risks are
considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles
EPA used in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/
November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for coumpahos used for
human risk assessment can be found at
www.regulations.gov in document
Coumaphos: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey
and Honeycomb page 15 in Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0820.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to coumaphos, EPA
considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28873
existing coumaphos tolerances in (40
CFR 180.189). EPA assessed dietary
exposures from coumaphos and
coumaphos-oxon in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute
dietary exposure and risk assessments
are performed for a food-use pesticide,
if a toxicological study has indicated the
possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a one-day or
single exposure
In estimating acute dietary exposure,
EPA used food consumption
information from the United States
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA relied upon anticipated
residues incorporating 2002 (USDA)
Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data for beef and 2004 PDP
monitoring data for milk. Field trial data
were used for honey to support the
proposed use pattern. The dietary
exposure assessment assumes 100%
crop treated for all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA relied upon
anticipated residues incorporating 2002
USDA PDP monitoring data for beef and
2004 PDP monitoring data for milk.
Field trial data were used for honey to
support the proposed use pattern. The
dietary exposure assessment assumes
100% crop treated for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Coumaphos is not
carcinogenic and is classified as a Group
E chemical, indicating that it is ‘‘Not
Likely’’ to be carcinogenic in humans
via relevant routes of exposure.
Therefore, the Agency concluded that
coumaphos is not expected to pose a
carcinogenic risk and quantification of
cancer risk is not required.
iv. Anticipated residue 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 residues
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. For the present action, EPA
will issue such data call-ins as are
required by section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under section 408(f)(1) of the
FFDCA. Data will be required to be
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
28874
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
submitted no later than 5 years from the
date of issuance of this tolerance.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency lacks sufficient
monitoring data to complete a
comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for
coumaphos 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 environmental fate characteristics of
coumaphos. 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.
The generic expected environmental
concentration (GENEEC) and screening
concentration in groundwater (SCIGROW) screening models were used to
estimate surface water and ground water
concentrations of coumaphos and its
oxygen analog, coumaphoxon. This
degradate is considered in the drinking
water assessment, as it was in the
assessment for consumption of food
(honey and livestock commodities).
Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW
models, the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of coumaphos
and its oxygen analog, coumaphoxon for
acute exposures are estimated to be 1.86
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water
and 0.17 ppb for ground water. The
EECs for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 0.41 ppb for surface
water and 0.17 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
acute dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 1.86 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to
drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of
value 0.41 ppb was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets).
Coumaphos is not registered for use
on any sites that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
FQPA (1996) stipulates that when
determining the safety of a pesticide
chemical, the EPA shall consider,
among other things, available
information concerning the cumulative
effects on human health that may result
from dietary, residential, or other nonoccupational exposure to the pesticide
chemical and other substances that have
a common mechanism of toxicity. The
reason for consideration of other
substances is due to the possibility that
low-level exposures to multiple
chemical substances that cause a
common toxic effect by a common
mechanism could lead to the same
adverse health effect as would a higher
level of exposure to any of the
substances individually. A person
exposed to a pesticide at a level that is
considered safe may, in fact, experience
harm if that person is also exposed to
other substances that cause a common
toxic effect by a mechanism common
with that of the subject pesticide, even
if the individual exposure levels to the
other substances are also considered
safe.
The organophosphate pesticides (OPs)
were established as the first common
mechanism group by EPA in 1999,
based on their shared ability to bind to
and phosphorylate the enzyme
acetylcholinesterase in both the central
(brain) and peripheral nervous systems.
Coumaphos is an OP pesticide. In
December 2001, the Agency issued the
‘‘Preliminary OP Cumulative Risk
Assessment’’, available at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
pra_op_methods.htm. In June 2002, the
Agency released its Revised OP CRA,
available at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/rra-op/, which
included the cumulative risk due to the
OPs from exposures in food, drinking
water, and residential uses. In August
2006, the Agency issued an update to
the 2002 Revised OP CRA document,
which emphasized changes,
modifications, and amendments. With
the 2006 update, available at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
2006-op/index.htm, the Agency has
developed a highly refined and complex
cumulative risk assessment for the OPs
that represents the state of the science
regarding existing hazard and exposure
data and the models and approaches
used. Based upon the results from the
2006 update, the Agency concluded that
the results of the OP cumulative risk
assessment support a reasonable
certainty of no harm finding.
In both the 2002 revised OP CRA, as
well as the 2006 update, the cumulative
dietary risk associated with the use of
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
OP pesticides on food crops was
assessed using residue monitoring data
collected by the USDA PDP and dietary
consumption data collected by USDA’s
Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII). Both assessments relied
primarily on the PDP for residue data;
the 2006 update added PDP data
collected in 2002–2004 to the 1994–
2001 data used in the 2002 Revised
Assessment. The PDP has been
collecting pesticide residue data since
1991, primarily for purposes of
estimating dietary exposure. The
program focuses on high-consumption
foods for children and reflects foods
typically available throughout the year.
A complete description of the PDP and
all data through 2004 are available
online (https://www.ams.usda.gov/
science/pdp). No PDP data on honey
currently exist that could have been
used in a cumulative assessment. OP
residues in honey were not included in
the PDP data base, in part because
honey is a low-consumption food. A
quantitative estimate of honey
consumption over a single day was
obtained for the general U.S. population
and subpopulations using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEMFCIDTM, Version 2.03), which uses food
consumption data from the USDA’s
CSFII from 1994-1996 and 1998.
Consumption estimates at the 99.9th
percentile of exposure range from 21
grams of honey/day in all infants (<1
year) to 96 grams/day in adults 50 +
years, the population subgroup who
reported the greatest amount of honey
consumed. Estimates of honey
consumption for all other
subpopulations, including children 1-2,
3-5, and 6-12 years; youth 13-19 years;
females 13-49 years; and adults 20-49
years are within this range.
Although PDP data on coumaphos
data in honey is not available,
monitoring for coumaphos in honey is
conducted under the Food and Drug
Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) Surveillance Monitoring
Program. This monitoring program is
designed primarily for enforcement of
EPA pesticide tolerances on imported
foods and domestic foods shipped in
interstate commerce. In this monitoring
program, domestic samples are
generally collected close to the point of
production in the distribution system.
Import samples are collected at the
point of entry into U.S commerce. The
emphasis in sample collection is on the
agricultural commodity, which is
analyzed as the unwashed, whole
(unpeeled), raw commodity. Processed
foods are also included in the program.
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
A description of the program and
residue data for recent years can be
found online (https://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/
~lrd/pestadd.html). Because the
emphasis of this program is not on
dietary exposure, it was used in the
2006 cumulative assessment mostly as a
semi-quantitative check on the potential
for residues and as support for data from
other sources. Data are available from
1996–2003. Although the Agency has
granted emergency exemptions, starting
in 1999, such that the coumaphos strips
assessed in this document have been
and continue to be used on beehives in
40–46 states (https://www.epa.gov/
opprd001/section18), the FDA has
detected coumaphos in honey only
once, in 2003, at levels lower than the
level of quantification. Thus, FDA data
indicates that there is a low expectation
of meaningful coumaphos residues in
honey.
EPA does not believe that inclusion of
anticipated coumaphos residues in
honey in the OP CRA will significantly
modify the calculated risk. This
conclusion is based on three factors.
First, honey is a low consumption food,
and, thus, even if honey contained
quantifiable levels of OPs, it would be
unlikely to significantly alter the OP
CRA. Second, available monitoring data
indicates that, despite widespread use
of coumaphos, residues of coumaphos
in honey as consumed are exceedingly
low, if present at all. Finally, a prior risk
assessment for coumaphos indicated
that aggregate risk from coumaphos was
essentially unchanged when honey
containing levels of coumaphos residues
found in field trials was added to the
coumaphos risk assessment, August 16,
2000 (65 FR 49927) (FRL–6738–3). In
the current assessment, no discernible
difference in exposure was observed
when coumaphos residues in honey and
beeswax were or were not included in
an aggregate assessment (personal
correspondence, S. Piper, January 1,
2007). If coumaphos exposure from
honey is insignificant in comparison to
exposure to coumaphos from other uses
of the chemical, it necessarily is
insignificant in comparison to exposure
to the more than 30 other OPs. For these
reasons, EPA concludes that the
establishment of a coumaphos honey
tolerance will not raise a concern
regarding cumulative OP exposure.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional (‘‘10X’’) tenfold margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
completeness of the data base on
toxicity and exposure unless EPA
determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for
infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to
as the FQPA safety factor. 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 FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of
traditional uncertainty/safety factors
and/or special FQPA safety factors, as
appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There was no evidence of increased
qualitative or quantitative susceptibility
of the offspring in the developmental,
reproduction, or developmental
neurotoxicity studies. Increased
quantitative susceptibility of the
offspring was observed in the
comparative ChE study in that ChE
inhibition was seen at a lower dose in
neonatal rats, compared to young adult
rats. The degree of concern for this
comparative ChE study is low because
the effects are well characterized and
there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for
both neonatal and adult animals.
Furthermore, there are no residual
uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal
toxicity for the comparative ChE study
because the endpoint of concern is the
one used for the acute dietary exposure
risk assessment and a more protective
endpoint (based on long-term exposure)
is used for chronic dietary exposure risk
assessment.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show that it would be
safe for infants and children to reduce
the FQPA safety factor to 1X. That
decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for
coumaphos is complete.
ii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there
are no residual uncertainties regarding
prenatal or postnatal toxicity or
increased sensitivity of the young.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure data bases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100% crop
treated and using reliable data (USDA
PDP data for meat and milk and field
trial data for honey) and will not
underestimate the exposure and risk.
Conservative ground water and surface
water modeling estimates were used.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by coumaphos.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28875
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and
chronic risks by comparing aggregate
exposure to the pesticide aPAD and
cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable uncertainty/safety factors.
For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates
the probability of additional cancer
cases given aggregate exposure. Shortterm, intermediate-term, and long-term
risks are evaluated by comparing
aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure
that the MOE called for by the product
of all applicable uncertainty/safety
factors is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to
coumaphos will occupy 15% of the
aPAD for the U.S. population and 38%
of the aPAD for all infants (< 1 year), 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 coumaphos from food
and water will utilize 6% of cPAD for
the U.S. population and 13% of the
cPAD for all infants (< 1 year), the most
highly exposed population subgroup.
There are no residential uses for
coumaphos that result in chronic
residential exposure to coumaphos.
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term
risk. Short-term and intermediate
aggregate exposure takes into account
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
Coumaphos is not registered for use on
any sites that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from food and
water.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Coumaphos is not
carcinogenic and is classified as a Group
E chemical, indicating that it is ‘‘Not
Likely’’ to be carcinogenic in humans
via relevant routes of exposure. This
classification is based on adequate
studies in two animal species.
Coumaphos is not expected to pose a
cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to coumaphos
residues.
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
28876
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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, 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) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
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., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under 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.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, This rule does
not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
liquid chromatography/mass
spectroscopy/ mass spectroscopy (LC/
MS/MS) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no CODEX, Canadian, or
Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs) for residues of coumaphos in
honey or honeycomb. Therefore,
harmonization with international
tolerances is not an issue for this action.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received from
a private citizen objecting to
establishment of tolerances. The Agency
has received similar comments from this
commenter on numerous previous
occasions. Refer to Federal Register
June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL–
7718–3), January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1354)
(FRL–7691–4) and, October 29, 2004 (69
FR 63096) (FRL–7681–9) for the
Agency’s response to these objections.
V. Conclusion
Based upon review of the residue
field trial data supporting the petition,
EPA has determined tolerance levels for
honey and honeycomb should be
modified and tolerances levels should
be 0.15 ppm for honey and 45 ppm for
honeycomb.
Therefore, tolerance are established
for residues of coumaphos (O,O -diethyl
O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate and
its oxygen analog ( O,O -diethyl O -3chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) on honey at
0.15 ppm and honeycomb at 45 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
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Pub. L. 104-4).
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), Pub. L. 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report 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: May 15, 2007.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.189 is amended by
alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a), and in
paragraph (b), the text and table are
removed and the paragraph is reserved
to read as follows:
I
§ 180.189 Coumaphos; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Commodity
Parts per million
*
*
*
*
*
Honey ...................................................................................................................................................................................
0.15
Honeycomb
45.0
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
[Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–9813 Filed 5–22–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–3194; e-mail address:
brothers.shaja@epa.gov.
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
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 EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s pilot
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 10,
2006 (71 FR 27247) (FRL–8067–5) and
November 22, 2006 (71 FR 67572) (FRL–
8101–9), 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 5E7001 (grape
and hop), and PP 6E7099 (caneberry) by
the IR–4, 500 College Road East, Suite
201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.587
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2006–0332; FRL–8128–6]
I. General Information
Famoxadone; Pesticide Tolerance
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of famoxadone in
or on grape, hop, and caneberry,
Subgroup 13A. Interregional Research
Project (IR–4) requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May
23, 2007. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 23, 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).
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0332. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced
Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert
the docket ID number where indicated
and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow
the instructions on the regulations.gov
web site to view the docket index or
access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the docket index available in
regulations.gov. 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 Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC71 with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 May 22, 2007
Jkt 211001
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,
any person may file an objection to any
aspect of this regulation and may also
request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2006–0332 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
as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before July 23, 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 this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2006–0332, 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 Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. 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 Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
28877
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 those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 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 to provide 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23MYR1.SGM
23MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28871-28877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9813]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820; FRL-8131-4]
Coumaphos; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
coumaphos in or on honey and honeycomb. Interregional Research Project
4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective May 23, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 23, 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-2006-0820. To access the
electronic docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. 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 Rm.
S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr. Arlington,
VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6463; e-mail address:madden.barbara@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 those
engaged in the following activities:
Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 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 to
provide 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
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 EPA's tolerance regulations at
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, any person may file an objection
to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before July 23, 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
[[Page 28872]]
ADDRESSES. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part
2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit this
copy, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820, by one of
the followingmethods:
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
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. 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 Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of October 18, 2006 (71 FR 61465) (FRL-
8097-9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E6504) by Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4), Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.189 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
coumaphos (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl
phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-
methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) in or on honey at 0.10
parts per million (ppm) and honeycomb at 100 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined tolerance levels for honey and honeycomb should be modified.
The reason for these changes is explained in Unit V. EPA is also
deleting the established tolerances in Sec. 180.189(b) for honey and
honeycomb that are no longer needed. The tolerance deletions under
Sec. 180.189(b) are time-limited tolerances established under section
18 emergency exemptions that are superceded by the establishment of
general tolerances for coumaphos under Sec. 180.189(a).
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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. . .
.'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for residues of coumaphos (O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-
1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate) and its oxygen analog ( O,O -
diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) on
honey at 0.15 ppm and honeycomb at 45 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by coumaphos as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found in the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for coumaphos (https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/
REDs/0018.pdf), the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Addendum and
FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report (TRED) for coumaphos
(https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf) and at
www.regulations.gov in document Coumaphos: Human Health Risk Assessment
for Proposed Use on Honey and Honeycomb page 11 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OPP-2006-0820.
The mammalian toxicology database for coumaphos is complete. Acute
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits; an acute delayed neurotoxicity
study in hens; subchronic oral and dermal studies in rats; chronic/
carcinogenicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs; developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits; a 2-generation study in rats; mutagenicity
studies; and a metabolism study were discussed and considered in the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for coumaphos (https://
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018.pdf). Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies in rats were received subsequent to the RED and were considered
in the RED Addendum and FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report
(TRED) for coumaphos (https://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/0018tred.pdf).
Subsequent to the TRED, a developmental neurotoxicity study and a
comparative cholinesterase study in rats were received; these studies
are discussed in detail at www.regulations.gov in document Coumaphos:
Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey and Honeycomb at
page 11 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820.
The acute toxicity of coumaphos is high via the oral route of
exposure (Category I), moderate via the inhalation route (Category II),
and slight via the dermal route (Category III). Coumaphos is not a
dermal sensitizer or a dermal irritant.
Coumaphos, an organophosphate insecticide, primarily affects the
nervous system through cholinesterase (ChE) inhibition. Females are
consistently more sensitive to the cholinergic effects than males. In
the acute oral toxicity studies, female rats are approximately 17 times
more sensitive to the toxic and lethal effects of coumaphos compared to
male rats. In a single dose oral study, female rats had ChE inhibition
and cholinergic symptoms at much lower doses than male rats. In a
short-term (5 days) dermal toxicity study, brain ChE inhibition was the
most sensitive
[[Page 28873]]
indication of the toxic effects of coumaphos dermal treatment. In
subchronic and chronic studies in rats, the magnitude of ChE inhibition
in red blood cell and plasma and brain was also more pronounced in
females, compared to males. Coumaphos does not cause delayed
neuropathy. In chronic studies, systemic effects other than cholinergic
toxicity include decreases in body weight gain.
There was no evidence of malformations or decreases in the number
of pups and/or litter or surviving offspring in any of the
developmental toxicity or reproduction studies. In developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, no developmental toxicity was
observed, while clinical signs of ChE toxicity were seen in the
maternal animals. In a 2-generation reproduction study, ChE inhibition
was noted in both parents and offspring, with parents more susceptible.
Reproductive toxicity was not observed in this study.
The developmental neurotoxicity study showed no increased
susceptibility of the young. The maternal ChE activity was inhibited at
both the mid and high does. Consistent with the other mammalian
toxicity studies, female pups were more sensitive to cholinergic
effects than males; at the high dose, female plasma, erythrocyte, and
brain ChE activities were inhibited 27%, 33%, and 8%, respectively, but
only plasma ChE activity was significantly inhibited (30%) at this dose
in males. In the comparative ChE study increased quantitative
susceptibility of the offspring was observed in that ChE inhibition was
seen at a lower dose in neonatal rats, compared to young adult rats.
The relative sensitivities to ChE inhibition at peak inhibition by
coumaphos were measured in neonatal and young adult rats. This
comparative ChE study does demonstrate increased quantitative
susceptibility of the offspring. However, the degree of concern for
this comparative ChE study is low because the effects are well
characterized and there are clear no observed adverse effect levels
(NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for both
neonatal and adult animals. Furthermore, there are no residual
uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity for the
comparative ChE study because the endpoint of concern is the one used
for the acute dietary exposure risk assessment and a more protective
endpoint (based on long term-exposure) is used for chronic dietary
exposure risk assessment.
Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is classified as a Group E
chemical, indicating that it is ``Not Likely'' to be carcinogenic in
humans via relevant routes of exposure. This classification is based on
adequate studies in two animal species. No evidence of mutagenicity was
seen in any study.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which the NOAEL in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which the LOAEL of
concern are identified is sometimes used for risk assessment.
Uncertainty/safety factors (UF) are used in conjunction with the LOC to
take into account 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. Safety
is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing aggregate exposure
to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and
chronic population (cPAD) adjusted dose. The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety
factors. Short-term, intermediate, and long-term risks are evaluated by
comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the margin of
exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable uncertainty/
safety factors is not exceeded.
For non-threhold risk, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA used in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for coumpahos used for
human risk assessment can be found at www.regulations.gov in document
Coumaphos: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use on Honey and
Honeycomb page 15 in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to coumaphos, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing coumaphos tolerances in (40 CFR
180.189). EPA assessed dietary exposures from coumaphos and coumaphos-
oxon in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a one-day or single exposure
In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon
anticipated residues incorporating 2002 (USDA) Pesticide Data Program
(PDP) monitoring data for beef and 2004 PDP monitoring data for milk.
Field trial data were used for honey to support the proposed use
pattern. The dietary exposure assessment assumes 100% crop treated for
all commodities.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA relied upon anticipated
residues incorporating 2002 USDA PDP monitoring data for beef and 2004
PDP monitoring data for milk. Field trial data were used for honey to
support the proposed use pattern. The dietary exposure assessment
assumes 100% crop treated for all commodities.
iii. Cancer. Coumaphos is not carcinogenic and is classified as a
Group E chemical, indicating that it is ``Not Likely'' to be
carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes of exposure. Therefore, the
Agency concluded that coumaphos is not expected to pose a carcinogenic
risk and quantification of cancer risk is not required.
iv. Anticipated residue 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 residues 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. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of the FFDCA. Data
will be required to be
[[Page 28874]]
submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this
tolerance.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for coumaphos 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 environmental fate characteristics of
coumaphos. 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.
The generic expected environmental concentration (GENEEC) and
screening concentration in groundwater (SCI-GROW) screening models were
used to estimate surface water and ground water concentrations of
coumaphos and its oxygen analog, coumaphoxon. This degradate is
considered in the drinking water assessment, as it was in the
assessment for consumption of food (honey and livestock commodities).
Based on the GENEEC and SCI-GROW models, the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of coumaphos and its oxygen analog, coumaphoxon
for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.86 parts per billion (ppb)
for surface water and 0.17 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 0.41 ppb for surface water and 0.17 ppb
for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 1.86 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.41 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Coumaphos is not registered for use on any sites that would result
in residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of 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.''
FQPA (1996) stipulates that when determining the safety of a
pesticide chemical, the EPA shall consider, among other things,
available information concerning the cumulative effects on human health
that may result from dietary, residential, or other non-occupational
exposure to the pesticide chemical and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity. The reason for consideration of other
substances is due to the possibility that low-level exposures to
multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a
common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would
a higher level of exposure to any of the substances individually. A
person exposed to a pesticide at a level that is considered safe may,
in fact, experience harm if that person is also exposed to other
substances that cause a common toxic effect by a mechanism common with
that of the subject pesticide, even if the individual exposure levels
to the other substances are also considered safe.
The organophosphate pesticides (OPs) were established as the first
common mechanism group by EPA in 1999, based on their shared ability to
bind to and phosphorylate the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in both the
central (brain) and peripheral nervous systems. Coumaphos is an OP
pesticide. In December 2001, the Agency issued the ``Preliminary OP
Cumulative Risk Assessment'', available at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/pra_op_methods.htm. In June 2002, the Agency
released its Revised OP CRA, available at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/rra-op/, which included the cumulative risk due
to the OPs from exposures in food, drinking water, and residential
uses. In August 2006, the Agency issued an update to the 2002 Revised
OP CRA document, which emphasized changes, modifications, and
amendments. With the 2006 update, available at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/2006-op/index.htm, the Agency has developed a
highly refined and complex cumulative risk assessment for the OPs that
represents the state of the science regarding existing hazard and
exposure data and the models and approaches used. Based upon the
results from the 2006 update, the Agency concluded that the results of
the OP cumulative risk assessment support a reasonable certainty of no
harm finding.
In both the 2002 revised OP CRA, as well as the 2006 update, the
cumulative dietary risk associated with the use of OP pesticides on
food crops was assessed using residue monitoring data collected by the
USDA PDP and dietary consumption data collected by USDA's Survey of
Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). Both assessments relied primarily
on the PDP for residue data; the 2006 update added PDP data collected
in 2002-2004 to the 1994-2001 data used in the 2002 Revised Assessment.
The PDP has been collecting pesticide residue data since 1991,
primarily for purposes of estimating dietary exposure. The program
focuses on high-consumption foods for children and reflects foods
typically available throughout the year. A complete description of the
PDP and all data through 2004 are available online (https://
www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp). No PDP data on honey currently exist
that could have been used in a cumulative assessment. OP residues in
honey were not included in the PDP data base, in part because honey is
a low-consumption food. A quantitative estimate of honey consumption
over a single day was obtained for the general U.S. population and
subpopulations using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-
FCIDTM, Version 2.03), which uses food consumption data from
the USDA's CSFII from 1994-1996 and 1998. Consumption estimates at the
99.9th percentile of exposure range from 21 grams of honey/
day in all infants (<1 year) to 96 grams/day in adults 50 + years, the
population subgroup who reported the greatest amount of honey consumed.
Estimates of honey consumption for all other subpopulations, including
children 1-2, 3-5, and 6-12 years; youth 13-19 years; females 13-49
years; and adults 20-49 years are within this range.
Although PDP data on coumaphos data in honey is not available,
monitoring for coumaphos in honey is conducted under the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) Surveillance Monitoring Program. This monitoring program is
designed primarily for enforcement of EPA pesticide tolerances on
imported foods and domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce. In
this monitoring program, domestic samples are generally collected close
to the point of production in the distribution system. Import samples
are collected at the point of entry into U.S commerce. The emphasis in
sample collection is on the agricultural commodity, which is analyzed
as the unwashed, whole (unpeeled), raw commodity. Processed foods are
also included in the program.
[[Page 28875]]
A description of the program and residue data for recent years can be
found online (https://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/pestadd.html). Because the
emphasis of this program is not on dietary exposure, it was used in the
2006 cumulative assessment mostly as a semi-quantitative check on the
potential for residues and as support for data from other sources. Data
are available from 1996-2003. Although the Agency has granted emergency
exemptions, starting in 1999, such that the coumaphos strips assessed
in this document have been and continue to be used on beehives in 40-46
states (https://www.epa.gov/opprd001/section18), the FDA has detected
coumaphos in honey only once, in 2003, at levels lower than the level
of quantification. Thus, FDA data indicates that there is a low
expectation of meaningful coumaphos residues in honey.
EPA does not believe that inclusion of anticipated coumaphos
residues in honey in the OP CRA will significantly modify the
calculated risk. This conclusion is based on three factors. First,
honey is a low consumption food, and, thus, even if honey contained
quantifiable levels of OPs, it would be unlikely to significantly alter
the OP CRA. Second, available monitoring data indicates that, despite
widespread use of coumaphos, residues of coumaphos in honey as consumed
are exceedingly low, if present at all. Finally, a prior risk
assessment for coumaphos indicated that aggregate risk from coumaphos
was essentially unchanged when honey containing levels of coumaphos
residues found in field trials was added to the coumaphos risk
assessment, August 16, 2000 (65 FR 49927) (FRL-6738-3). In the current
assessment, no discernible difference in exposure was observed when
coumaphos residues in honey and beeswax were or were not included in an
aggregate assessment (personal correspondence, S. Piper, January 1,
2007). If coumaphos exposure from honey is insignificant in comparison
to exposure to coumaphos from other uses of the chemical, it
necessarily is insignificant in comparison to exposure to the more than
30 other OPs. For these reasons, EPA concludes that the establishment
of a coumaphos honey tolerance will not raise a concern regarding
cumulative OP exposure.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor. 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 FQPA safety factor value based on the use of
traditional uncertainty/safety factors and/or special FQPA safety
factors, as appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased qualitative or quantitative susceptibility of the offspring
in the developmental, reproduction, or developmental neurotoxicity
studies. Increased quantitative susceptibility of the offspring was
observed in the comparative ChE study in that ChE inhibition was seen
at a lower dose in neonatal rats, compared to young adult rats. The
degree of concern for this comparative ChE study is low because the
effects are well characterized and there are clear NOAELs and LOAELs
for both neonatal and adult animals. Furthermore, there are no residual
uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity for the comparative
ChE study because the endpoint of concern is the one used for the acute
dietary exposure risk assessment and a more protective endpoint (based
on long-term exposure) is used for chronic dietary exposure risk
assessment.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for coumaphos is complete.
ii. As discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are no residual
uncertainties regarding prenatal or postnatal toxicity or increased
sensitivity of the young.
iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
data bases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and using reliable data (USDA PDP data for meat
and milk and field trial data for honey) and will not underestimate the
exposure and risk. Conservative ground water and surface water modeling
estimates were used. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by coumaphos.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD
are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable uncertainty/safety
factors. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term,
intermediate-term, and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing
aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable uncertainty/safety factors is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to coumaphos will occupy 15% of the aPAD for the U.S. population and
38% of the aPAD for all infants (< 1 year), 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 coumaphos
from food and water will utilize 6% of cPAD for the U.S. population and
13% of the cPAD for all infants (< 1 year), the most highly exposed
population subgroup. There are no residential uses for coumaphos that
result in chronic residential exposure to coumaphos.
3. Short-term and Intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Coumaphos is not registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is
the sum of the risk from food and water.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Coumaphos is not
carcinogenic and is classified as a Group E chemical, indicating that
it is ``Not Likely'' to be carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes
of exposure. This classification is based on adequate studies in two
animal species. Coumaphos is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to coumaphos residues.
[[Page 28876]]
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography/mass
spectroscopy/ mass spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail
address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits
(MRLs) for residues of coumaphos in honey or honeycomb. Therefore,
harmonization with international tolerances is not an issue for this
action.
C. Response to Comments
Several comments were received from a private citizen objecting to
establishment of tolerances. The Agency has received similar comments
from this commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to Federal
Register June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL-7718-3), January 7, 2005 (70
FR 1354) (FRL-7691-4) and, October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63096) (FRL-7681-9)
for the Agency's response to these objections.
V. Conclusion
Based upon review of the residue field trial data supporting the
petition, EPA has determined tolerance levels for honey and honeycomb
should be modified and tolerances levels should be 0.15 ppm for honey
and 45 ppm for honeycomb.
Therefore, tolerance are established for residues of coumaphos (O,O
-diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl
phosphorothioate and its oxygen analog ( O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-
methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) on honey at 0.15 ppm and
honeycomb at 45 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, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). 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., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under 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.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4).
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), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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: May 15, 2007.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
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 180.189 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a), and in paragraph (b), the text and table
are removed and the paragraph is reserved to read as follows:
Sec. 180.189 Coumaphos; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Honey.......................................... 0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeycomb 45.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28877]]
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-9813 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S