Dodine; Pesticide Tolerances, 45629-45634 [E8-17934]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
telephone number: (410) 305–2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
There are no Codex, Canadian, or
Mexican Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) for difenoconazole.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of
difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4chlorophenoxy) phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole,
in or on almond at 0.05 parts per
million (ppm), almond, hulls at 5.0
(ppm), and cantaloupe at 1.0 (ppm),
cucumber at 1.0 (ppm), and watermelon
at 1.0 (ppm). These tolerances expire
and are revoked on December 31, 2011.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) 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).
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 in accordance with
sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA,
such as the tolerances 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
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).
VIII. 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: July 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45629
2. Section 180.475 is amended by
adding text to paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
I
§ 180.475 Difenoconazole; tolerances for
residues.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
Time-limited tolerances specified in the
following table are established for
residues of the fungicide difenoconazole
in or on the specified agricultural
commodities, resulting from use of the
pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18
emergency exemptions. The tolerances
expire and are revoked on the date
specified in the table.
Parts per
million
Commodity
Almond ..............
Almond, hulls ....
Cantaloupe .......
Cucumber .........
Watermelon ......
*
*
*
0.05
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
*
Expiration/
revocation
date
12/31/11
12/31/11
12/31/11
12/31/11
12/31/11
*
[FR Doc. E8–17937 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0221; FRL–8367–5]
Dodine; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of dodine in or
on bananas and peanuts. Agriphar S.A.
c/o Ceres International LLC requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
August 6, 2008. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before October 6, 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–2007–0221. 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
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
45630
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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:
Mary L. Waller, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9354 e-mail address:
waller.mary@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
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).
• 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 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 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–2007–0221 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 October 6, 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 this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0221, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 9, 2007
(72 FR 26372) (FRL–8121–5), 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 petition (PP 7F7185) by
Agriphar S.A. c/o Ceres International
LLC, 1087 Heartsease Dr., West Chester,
PA 10382. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.172 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide dodine, ndodecylguanidine acetate, in or on
bananas at 0.50 parts per million (ppm)
and on peanuts at 0.03 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Agriphar S.A. c/o Ceres
International LLC, 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
lowered the tolerance for peanuts from
0.03 ppm to 0.013 ppm. The reason for
this change is explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of FFDCA, and the factors specified in
section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of dodine on
bananas at 0.50 ppm and on peanuts at
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
0.013 ppm. EPA’s assessment of
exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances follows.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
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.
Technical dodine has moderate
toxicity via the acute oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is a
severe eye irritant and causes severe
dermal irritation; it is not a skin
sensitizer. A definitive target organ has
not been identified for dodine. The most
common effects observed in subchronic
and chronic oral and inhalation studies
were decreases in food consumption,
body weight and/or body weight gain.
There is no evidence of neurotoxicity.
Effects from dermal exposure were
limited to dermal lesions. There is no
evidence of increased susceptibility
(quantitative or qualitative) in pups
versus adults based on rat and rabbit
developmental studies and the rat
multi-generation reproduction study. A
weight of evidence evaluation of the
carcinogenic potential of dodine was
performed, and based on the results it
was concluded that there is no evidence
of carcinogenicity after exposure to
dodine. All toxicological endpoints
chosen for risk assessment were based
on body weight effects plus, in the case
of inhalation, reduced food
consumption.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by dodine as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
Dodine: Human Health Risk Assessment
for Proposed Use Bananas and Peanuts,
pages 12 and 44 in docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2007–0221.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, a toxicological point of departure
(POD) is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as
the highest dose at which no adverse
effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the
toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment.
However, if a NOAEL cannot be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
determined, the lowest dose at which
adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose
(BMD) approach is sometimes used for
risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety
factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD 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 dietary risks by comparing
aggregate food and water exposure to
the pesticide to the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The
aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing food, water, and residential
exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by
the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded. This latter value is referred to
as the Level of Concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus,
the Agency estimates risk in terms of the
probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect greater than that expected
in a lifetime. For more information on
the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment
process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for dodine used for human
risk assessment can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
Dodine: Human Health Risk Assessment
for Proposed Use Bananas and Peanuts,
page 17 in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2007–0221.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dodine, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing dodine
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.172). EPA
assessed dietary exposures from dodine
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 1–day or single
exposure.
No such effects were identified in the
toxicological studies for dodine;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessment is unnecessary
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45631
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the food consumption data
from the USDA 1994–1996 and 1998
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed that tolerance level
residues were used for all crops. In
terms of extent of usage, percent crop
treated information was used for pome
fruit, stone fruit, strawberry, pecan and
walnut. One hundred percent crop
treated was assumed for banana and
peanut crops.
iii. Cancer. There was equivocal
evidence of carcinogenicity in a mouse
carcinogenicity study. However, based
on a weight of evidence evaluation of
the carcinogenic potential of dodine, the
Agency concluded that there is no
evidence of carcinogenicity after
exposure to dodine. Factors bearing on
this weight of the evidence
determination are described in Dodine:
Human Health Risk Assessment for
Proposed Use Bananas and Peanuts,
pages 20–21 in docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2007–0221. EPA principally
relied on the fact that the only evidence
of cancer was a finding of statistically
significant liver tumors (primarily
adenomas) in female mice at the highest
dose tested and no evidence of
genotoxicity was found. There was no
evidence of cancer in male mice or rats.
iv. Percent crop treated (PCT)
information. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of
FFDCA states that the Agency may use
data on the actual percent of food
treated for assessing chronic dietary risk
only if:
• Condition a: The data used are
reliable and provide a valid basis to
show what percentage of the food
derived from such crop is likely to
contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on
pesticide use and food consumption in
a particular area, the exposure estimate
does not understate exposure for the
population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide
for periodic evaluation of any estimates
used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as
required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of
FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to
submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as
follows:
The Agency used the following PCT
information for the currently registered
uses of dodine: 10% PCT for pears and
quinces; 5% PCT for apples, crabapples,
loquats, cherries, walnuts and pecans;
and 1% PCT for strawberries, apricots,
nectarines, peaches, and plums.
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
45632
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
In most cases, EPA uses available data
from United States Department of
Agriculture/National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
proprietary market surveys, and the
National Pesticide Use Database for the
chemical/crop combination for the most
recent 6 years. EPA uses an average PCT
for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use
is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations
in which the average PCT is less than
one. In those cases, 1% is used as the
average PCT and 2.5% is used as the
maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum
PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest
observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available
public and private market survey data
for the existing use and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three
conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv.
have been met. With respect to
Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey
data, which are reliable and have a valid
basis. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated
is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional
consumption information and
consumption information for significant
subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA’s computer-based model
for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including
several regional groups. Use of this
consumption information in EPA’s risk
assessment process ensures that EPA’s
exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant
subpopulation group and allows the
Agency to be reasonably certain that no
regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those
estimated by the Agency. Other than the
data available through national food
consumption surveys, EPA does not
have available reliable information on
the regional consumption of food to
which dodine may be applied in a
particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for dodine in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of dodine.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/
water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir
Screening Tool (FIRST), and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCIGROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of dodine
for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 4.0 parts
per billion (ppb) for surface water and
<0.08 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model. For
chronic dietary risk assessment, the
water concentration of value 4.0 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).
Dodine is not registered for any
specific use patterns that would result
in residential exposure. However, a
closely related chemical,
dodecylguanidine hydrochloride (DGH)
is used as an antimicrobial in
household, industrial, and commercial
products having residential and nonoccupational exposure potential. DGH is
used as a bacteriostat in paints and in
absorbent material in disposal diapers.
Dodine and DGH have similar chemical
compositions and properties and are
therefore considered bio-equivalents.
Residential painters may have shortterm dermal and inhalation exposure as
a result of using DGH treated paint.
Infants < 1–year old may have short-,
intermediate, and long term dermal
exposure as a result of wearing DGH
impregnated diapers. Inhalation
exposure of infants and children is
expected to be negligible. Although
small children may have short-term post
application oral exposure as a result of
accidental ingestion of paint chips
which contain DGH, the Agency does
not believe that this would occur on a
regular basis.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found dodine to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and dodine does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that dodine
does not have a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA’s efforts to
determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) 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 database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
There is no evidence (quantitative or
qualitative) of increased susceptibility
and no residual uncertainties with
regard to prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity following in utero exposure to
rats or rabbits and prenatal and/or
postnatal exposure to rats. In a rat
developmental toxicity study, decreased
body weight gain and food consumption
were observed at ≥ 45 milligrams/
kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in maternal
animals. No treatment-related effects
were observed in fetuses up to 90 mg/
kg/day. In a rabbit developmental
toxicity study, dams demonstrated
decreased food consumption at 80 mg/
kg/day; however, this finding was not
considered adverse. No treatmentrelated effects were observed in fetuses
up to 80 mg/kg/day. In a 2–generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats,
decreases in parental body weight, body
weight gain and food consumption were
noted in both generations of rats at 53
mg/kg/day. Additionally at 53 mg/kg/
day, the offspring of both generations
demonstrated decreased body weight
after postnatal day 4 which continued
through pre-mating.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
i. The toxicity database for dodine is
complete.
ii. EPA concluded that dodine is not
a neurotoxic chemical and there is no
need for a developmental neurotoxicity
study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity. Possible neurological
clinical signs (excessive salivation and
hunched posture/hypoactivity) were
observed in chronic studies in rats and
mice but were not dose-related or
statistically significant. Excessive
salivation in the chronic study in dogs
showed a treatment related dose
response. However, the effect was not
consistent with a neurological adverse
effect since it was seen prior to dosing
and was a persistent finding throughout
the study. In addition, no evidence of
neuropathology was observed in the
available studies. Therefore, it was
determined that there was no evidence
of neurotoxicity. Based on the weight of
evidence, the Agency determined that a
developmental neurotoxicity study is
not required.
iii. There is no evidence that dodine
results in increased susceptibility in in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats
in the 2–generation reproduction study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on Agency
recommended tolerance-level residues
and health-protective modeling
assumptions. Although PCT estimates
were used for crops with existing
tolerances, the use of tolerance values
for residue levels will likely
overestimate actual exposures. EPA
made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure
to dodine in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to
assess postapplication exposure of
children as well as incidental oral
exposure of toddlers. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by dodine.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic pesticide exposures are safe by
comparing aggregate exposure estimates
to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD represent the highest safe
exposures, taking into account all
appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the
aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by
all applicable UFs. For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to
ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk
assessment takes into account exposure
estimates from acute dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from
a single-oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was
selected. Therefore, dodine is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to dodine from
food and water will utilize 20% of the
cPAD for (children 1-2 years of age) the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Although dodine is not
currently registered for any use patterns
that would result in residential
exposure, DGH is currently registered
for uses that could result in long-term
residential post-application exposure
and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure to dodine through food and
water with long-term residential postapplication exposure to DGH. EPA has
concluded that the combined long-term
food, water, and dermal exposure for
infants wearing diapers containing DGH
treated material results in aggregate
MOEs as follows: 300 when using a 5%
transfer factor and 100 when using a
30% transfer factor. The Agency
believes that a transfer factor of 30% is
an overestimate of exposure in
determining the amount of DGH
transferred to infants from diapers based
on a transfer study using dodine-treated
paper exposed to extreme conditions.
Additionally, the Agency has requested
an impregnated diaper migration study
as confirmatory data.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposure takes into account short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
Although dodine is not registered for
any use patterns that would result in
residential exposure, DGH is currently
registered for uses that could result in
short- and intermediate-term residential
exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure to dodine
through food and water with short- and
intermediate-term residential exposures
to DGH.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short- and
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
45633
concluded the short- and intermediateterm combined food, water, and
residential exposures aggregated result
in aggregate MOEs of 4,500 for adult
males handling paint and 4,600 for
adult females handling paint do not
exceed the Agency’s level of concern.
EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and
dermal exposure for infants wearing
diapers containing DGH treated material
results in aggregate MOEs of 640 when
using a 5% transfer factor and 120 when
using a 30% transfer factor. For the
reasons stated in Unit III.E.2. the
Agency believes the risks do not exceed
the Agency’s level of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on its weight of the
evidence calculation, the Agency
believes that there is no cancer risk
associated with the use of dodine.
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 dodine
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology
(liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry) 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 for
dodine on bananas or peanuts.
C. Response to Comments
There was one favorable comment
from Del Monte in favor of establishing
the tolerance for use of dodine on
bananas in order to control black
sigatoka disease.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The proposed tolerance of 0.03 ppm
for residues of dodine on peanuts was
revised to 0.013 ppm because the
tolerances were proposed in terms of
dodine free base, and the Agency
recalculated the residue results in terms
of dodine using a molecular weight
conversion factor of 1.258.
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
45634
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of dodine, ndodecylguanidine acetate, in or on
bananas at 0.50 ppm and on peanuts at
0.013 ppm.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
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).
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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:49 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
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).
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).
Dated: July 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
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 180.172 is amended by
alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
I
§ 180.172
Dodine; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
*
*
*
*
Banana .....................................
*
*
*
*
Peanut ......................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
0.50
*
0.013
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–17934 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
PO 00000
Parts per
million
Commodity
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45629-45634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0221; FRL-8367-5]
Dodine; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of dodine
in or on bananas and peanuts. Agriphar S.A. c/o Ceres International LLC
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective August 6, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 6, 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-2007-0221. 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
[[Page 45630]]
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: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-9354 e-mail address: waller.mary@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).
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 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 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-2007-0221 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 October 6, 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 this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0221, 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. Petition for Tolerance
In the Federal Register of May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26372) (FRL-8121-5),
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 petition (PP 7F7185)
by Agriphar S.A. c/o Ceres International LLC, 1087 Heartsease Dr., West
Chester, PA 10382. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.172 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
dodine, n-dodecylguanidine acetate, in or on bananas at 0.50 parts per
million (ppm) and on peanuts at 0.03 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Agriphar S.A. c/o Ceres
International LLC, 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
lowered the tolerance for peanuts from 0.03 ppm to 0.013 ppm. The
reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of dodine on bananas at 0.50 ppm and on peanuts
at
[[Page 45631]]
0.013 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances 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.
Technical dodine has moderate toxicity via the acute oral, dermal
and inhalation routes of exposure. It is a severe eye irritant and
causes severe dermal irritation; it is not a skin sensitizer. A
definitive target organ has not been identified for dodine. The most
common effects observed in subchronic and chronic oral and inhalation
studies were decreases in food consumption, body weight and/or body
weight gain. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity. Effects from dermal
exposure were limited to dermal lesions. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility (quantitative or qualitative) in pups versus
adults based on rat and rabbit developmental studies and the rat multi-
generation reproduction study. A weight of evidence evaluation of the
carcinogenic potential of dodine was performed, and based on the
results it was concluded that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity
after exposure to dodine. All toxicological endpoints chosen for risk
assessment were based on body weight effects plus, in the case of
inhalation, reduced food consumption.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by dodine as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document Dodine: Human Health Risk Assessment
for Proposed Use Bananas and Peanuts, pages 12 and 44 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0221.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (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 adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD 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
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dodine used for human
risk assessment can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document
Dodine: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use Bananas and
Peanuts, page 17 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0221.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dodine, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing dodine tolerances in (40 CFR
180.172). EPA assessed dietary exposures from dodine 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 1-day or single exposure.
No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
dodine; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that
tolerance level residues were used for all crops. In terms of extent of
usage, percent crop treated information was used for pome fruit, stone
fruit, strawberry, pecan and walnut. One hundred percent crop treated
was assumed for banana and peanut crops.
iii. Cancer. There was equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in a
mouse carcinogenicity study. However, based on a weight of evidence
evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of dodine, the Agency
concluded that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity after exposure
to dodine. Factors bearing on this weight of the evidence determination
are described in Dodine: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Use
Bananas and Peanuts, pages 20-21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0221. EPA principally relied on the fact that the only evidence of
cancer was a finding of statistically significant liver tumors
(primarily adenomas) in female mice at the highest dose tested and no
evidence of genotoxicity was found. There was no evidence of cancer in
male mice or rats.
iv. Percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of
FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food
treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows:
The Agency used the following PCT information for the currently
registered uses of dodine: 10% PCT for pears and quinces; 5% PCT for
apples, crabapples, loquats, cherries, walnuts and pecans; and 1% PCT
for strawberries, apricots, nectarines, peaches, and plums.
[[Page 45632]]
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 years.
EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average
PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available
public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across
all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases,
1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA
uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT
figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent
6 years of available public and private market survey data for the
existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which dodine may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for dodine in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of dodine. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of dodine for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.0 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and <0.08 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.0 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).
Dodine is not registered for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. However, a closely related chemical,
dodecylguanidine hydrochloride (DGH) is used as an antimicrobial in
household, industrial, and commercial products having residential and
non-occupational exposure potential. DGH is used as a bacteriostat in
paints and in absorbent material in disposal diapers. Dodine and DGH
have similar chemical compositions and properties and are therefore
considered bio-equivalents.
Residential painters may have short-term dermal and inhalation
exposure as a result of using DGH treated paint. Infants < 1-year old
may have short-, intermediate, and long term dermal exposure as a
result of wearing DGH impregnated diapers. Inhalation exposure of
infants and children is expected to be negligible. Although small
children may have short-term post application oral exposure as a result
of accidental ingestion of paint chips which contain DGH, the Agency
does not believe that this would occur on a regular basis.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found dodine to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and dodine does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that dodine does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) 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 database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence
(quantitative or qualitative) of increased susceptibility and no
residual uncertainties with regard to prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits and prenatal
and/or postnatal exposure to rats. In a rat developmental toxicity
study, decreased body weight gain and food consumption were observed at
>= 45 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in maternal animals. No
treatment-related effects were observed in fetuses up to 90 mg/kg/day.
In a rabbit developmental toxicity study, dams demonstrated decreased
food consumption at 80 mg/kg/day; however, this finding was not
considered adverse. No treatment-related effects were observed in
fetuses up to 80 mg/kg/day. In a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats, decreases in parental body weight, body weight gain and
food consumption were noted in both generations of rats at 53 mg/kg/
day. Additionally at 53 mg/kg/day, the offspring of both generations
demonstrated decreased body weight after postnatal day 4 which
continued through pre-mating.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
[[Page 45633]]
i. The toxicity database for dodine is complete.
ii. EPA concluded that dodine is not a neurotoxic chemical and
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Possible neurological clinical signs
(excessive salivation and hunched posture/hypoactivity) were observed
in chronic studies in rats and mice but were not dose-related or
statistically significant. Excessive salivation in the chronic study in
dogs showed a treatment related dose response. However, the effect was
not consistent with a neurological adverse effect since it was seen
prior to dosing and was a persistent finding throughout the study. In
addition, no evidence of neuropathology was observed in the available
studies. Therefore, it was determined that there was no evidence of
neurotoxicity. Based on the weight of evidence, the Agency determined
that a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
iii. There is no evidence that dodine results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on Agency recommended tolerance-level residues and health-protective
modeling assumptions. Although PCT estimates were used for crops with
existing tolerances, the use of tolerance values for residue levels
will likely overestimate actual exposures. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to dodine in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children
as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dodine.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
dodine is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dodine from food and water will utilize 20% of the cPAD for (children
1-2 years of age) the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Although dodine is not currently registered for any use patterns that
would result in residential exposure, DGH is currently registered for
uses that could result in long-term residential post-application
exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure to dodine through food and water with long-
term residential post-application exposure to DGH. EPA has concluded
that the combined long-term food, water, and dermal exposure for
infants wearing diapers containing DGH treated material results in
aggregate MOEs as follows: 300 when using a 5% transfer factor and 100
when using a 30% transfer factor. The Agency believes that a transfer
factor of 30% is an overestimate of exposure in determining the amount
of DGH transferred to infants from diapers based on a transfer study
using dodine-treated paper exposed to extreme conditions. Additionally,
the Agency has requested an impregnated diaper migration study as
confirmatory data.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
Although dodine is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure, DGH is currently registered for uses
that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure
and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate
chronic exposure to dodine through food and water with short- and
intermediate-term residential exposures to DGH.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the short- and
intermediate-term combined food, water, and residential exposures
aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 4,500 for adult males handling
paint and 4,600 for adult females handling paint do not exceed the
Agency's level of concern. EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and dermal exposure for infants wearing
diapers containing DGH treated material results in aggregate MOEs of
640 when using a 5% transfer factor and 120 when using a 30% transfer
factor. For the reasons stated in Unit III.E.2. the Agency believes the
risks do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on its weight
of the evidence calculation, the Agency believes that there is no
cancer risk associated with the use of dodine.
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 dodine residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry) 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 for
dodine on bananas or peanuts.
C. Response to Comments
There was one favorable comment from Del Monte in favor of
establishing the tolerance for use of dodine on bananas in order to
control black sigatoka disease.
D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The proposed tolerance of 0.03 ppm for residues of dodine on
peanuts was revised to 0.013 ppm because the tolerances were proposed
in terms of dodine free base, and the Agency recalculated the residue
results in terms of dodine using a molecular weight conversion factor
of 1.258.
[[Page 45634]]
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dodine, n-
dodecylguanidine acetate, in or on bananas at 0.50 ppm and on peanuts
at 0.013 ppm.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances 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). 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).
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: July 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
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 180.172 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.172 Dodine; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Banana..................................................... 0.50
* * * * *
Peanut..................................................... 0.013
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-17934 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S