(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure); Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 33708-33714 [E8-13232]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33708
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
governments were considered in the
development of this final rule. Since the
issues identified by tribal governments
were not unique to their concerns, EPA
has addressed these issues generally in
its response to comments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This regulation is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined
under E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
that it addresses environmental health
and safety risks that present a
disproportionate risk to children.
Today’s rule would simply clarify
Congress’ intent that water transfers
generally be subject to oversight by
water resource management agencies
and State non-NPDES authorities, rather
than the permitting program under
section 402 of the CWA.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Further, EPA has concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
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) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
rule does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations. Today’s rule
would simply clarify Congress’ intent
that water transfers generally be subject
to oversight by water resource
management agencies and State nonNPDES authorities, rather than the
permitting program under section 402 of
the CWA.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 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 the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective August 12, 2008.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control.
Dated: June 9, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
I
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
2. Section 122.3 is amended by adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
I
§ 122.3
Exclusions.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Discharges from a water transfer.
Water transfer means an activity that
conveys or connects waters of the
United States without subjecting the
transferred water to intervening
industrial, municipal, or commercial
use. This exclusion does not apply to
pollutants introduced by the water
transfer activity itself to the water being
transferred.
[FR Doc. E8–13360 Filed 6–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0596; FRL–8367–7]
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
(Disparlure); Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane on all food
and feed crops when used to treat trees,
shrubs, and pastures resulting in
unintentional spray and drift from
application as well as unintentional
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
spray and drift to non-target vegetation
including non-food, food, and feed
crops. Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a
Hercon Environmental submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane. This active
ingredient (AI) is also known as
Disparlure.
This regulation is effective June
13, 2008. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
August 12, 2008, 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–2007–0596. 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
website 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:
Andrew Bryceland, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6928; e-mail address:
bryceland.andrew@epa.gov.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I 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 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 FFDCA, as
amended by FQPA, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
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–2007–0596 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 August 12, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33709
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–2007–0596, 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.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of August 1,
2007 (72 FR 42070) (FRL–8141–5), 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 tolerance petition (PP 6F7141)
by Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a
Hercon Environmental, P.O. Box 453,
Emigsville, PA 17318–0435. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy2-methyloctadecane. This notice
included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner Aberdeen
Road Company d/b/a Hercon
Environmental.
There was only one comment
received in response to the notice of
filing. The commenter suggested that
there should not be an exemption for
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadane because
the commenter felt that ‘‘plants should
not have to grow with toxic chemicals
on them;’’ that the Agency ‘‘is not
protecting the public health of the
American public which is dying from
all kinds of cancers;’’ and further of not
properly evaluating pesticides in
general.
Agency Response: (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane is a naturally
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
33710
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
occurring substance produced by the
female gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)
as a pheromone to attract the male
gypsy moth. The activity of this
pesticide is specific to the Gypsy moth,
and when applied to forests, it confuses
the male gypsy moth searching for a
mate; this reduces the moth
population’s ability to successfully
reproduce itself without killing
individuals in the population. The
Agency’s assessment of the naturally
occurring pheromone’s specific, nontoxic mode of action, its low acute
toxicity and exposure profiles (see Unit
III.), and its intended non-food uses
indicate negligible dietary risks
associated with the unintended
application of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane to areas adjacent to
agricultural areas (Refs. 2 and 3).
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to
section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, EPA must take into account
the factors set forth in section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require
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.... ’’
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of
FFDCA requires that 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.’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. First,
EPA determines the toxicity of
pesticides. Second, EPA examines
exposure to the pesticide through food,
drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
III. Toxicological Profile
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 and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability and the
relationship of this information 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 AI, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane (also known as
Disparlure), is an aliphatic hydrocarbon
compound containing 19 carbons and a
single epoxide bond. It is a naturally
occurring lepidopteran pheromone
produced by female gypsy moths
(Lymantria dispar) to attract males.
When used as a pesticide, the
pheromone is intended to disrupt
mating by disorienting males during
their in-flight search for females. (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane was
registered by the Agency in 1986 as a
non-food use pesticide to lower the
incidences of gypsy moth mating in
residential, municipal, and shade tree
areas; recreational areas such as
campgrounds, golf courses, parks and
parkways; ornamental and shade tree
forest planting; shelter belts, rights of
way and other easements. While (Z)-7,8epoxy-3-methyloctadecane is not
intended to be sprayed directly on food
or feed crops, the Agency has expressed
concern that there may be a potential for
regular and significant exposure from
residues of the pesticide on food and
feed crops as a result of unintentional
spray or drift. Therefore, at the
recommendation of the Agency, a
request to establish an exemption for the
requirement of a tolerance has been
made by the applicant.
This tolerance exemption is
supported by toxicity data on a
structurally related substance,
epoxylated soybean oil (ESO), in
anticipation of frequent and significant
exposure to food and feed crops near
treated areas. All the data normally
required to support a tolerance
exemption are not available for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane; therefore,
the data on ESO was submitted to
address concerns about inadvertent
residues on food or feed crops. The
Agency has agreed to consider the
toxicity data on epoxylated soybean oil,
since it is chemically similar to (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure),
and the data requirements normally
required for a food use can support an
assessment of potential dietary risks
associated with possible residues of the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pesticide from spray drift (Refs. 1, 2 and
3).
Historically the AI, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane, has been used as a
non food use pesticide and, therefore,
no data that address the data
requirements required by the Agency in
support of food use pesticides have been
generated using this AI. Therefore, in
order to satisfy these data requirements
and address the issue of whether or not
food and feed crops that are
inadvertently affected by residues of (Z)7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane are safe,
the Agency has bridged from toxicity
data generated on a structurally related
substance, epoxylated soybean oil, to
both satisfy the food use toxicity data
requirements for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane and to conduct a risk
assessment. As stated in this Unit, data
normally required for a food use can
support an assessment of potential
dietary risks associated with possible
residues of the pesticide from spray drift
(Refs. 1 and 3).
ESO is a compound that is
structurally related to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane and has already been
fully assessed by the Agency as an inert
ingredient. ESO and (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane are similar, from a
structural perspective, in that both
compounds contain one or more
epoxide bonds, thus the basis for the
Agency’s decision to allow the bridging
of toxicity data from ESO to (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane. Epoxide
bonds are three-membered rings, made
up of 2 carbons and 1 oxygen, bonded
together in a triangular shape. The
epoxide bond is very unstable in the
environment and this instability makes
the bond very reactive such that it reacts
to whatever is in the environment (i.e.
proteins, nucleophiles) (Refs. 3 and 4).
This information is key in determining
the potential risks to the (Z)-7,8-epoxy2-methyloctadecane compound since it
is the reactive epoxide groups in both
compounds that mostly contribute to
the toxicological activity itself (Refs. 3
and 4). Epoxides in general are formed
outside of the body (environmental
epoxides) or they are synthesized in the
body. Environmental epoxides are
generally less toxic than epoxides that
are synthesized in the body (Refs. 3 and
4). Both epoxides behave in the
environment in the same way. The
epoxide content of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane is double that of ESO.
While this information does suggest that
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane could
be more reactive than ESO, this
potential toxicity is essentially
attributed to the fact that (Z)-7,8-epoxy2-methyloctadecane has more epoxide
groups (16%) than ESO (8%). Even
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
though there are more reactive epoxide
groups that belong to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane, these reactive
epoxides are environmental epoxides
(i.e. found outside the body), and based
on the literature, and as stated in Unit
IV., the second paragraph,
environmental epoxides are less toxic
than those synthesized in the body
(Refs. 3 and 4).
As stated in this Unit, environmental
epoxides, such as (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane react in the
environment. When the AI is released
into the environment the epoxide
groups of the AI will most likely interact
with nucleophilic sites in the
environment, such as proteins in food,
and will not be absorbed in their active
form (Refs. 3 and 4). Based on the
behavior of environmental epoxides,
such as this AI, the Agency has
extrapolated the potential risks (if any)
to humans and animals from consuming
food and/or feed commodities the
contain residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane as a result of indirect
or unintended spray or drift. The
Agency has determined that even if
residues of the AI were to occur on
food/feed commodities, the reaction of
epoxides in (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane (Disparlure) would in
all probability react with proteins (such
as those already found in foods) during
digestion and would not be absorbed in
their active form to cause any
toxicological effects (Refs. 3 and 4).
Additionally, there are also a number of
ways the body can detoxify epoxides
like Disparlure if they are absorbed in
an active form (Ref. 4). These are:
1. Spontaneous decomposition,
2. Nonenzymatic reaction with
glutathione,
3. Reaction with glutathione catalyzed
by glutathione transferase,
4. Hydration by epoxide hydrolase,
and
5. Minor mechanisms such as
cytochrome P450 hydrolysis (Refs. 3
and 4).
Further, acute oral toxicity studies on
both substances indicated that their
toxicity is low (Toxicity Category IV)
which is consistent with these general
characteristics of environmental
epoxides. Therefore, use of toxicity data
on ESO to define endpoints for the
assessment of dietary exposure
estimates associated with inadvertent
treatment of food or feed crops with (Z)7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
(Disparlure) is reasonable. ESO data including application of maximum
uncertainty factors - define endpoints
used in risk characterization for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane, and data
requirements to support the petition for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
exemption from the requirement of
tolerances for the AI have been waived
by the Agency based on the negligible
risks described in this Unit.
A. Acute Toxicity
Acute oral toxicity (rat) (OPPTS GLN
870.1100): Based on acute oral toxicity
studies in rats, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane has very low toxicity
and is classified into Toxicity Category
IV. No adverse effects or deaths were
seen in rats that received an oral dose
of undiluted (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane at 5,000 milligram
per kilogram of bodyweight (mg/kg/bw)
(Master Record Identification (MRID)
Number 45529801). ESO also has very
low acute oral toxicity lethal dose (LD)50
> 5,000 mg/kg (Toxicity Category IV;
Refs. 2 and 3).
B. Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity
(OPPTS GLN 870.3100; 870.4100 and
870.4200)
Information from The Scientific Panel
on Food Additives (European
Commission on Food Safety) was
considered which included a two–year
chronic oral toxicity study in rats given
diets containing up to 5% ESO. The no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
was approximately 140 mg/kg/day and
the lowest observed adverse effect level
(LOAEL) was approximately 1,400 mg/
kg/day. Observed effects were slight
changes in liver, kidney and uterus
weights. The published summary also
concluded that ESO was not
carcinogenic when fed to rats. Based on
the data, a tolerable daily intake of 1
mg/kg/day was determined for ESO
(Refs. 1, 2, and 3).
C. Developmental Toxicity (OPPTS GLN
870.3700 and 870.3800)
The European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) report (2004) also described a
developmental toxicity study in which
ESO was given to pregnant rats during
gestation at daily oral doses of 0, 100,
300 or 1,000 mg/kg/day (Ref. 1). No
maternal or developmental effects were
noted at any dose level according to the
summary submitted (Ref. 3).
D. Reproductive Toxicity (OPPTS GLN
870.3800)
The EFSA review indicated that ESO
was administered daily by oral gavage to
rats at the 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg bw/
day dose levels for 71 and 15 days
before mating in males and females,
respectively, until day 21 post-partum
of F1 litters; no toxic effects were noted
in parental animals or their offspring
(Ref. 1). Under the experimental
conditions, the highest tested dose of
1,000 mg/kg bw/day was found to be the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33711
NOAEL, and no LOAEL was reported
(Ref. 3).
E. Genotoxicity (OPPTS GLN 870.5000;
MRID 45309502)
A bacterial reverse mutation assay
using Salmonella typhimurium and
Escherichia coli was conducted on (Z)7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane with and
without activation. The study
concluded that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane was not mutagenic in
bacteria under the conditions of the
study.
F. Hazard Characterization
In assessing the hazard associated
with (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane,
its has been characterized in terms of
epoxylated soybean oil. All
toxicological effects were observed at or
above limit doses (≥5,000 mg/kg/bw for
acute oral toxicity and ≥1,000 mg/kg/
bw/day for reproductive, developmental
and chronic toxicity studies) (Ref. 3).
Based upon the Agency’s standard
hazard assessment protocol, if there is
an incomplete data set for assessment of
developmental toxicity (studies in two
species) and a one-generation
reproduction toxicity study (rather than
a multi-generation reproduction study),
an uncertainty factor of 3X is retained
for consideration of the sensitivity of
infants and children (Ref. 3). Moreover,
there is uncertainty regarding the
structure-activity relationship between
Disparlure and ESO (16% versus 7–8%
epoxide by weight, respectively) and the
lack of repeated-dose studies on both
substances to adequately support
bridging from ESO data to Disparlure (at
least one repeated-dose study on both
substances) for purposes of assessing the
dietary risks associated with use of the
mating disruptor (Ref. 3). To account for
this, an additional 10X uncertainty
factor is applied (Ref 3). Therefore, the
1,000 mg/kg/day endpoint was divided
by 1,000 for general population risk
characterizations (uncertainty factors of
10X for interspecies extrapolation, 10X
for intraspecies variation, and 10X for
uncertainties regarding bridging from
data on a surrogate substance) to
determine a reference dose (RfD) of 1
mg/kg/day; a population adjusted dose
(PAD) of 0.33 mg/kg/day for infants and
children is determined when the FQPA
safety factor (3X) is retained (Ref. 3).
Comparing this with the maximum
estimated exposure for pesticidal use of
Disparlure, the result does not exceed
the Agency’s level of concern (LOC)
because the estimated exposure is less
than 1% of the RfD (Ref. 3). Based on
the behavior of epoxides in the
environment and during ingestion, we
conclude that toxicologically significant
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
33712
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
residues will not result (refer to Unit III.;
Refs. 3 and 4). Even when the maximum
potential for inadvertent residues from
the non-food uses of this pesticide are
compared with the most conservative
estimate of hazard, there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population from exposure to this
pesticide when used according to label
instructions (Ref. 3). In the event that a
food-use is requested, the Agency would
require repeated-dose studies such as a
90–day subchronic feeding study
(OPPTS 870.3100) and a prenatal
developmental toxicity study (OPPTS
870.3700) on Disparlure.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
IV. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure,
section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA to
consider available information
concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or
surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor
uses).
In general, the epoxide (oxirane ring
formed by an oxygen and two carbon
atoms) is the reactive group in (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane and other
epoxides, and is expected to contribute
the most to biological or toxicological
activity of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane (Ref. 4; see Ref. 3).
The unstable oxirane ring can open and
react with DNA, protein, or other
nucleophilic substances. This means
that if (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane were to be ingested
then most likely the epoxide would
react with the proteins in food during
digestion (i.e. it would be digested). As
stated in the literature (deBethizy and
Hayes (Ref. 4), epoxides formed in
animals are apparently more toxic than
those present in the environment
because they react with proteins and
DNA in the animal’s tissue (Refs. 3 and
4). If the AI were to result on food/feed
commodities, the epoxide or reactive
group of that AI is more likely to break
down and react with nucleophiles and
proteins that are found in food and
would not be absorbed in their active
form (Refs. 3 and 4). However, even if
they are absorbed in their active form,
epoxides can be detoxified in the
human body via:
1. Spontaneous decomposition,
2. Nonenzymatic reaction with
glutathione,
3. Reaction with glutathione catalyzed
by glutathione transferase,
4. Hydration by epoxide hydrolase,
and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
5. Minor mechanisms such as
cytochrome P450 hydrolysis (Ref.s 3
and 4).
In general, these considerations are
expected to reduce the potential risk.
A. Dietary Exposure
In examining aggregate exposure,
section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information
concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and on all other nonoccupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or
surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor
uses).
Given the use pattern of this AI,
residues of the AI on food/feed crops as
a result of unintentional spray or drift,
as stated throughout this document, is
not expected. However, the Agency has
determined that even if residues of the
AI were to occur on food/feed
commodities, the reactive groups of the
active would not be absorbed in their
active form to cause any toxicological
effects. While it is reasonable to assume
that no toxicological effects would occur
given the unliklihood of absorption and
the low toxicity of the AI, the EPA has
further examined the potential for
dietary exposure from unintentional
spray or drift and absorption and has
estimated the potential risks (if any) to
humans, including infants and children,
from the consumption of food
commodities that have been
inadvertently treated with the AI.
Assuming that dietary exposure has
occurred the Agency considered
potential exposure estimates for two
representative scenarios including
pasture grass and apple orchards.
1. Food — i. Apples. The Agency used
apples as one representative in
conducting its food assessment since
apples are a significant commodity by a
sensitive subpopulation (infants and
children). For the apple exposure
analysis, the Agency obtained a kg
apples/A value from U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) statistics and used
the worst-case application rate of 60
grams (g) (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane/Acre (A) (two
applications of 30 g/A per season) for an
apple orchard (unintentional
application). The maximum potential
concentration of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane was estimated to be 6
mg/AI/kg of apples (i.e., 6 parts per
million (ppm); Ref 3). This 6 ppm value
is an overestimate because its
determination assumes: All the (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane is directly
applied to an apple orchard (a misuse)
and all of the AI applied will be on or
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in the apples (not sticking to foliage or
other inedible plant parts). (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane residues are
also likely to be reduced by their
reactivity, the AI’s physical/chemical
properties, and washing or processing
treated apples before their consumption
(Ref. 3).
Based on the amount of the AI/kg of
crop it was determined that the amount
of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
consumed from treated apples for the
general population, children, and adults
would be 0.005, 0.03 and 0.002 mg/A.I./
kg/bw per day, respectively (Ref. 3). As
noted in the introduction to this Unit
IV. Aggregate Exposures, by the time
Disparlure-treated apples are consumed,
the epoxides in the AI are likely to have
broken down or reacted with
nucleophiles such as proteins in the
apples and would not be absorbed in
their active form (Refs. 3 and 4).
ii. Pasture. A pasture grass exposure
analysis was presented in the
applicant’s petition, which was based
on maximum recommended single
application rates (30 g/AI/A) and a
model for estimating potential exposure
for grazing cattle (described at https://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/
toera_analysis_exp.htm). The largest
estimate was determined to be 0.14 mg
Disparlure/kg cattle body weight per
day (Ref. 3). This estimate of the
potential exposure was based on the
assumption that all the Disparlure
applied to an acre of short grass would
be consumed as if the AI was
intentionally applied to the pasture
rather than drifting from a nearby
treated area (Ref. 3). A more realistic
assumption in the exposure analysis
was that 10% or less of the pasture grass
would be impacted by spray drift,
thereby reducing the exposure estimate
to 0.014 mg Disparlure/kg cattle bw/day
(Ref. 3). Also, applications in any given
area would not be done more than one
or two days each year which further
reduces the potential exposure to cattle.
As noted in the second paragraph of
Unit IV., the metabolic pathways that
break down epoxides in animals are
expected to further reduce the potential
for dietary exposure preventing
detection or bioaccumulation of
Disparlure residues in cattle feeding on
inadvertently treated pasture grass.
Therefore, a dietary assessment for
meat, milk and meat by-products was
not conducted by the Agency (Ref 3).
2. Drinking water exposure. Exposure
to residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane in consumed
drinking water is unlikely because of
the reactivity of such epoxides in the
environment (see discussion under Unit
IV. Aggregate Exposure; Refs. 3 and 4),
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
and the AI is not directly applied to
water. Therefore, drinking water
exposure is not expected to pose any
quantifiable risks due to a lack of
residues of toxicological concern.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
There are no residential, school, or
day care uses proposed for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure).
Since the proposed use is for
agricultural non-food crops the potential
for non-occupational, non-dietary
exposures to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane by the general
population, including infants and
prolonged inhalation exposure to nonsticking flakes in unlikely (Ref. 2).
V. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish an exemption from 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.’’ These
considerations include the possible
cumulative effects of such residues on
infants and children. EPA has
considered the potential for cumulative
effects of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane and other substances
in relation to common mechanism of
toxicity. Common mechanisms of
toxicity are not relevant to a
consideration of cumulative exposure to
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
because it is not toxic to mammalian
systems. Because, since Disparlure is an
environmental epoxides (formed outside
the body) which are generally
considered less toxic than epoxides
synthesized inside the body (Ref. 4).
The reactive epoxide in Disparlure’s
structure would most likely react with
proteins in food during digestion and
would not be absorbed in their active
form to induce toxicological effects (Ref.
4). There are also a number of ways the
body can detoxify epoxides like
Disparlure if they are absorbed in an
active form (Ref. 4). Also the acute oral
toxicity study on Disparlure indicated
that the toxicity is low (Toxicity
Category IV). Thus, the Agency does not
expect any cumulative or incremental
effects from exposure to residues of (Z)7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane when
applied/used as directed on the label
and in accordance with good
agricultural practices. Additionally,
when comparing the most conservative
estimate of hazard to the maximum
potential for inadvertent residues from
the non-food uses of Disparlure, the
result does not exceed the Agency’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
LOC (i.e.: Estimated exposure is less
than 1% of the RfD; Ref. 3). Margins of
Exposure (MOE) based on estimated
exposure and hazard (the 140 mg/kg/
day NOAEL from a chronic toxicity
study in rats) range from 4,600 to 65,000
(Ref. 3). When the resulting MOE is
greater than 100, the Agency’s LOC is
not exceeded and there is reasonable
certainty of no harm to human health
(Ref. 3).
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S.
Population, Infants and Children
1. U.S. population. The Agency has
determined that there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. Population from aggregated
exposure to residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane. This includes all
dietary exposures and other exposures
for which there is reliable information.
The Agency has arrived at this
conclusion based on the chemicals low
acute toxicity, it is a naturally occurring
lepidopteran pheromone produced by
female gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar),
is similar in chemical structure to
compounds of low chronic toxicity
(ESO), and has a very low potential for
human exposure. (Ref. 2).
2. Infants and children. FFDCA
section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold MOE for
infants and children in the case of
threshold effects. Margins of exposure
are often referred to as uncertainty or
safety factors, and are used to account
for potential prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and any lack of completeness of
the database. Based on available data
and other information, EPA may
determine that a different MOE will
define a level of concern for infants and
children or that a MOE approach is not
appropriate. Based on all the available
information the Agency reviewed on
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane,
including a lack of threshold effects, the
Agency concluded that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane is practically nontoxic to mammals, including infants and
children. Since there are no effects of
concern, the provision requiring an
additional margin of safety does not
apply.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
There is no evidence to suggest that
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
functions in a manner similar to any
known hormone, or that it acts as an
endocrine disrupter.
B. Analytical Method
Because this is an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance without
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33713
numerical limitations, no analytical
method is required.
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no CODEX maximum
residue levels for residues for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane for
unintentional spray or drift from
application when treating trees and
shrubs along or within pastures, as well
as unintentional spray and drift to nontarget vegetation including native and
ornamental species, and food and feed
crops.
VIII. Conclusions
Based on the low toxicity in animal
testing, and the expected low exposure
to humans, no risk to human health is
expected from use of the chemical on
food crops.
IX. References
1. EFSA. (2004) Opinion of the
Scientific Panel on Food Additives,
Flavorings, Processing Aids and
Materials in Contact with Food (AFC)
on a request from the Commission
related to the use of Epoxidized soybean
oil in food contact materials. EFSA
Journal 64: 1–17.
2. Gonzales, A. (June 27, 2007)
USEPA Memorandum - Tolerance
Exemption Petition Review for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane.
3. Gardner, R. & A. Gonzales (January
8, 2008) USEPA Memorandum - Dietary
Risk Considerations Supporting a
Petition for Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance for (Z)-7,8epoxy-2-methyloctadecane.
4. de Bethizy, J.D., and J.R. Hayes.
2001. ‘‘Metabolism: Determinant of
Toxicity’’ Ch. 3 in Principles and
Methods of Toxicology, 4th Edition.
A.W. Hayes, ed. Taylor & Francis.
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 123–124.
X. 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 final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final 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).
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
33714
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 115 / Friday, June 13, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
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) (Public Law 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), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
XI. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Jun 12, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 30, 2008.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, 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 180.1283 is added to
subpart D to read as follows:
I
§ 180.1283 (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2methyloctadecane (Disparlure); exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance is established for residues
of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane on
all food and feed crops that occur when
it is used to treat trees, shrubs, and
pastures and such use results in
unintentional spray and drift to nontarget vegetation including non-food,
food, and feed crops. This active
ingredient is also known as Disparlure.
[FR Doc. E8–13232 Filed 6–12–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–1107; FRL–8366–6]
Fenoxaprop-ethyl; Pesticide
Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
time-limited tolerances for combined
residues of fenoxaprop-ethyl and its
metabolites in or on grass hay and
forage. This action is in response to
EPA’s granting of an emergency
exemption under section 18 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing
use of the pesticide on grasses grown for
seed. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of fenoxaprop-ethyl and its metabolites
in these feed commodities. The timelimited tolerances expire and are
revoked on December 31, 2010.
DATES: This regulation is effective June
13, 2008. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
August 12, 2008, 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–2007–1107. 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
website 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 either in the electronic docket
at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory
Public Docket in Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are
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:
Andrea Conrath, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9356; e-mail address:
conrath.andrea@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 code 111).
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
13JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 115 (Friday, June 13, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33708-33714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0596; FRL-8367-7]
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure); Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane on
all food and feed crops when used to treat trees, shrubs, and pastures
resulting in unintentional spray and drift from application as well as
unintentional
[[Page 33709]]
spray and drift to non-target vegetation including non-food, food, and
feed crops. Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a Hercon Environmental submitted
a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane. This active
ingredient (AI) is also known as Disparlure.
DATES: This regulation is effective June 13, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 12, 2008,
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-2007-0596. 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 website 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: Andrew Bryceland, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6928; e-mail address: bryceland.andrew@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 code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I 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 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 FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. 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-2007-0596 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 August 12, 2008.
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-2007-0596, 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.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42070) (FRL-8141-
5), 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 tolerance
petition (PP 6F7141) by Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a Hercon
Environmental, P.O. Box 453, Emigsville, PA 17318-0435. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane. This notice included a summary of the petition
prepared by the petitioner Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a Hercon
Environmental.
There was only one comment received in response to the notice of
filing. The commenter suggested that there should not be an exemption
for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadane because the commenter felt that
``plants should not have to grow with toxic chemicals on them;'' that
the Agency ``is not protecting the public health of the American public
which is dying from all kinds of cancers;'' and further of not properly
evaluating pesticides in general.
Agency Response: (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane is a naturally
[[Page 33710]]
occurring substance produced by the female gypsy moth (Lymantria
dispar) as a pheromone to attract the male gypsy moth. The activity of
this pesticide is specific to the Gypsy moth, and when applied to
forests, it confuses the male gypsy moth searching for a mate; this
reduces the moth population's ability to successfully reproduce itself
without killing individuals in the population. The Agency's assessment
of the naturally occurring pheromone's specific, non-toxic mode of
action, its low acute toxicity and exposure profiles (see Unit III.),
and its intended non-food uses indicate negligible dietary risks
associated with the unintended application of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane to areas adjacent to agricultural areas (Refs. 2 and
3).
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require 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....
'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that 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.''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
III. Toxicological Profile
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 and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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 AI, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (also known as
Disparlure), is an aliphatic hydrocarbon compound containing 19 carbons
and a single epoxide bond. It is a naturally occurring lepidopteran
pheromone produced by female gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar) to attract
males. When used as a pesticide, the pheromone is intended to disrupt
mating by disorienting males during their in-flight search for females.
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane was registered by the Agency in 1986
as a non-food use pesticide to lower the incidences of gypsy moth
mating in residential, municipal, and shade tree areas; recreational
areas such as campgrounds, golf courses, parks and parkways; ornamental
and shade tree forest planting; shelter belts, rights of way and other
easements. While (Z)-7,8-epoxy-3-methyloctadecane is not intended to be
sprayed directly on food or feed crops, the Agency has expressed
concern that there may be a potential for regular and significant
exposure from residues of the pesticide on food and feed crops as a
result of unintentional spray or drift. Therefore, at the
recommendation of the Agency, a request to establish an exemption for
the requirement of a tolerance has been made by the applicant.
This tolerance exemption is supported by toxicity data on a
structurally related substance, epoxylated soybean oil (ESO), in
anticipation of frequent and significant exposure to food and feed
crops near treated areas. All the data normally required to support a
tolerance exemption are not available for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane; therefore, the data on ESO was submitted to address
concerns about inadvertent residues on food or feed crops. The Agency
has agreed to consider the toxicity data on epoxylated soybean oil,
since it is chemically similar to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
(Disparlure), and the data requirements normally required for a food
use can support an assessment of potential dietary risks associated
with possible residues of the pesticide from spray drift (Refs. 1, 2
and 3).
Historically the AI, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane, has been
used as a non food use pesticide and, therefore, no data that address
the data requirements required by the Agency in support of food use
pesticides have been generated using this AI. Therefore, in order to
satisfy these data requirements and address the issue of whether or not
food and feed crops that are inadvertently affected by residues of (Z)-
7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane are safe, the Agency has bridged from
toxicity data generated on a structurally related substance, epoxylated
soybean oil, to both satisfy the food use toxicity data requirements
for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane and to conduct a risk assessment.
As stated in this Unit, data normally required for a food use can
support an assessment of potential dietary risks associated with
possible residues of the pesticide from spray drift (Refs. 1 and 3).
ESO is a compound that is structurally related to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane and has already been fully assessed by the Agency as
an inert ingredient. ESO and (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane are
similar, from a structural perspective, in that both compounds contain
one or more epoxide bonds, thus the basis for the Agency's decision to
allow the bridging of toxicity data from ESO to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane. Epoxide bonds are three-membered rings, made up of 2
carbons and 1 oxygen, bonded together in a triangular shape. The
epoxide bond is very unstable in the environment and this instability
makes the bond very reactive such that it reacts to whatever is in the
environment (i.e. proteins, nucleophiles) (Refs. 3 and 4). This
information is key in determining the potential risks to the (Z)-7,8-
epoxy-2-methyloctadecane compound since it is the reactive epoxide
groups in both compounds that mostly contribute to the toxicological
activity itself (Refs. 3 and 4). Epoxides in general are formed outside
of the body (environmental epoxides) or they are synthesized in the
body. Environmental epoxides are generally less toxic than epoxides
that are synthesized in the body (Refs. 3 and 4). Both epoxides behave
in the environment in the same way. The epoxide content of (Z)-7,8-
epoxy-2-methyloctadecane is double that of ESO. While this information
does suggest that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane could be more
reactive than ESO, this potential toxicity is essentially attributed to
the fact that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane has more epoxide groups
(16%) than ESO (8%). Even
[[Page 33711]]
though there are more reactive epoxide groups that belong to (Z)-7,8-
epoxy-2-methyloctadecane, these reactive epoxides are environmental
epoxides (i.e. found outside the body), and based on the literature,
and as stated in Unit IV., the second paragraph, environmental epoxides
are less toxic than those synthesized in the body (Refs. 3 and 4).
As stated in this Unit, environmental epoxides, such as (Z)-7,8-
epoxy-2-methyloctadecane react in the environment. When the AI is
released into the environment the epoxide groups of the AI will most
likely interact with nucleophilic sites in the environment, such as
proteins in food, and will not be absorbed in their active form (Refs.
3 and 4). Based on the behavior of environmental epoxides, such as this
AI, the Agency has extrapolated the potential risks (if any) to humans
and animals from consuming food and/or feed commodities the contain
residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane as a result of indirect or
unintended spray or drift. The Agency has determined that even if
residues of the AI were to occur on food/feed commodities, the reaction
of epoxides in (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure) would in
all probability react with proteins (such as those already found in
foods) during digestion and would not be absorbed in their active form
to cause any toxicological effects (Refs. 3 and 4). Additionally, there
are also a number of ways the body can detoxify epoxides like
Disparlure if they are absorbed in an active form (Ref. 4). These are:
1. Spontaneous decomposition,
2. Nonenzymatic reaction with glutathione,
3. Reaction with glutathione catalyzed by glutathione transferase,
4. Hydration by epoxide hydrolase, and
5. Minor mechanisms such as cytochrome P450 hydrolysis (Refs. 3 and
4).
Further, acute oral toxicity studies on both substances indicated
that their toxicity is low (Toxicity Category IV) which is consistent
with these general characteristics of environmental epoxides.
Therefore, use of toxicity data on ESO to define endpoints for the
assessment of dietary exposure estimates associated with inadvertent
treatment of food or feed crops with (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
(Disparlure) is reasonable. ESO data - including application of maximum
uncertainty factors - define endpoints used in risk characterization
for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane, and data requirements to support
the petition for exemption from the requirement of tolerances for the
AI have been waived by the Agency based on the negligible risks
described in this Unit.
A. Acute Toxicity
Acute oral toxicity (rat) (OPPTS GLN 870.1100): Based on acute oral
toxicity studies in rats, (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane has very low
toxicity and is classified into Toxicity Category IV. No adverse
effects or deaths were seen in rats that received an oral dose of
undiluted (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane at 5,000 milligram per
kilogram of bodyweight (mg/kg/bw) (Master Record Identification (MRID)
Number 45529801). ESO also has very low acute oral toxicity lethal dose
(LD)50 > 5,000 mg/kg (Toxicity Category IV; Refs. 2 and 3).
B. Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity (OPPTS GLN 870.3100; 870.4100
and 870.4200)
Information from The Scientific Panel on Food Additives (European
Commission on Food Safety) was considered which included a two-year
chronic oral toxicity study in rats given diets containing up to 5%
ESO. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was approximately 140
mg/kg/day and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) was
approximately 1,400 mg/kg/day. Observed effects were slight changes in
liver, kidney and uterus weights. The published summary also concluded
that ESO was not carcinogenic when fed to rats. Based on the data, a
tolerable daily intake of 1 mg/kg/day was determined for ESO (Refs. 1,
2, and 3).
C. Developmental Toxicity (OPPTS GLN 870.3700 and 870.3800)
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report (2004) also
described a developmental toxicity study in which ESO was given to
pregnant rats during gestation at daily oral doses of 0, 100, 300 or
1,000 mg/kg/day (Ref. 1). No maternal or developmental effects were
noted at any dose level according to the summary submitted (Ref. 3).
D. Reproductive Toxicity (OPPTS GLN 870.3800)
The EFSA review indicated that ESO was administered daily by oral
gavage to rats at the 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg bw/day dose levels for
71 and 15 days before mating in males and females, respectively, until
day 21 post-partum of F1 litters; no toxic effects were noted in
parental animals or their offspring (Ref. 1). Under the experimental
conditions, the highest tested dose of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day was found to
be the NOAEL, and no LOAEL was reported (Ref. 3).
E. Genotoxicity (OPPTS GLN 870.5000; MRID 45309502)
A bacterial reverse mutation assay using Salmonella typhimurium and
Escherichia coli was conducted on (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane with
and without activation. The study concluded that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane was not mutagenic in bacteria under the conditions of
the study.
F. Hazard Characterization
In assessing the hazard associated with (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane, its has been characterized in terms of epoxylated
soybean oil. All toxicological effects were observed at or above limit
doses (>=5,000 mg/kg/bw for acute oral toxicity and >=1,000 mg/kg/bw/
day for reproductive, developmental and chronic toxicity studies) (Ref.
3). Based upon the Agency's standard hazard assessment protocol, if
there is an incomplete data set for assessment of developmental
toxicity (studies in two species) and a one-generation reproduction
toxicity study (rather than a multi-generation reproduction study), an
uncertainty factor of 3X is retained for consideration of the
sensitivity of infants and children (Ref. 3). Moreover, there is
uncertainty regarding the structure-activity relationship between
Disparlure and ESO (16% versus 7-8% epoxide by weight, respectively)
and the lack of repeated-dose studies on both substances to adequately
support bridging from ESO data to Disparlure (at least one repeated-
dose study on both substances) for purposes of assessing the dietary
risks associated with use of the mating disruptor (Ref. 3). To account
for this, an additional 10X uncertainty factor is applied (Ref 3).
Therefore, the 1,000 mg/kg/day endpoint was divided by 1,000 for
general population risk characterizations (uncertainty factors of 10X
for interspecies extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variation, and 10X
for uncertainties regarding bridging from data on a surrogate
substance) to determine a reference dose (RfD) of 1 mg/kg/day; a
population adjusted dose (PAD) of 0.33 mg/kg/day for infants and
children is determined when the FQPA safety factor (3X) is retained
(Ref. 3).
Comparing this with the maximum estimated exposure for pesticidal
use of Disparlure, the result does not exceed the Agency's level of
concern (LOC) because the estimated exposure is less than 1% of the RfD
(Ref. 3). Based on the behavior of epoxides in the environment and
during ingestion, we conclude that toxicologically significant
[[Page 33712]]
residues will not result (refer to Unit III.; Refs. 3 and 4). Even when
the maximum potential for inadvertent residues from the non-food uses
of this pesticide are compared with the most conservative estimate of
hazard, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population from exposure to this pesticide when used according to
label instructions (Ref. 3). In the event that a food-use is requested,
the Agency would require repeated-dose studies such as a 90-day
subchronic feeding study (OPPTS 870.3100) and a prenatal developmental
toxicity study (OPPTS 870.3700) on Disparlure.
IV. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
In general, the epoxide (oxirane ring formed by an oxygen and two
carbon atoms) is the reactive group in (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane
and other epoxides, and is expected to contribute the most to
biological or toxicological activity of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane (Ref. 4; see Ref. 3). The unstable oxirane ring can
open and react with DNA, protein, or other nucleophilic substances.
This means that if (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane were to be ingested
then most likely the epoxide would react with the proteins in food
during digestion (i.e. it would be digested). As stated in the
literature (deBethizy and Hayes (Ref. 4), epoxides formed in animals
are apparently more toxic than those present in the environment because
they react with proteins and DNA in the animal's tissue (Refs. 3 and
4). If the AI were to result on food/feed commodities, the epoxide or
reactive group of that AI is more likely to break down and react with
nucleophiles and proteins that are found in food and would not be
absorbed in their active form (Refs. 3 and 4). However, even if they
are absorbed in their active form, epoxides can be detoxified in the
human body via:
1. Spontaneous decomposition,
2. Nonenzymatic reaction with glutathione,
3. Reaction with glutathione catalyzed by glutathione transferase,
4. Hydration by epoxide hydrolase, and
5. Minor mechanisms such as cytochrome P450 hydrolysis (Ref.s 3 and
4).
In general, these considerations are expected to reduce the
potential risk.
A. Dietary Exposure
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and on all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
Given the use pattern of this AI, residues of the AI on food/feed
crops as a result of unintentional spray or drift, as stated throughout
this document, is not expected. However, the Agency has determined that
even if residues of the AI were to occur on food/feed commodities, the
reactive groups of the active would not be absorbed in their active
form to cause any toxicological effects. While it is reasonable to
assume that no toxicological effects would occur given the unliklihood
of absorption and the low toxicity of the AI, the EPA has further
examined the potential for dietary exposure from unintentional spray or
drift and absorption and has estimated the potential risks (if any) to
humans, including infants and children, from the consumption of food
commodities that have been inadvertently treated with the AI. Assuming
that dietary exposure has occurred the Agency considered potential
exposure estimates for two representative scenarios including pasture
grass and apple orchards.
1. Food -- i. Apples. The Agency used apples as one representative
in conducting its food assessment since apples are a significant
commodity by a sensitive subpopulation (infants and children). For the
apple exposure analysis, the Agency obtained a kg apples/A value from
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics and used the worst-
case application rate of 60 grams (g) (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane/
Acre (A) (two applications of 30 g/A per season) for an apple orchard
(unintentional application). The maximum potential concentration of
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane was estimated to be 6 mg/AI/kg of
apples (i.e., 6 parts per million (ppm); Ref 3). This 6 ppm value is an
overestimate because its determination assumes: All the (Z)-7,8-epoxy-
2-methyloctadecane is directly applied to an apple orchard (a misuse)
and all of the AI applied will be on or in the apples (not sticking to
foliage or other inedible plant parts). (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane residues are also likely to be reduced by their
reactivity, the AI's physical/chemical properties, and washing or
processing treated apples before their consumption (Ref. 3).
Based on the amount of the AI/kg of crop it was determined that the
amount of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane consumed from treated apples
for the general population, children, and adults would be 0.005, 0.03
and 0.002 mg/A.I./kg/bw per day, respectively (Ref. 3). As noted in the
introduction to this Unit IV. Aggregate Exposures, by the time
Disparlure-treated apples are consumed, the epoxides in the AI are
likely to have broken down or reacted with nucleophiles such as
proteins in the apples and would not be absorbed in their active form
(Refs. 3 and 4).
ii. Pasture. A pasture grass exposure analysis was presented in the
applicant's petition, which was based on maximum recommended single
application rates (30 g/AI/A) and a model for estimating potential
exposure for grazing cattle (described at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/
ecorisk_ders/toera_analysis_exp.htm). The largest estimate was
determined to be 0.14 mg Disparlure/kg cattle body weight per day (Ref.
3). This estimate of the potential exposure was based on the assumption
that all the Disparlure applied to an acre of short grass would be
consumed as if the AI was intentionally applied to the pasture rather
than drifting from a nearby treated area (Ref. 3). A more realistic
assumption in the exposure analysis was that 10% or less of the pasture
grass would be impacted by spray drift, thereby reducing the exposure
estimate to 0.014 mg Disparlure/kg cattle bw/day (Ref. 3). Also,
applications in any given area would not be done more than one or two
days each year which further reduces the potential exposure to cattle.
As noted in the second paragraph of Unit IV., the metabolic pathways
that break down epoxides in animals are expected to further reduce the
potential for dietary exposure preventing detection or bioaccumulation
of Disparlure residues in cattle feeding on inadvertently treated
pasture grass. Therefore, a dietary assessment for meat, milk and meat
by-products was not conducted by the Agency (Ref 3).
2. Drinking water exposure. Exposure to residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-
2-methyloctadecane in consumed drinking water is unlikely because of
the reactivity of such epoxides in the environment (see discussion
under Unit IV. Aggregate Exposure; Refs. 3 and 4),
[[Page 33713]]
and the AI is not directly applied to water. Therefore, drinking water
exposure is not expected to pose any quantifiable risks due to a lack
of residues of toxicological concern.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
There are no residential, school, or day care uses proposed for
(Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure). Since the proposed use
is for agricultural non-food crops the potential for non-occupational,
non-dietary exposures to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane by the
general population, including infants and prolonged inhalation exposure
to non-sticking flakes in unlikely (Ref. 2).
V. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish an exemption from 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.'' These considerations include the possible
cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children. EPA has
considered the potential for cumulative effects of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane and other substances in relation to common mechanism
of toxicity. Common mechanisms of toxicity are not relevant to a
consideration of cumulative exposure to (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane because it is not toxic to mammalian systems. Because,
since Disparlure is an environmental epoxides (formed outside the body)
which are generally considered less toxic than epoxides synthesized
inside the body (Ref. 4). The reactive epoxide in Disparlure's
structure would most likely react with proteins in food during
digestion and would not be absorbed in their active form to induce
toxicological effects (Ref. 4). There are also a number of ways the
body can detoxify epoxides like Disparlure if they are absorbed in an
active form (Ref. 4). Also the acute oral toxicity study on Disparlure
indicated that the toxicity is low (Toxicity Category IV). Thus, the
Agency does not expect any cumulative or incremental effects from
exposure to residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane when applied/
used as directed on the label and in accordance with good agricultural
practices. Additionally, when comparing the most conservative estimate
of hazard to the maximum potential for inadvertent residues from the
non-food uses of Disparlure, the result does not exceed the Agency's
LOC (i.e.: Estimated exposure is less than 1% of the RfD; Ref. 3).
Margins of Exposure (MOE) based on estimated exposure and hazard (the
140 mg/kg/day NOAEL from a chronic toxicity study in rats) range from
4,600 to 65,000 (Ref. 3). When the resulting MOE is greater than 100,
the Agency's LOC is not exceeded and there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to human health (Ref. 3).
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
1. U.S. population. The Agency has determined that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. Population
from aggregated exposure to residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane. This includes all dietary exposures and other
exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has
arrived at this conclusion based on the chemicals low acute toxicity,
it is a naturally occurring lepidopteran pheromone produced by female
gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar), is similar in chemical structure to
compounds of low chronic toxicity (ESO), and has a very low potential
for human exposure. (Ref. 2).
2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold MOE for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects. Margins of exposure are often referred to as
uncertainty or safety factors, and are used to account for potential
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and any lack of completeness of the
database. Based on available data and other information, EPA may
determine that a different MOE will define a level of concern for
infants and children or that a MOE approach is not appropriate. Based
on all the available information the Agency reviewed on (Z)-7,8-epoxy-
2-methyloctadecane, including a lack of threshold effects, the Agency
concluded that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane is practically non-
toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Since there are no
effects of concern, the provision requiring an additional margin of
safety does not apply.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
There is no evidence to suggest that (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-
methyloctadecane functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or
that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.
B. Analytical Method
Because this is an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
without numerical limitations, no analytical method is required.
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no CODEX maximum residue levels for residues for (Z)-7,8-
epoxy-2-methyloctadecane for unintentional spray or drift from
application when treating trees and shrubs along or within pastures, as
well as unintentional spray and drift to non-target vegetation
including native and ornamental species, and food and feed crops.
VIII. Conclusions
Based on the low toxicity in animal testing, and the expected low
exposure to humans, no risk to human health is expected from use of the
chemical on food crops.
IX. References
1. EFSA. (2004) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives,
Flavorings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) on
a request from the Commission related to the use of Epoxidized soybean
oil in food contact materials. EFSA Journal 64: 1-17.
2. Gonzales, A. (June 27, 2007) USEPA Memorandum - Tolerance
Exemption Petition Review for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane.
3. Gardner, R. & A. Gonzales (January 8, 2008) USEPA Memorandum -
Dietary Risk Considerations Supporting a Petition for Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance for (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane.
4. de Bethizy, J.D., and J.R. Hayes. 2001. ``Metabolism:
Determinant of Toxicity'' Ch. 3 in Principles and Methods of
Toxicology, 4th Edition. A.W. Hayes, ed. Taylor & Francis.
Philadelphia, PA. pp. 123-124.
X. 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final 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).
[[Page 33714]]
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 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final 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) (Public Law 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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
XI. 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 30, 2008.
Marty Monell,
Acting Director, 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 180.1283 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1283 (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane (Disparlure);
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane on all food and feed crops
that occur when it is used to treat trees, shrubs, and pastures and
such use results in unintentional spray and drift to non-target
vegetation including non-food, food, and feed crops. This active
ingredient is also known as Disparlure.
[FR Doc. E8-13232 Filed 6-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S
