EPTC; Pesticide Tolerances, 42947-42952 [2017-19452]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this action does not apply
on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
B. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
42947
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
40 CFR Part 180
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by July 11, 2016. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0308; FRL–9965–71]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Attainment
determination, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: August 24, 2017.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
■
2. Add § 52.1343 to read as follows:
§ 52.1343
Control strategy: Sulfur Dioxide.
(a) Determination of attainment. EPA
has determined, as of September 13,
2017, that the Jefferson County 2010
SO2 nonattainment has attained the
2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS. This
determination suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress, contingency
measures, and other plan elements
related to attainment of the standards
for as long as the area continues to meet
the 2010 SO2 1-hr NAAQS.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2017–19339 Filed 9–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPTC; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of EPTC, S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate in or on grass,
forage at 0.60 ppm and grass, hay at 0.50
ppm. Gowan Company requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective
September 13, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before November 13, 2017, 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: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0308, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael L. Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
42948
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test
guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to https://
www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticidesand-toxic-substances.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, 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–2015–0308 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before November 13, 2017. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
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 (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2015–0308, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be CBI
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets.
Additional instructions on commenting
or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerances
In the Federal Register of Friday, July
17, 2015 (80 FR 42462) (FRL–9929–13),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 5F8355) by
Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma,
AZ 85366. The petition requested that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of
the herbicide EPTC, S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, in or on grass
grown for seed, forage at 0.6 parts per
million (ppm) and grass grown for seed,
hay at 0.5 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Gowan Company, the
registrant, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
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 FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 EPTC, including
exposure resulting from the tolerances
established by this action. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with EPTC 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.
On an acute exposure basis, EPTC is
highly toxic via inhalation and is
moderately toxic via the oral and dermal
routes of exposure. It is slightly
irritating to eyes and minimallyirritating to skin. It is a weak skin
sensitizer.
EPTC is an S-alkylthiocarbamate,
which consistently produced
cardiomyopathy and neuronal cell
necrosis in studies of varying length of
treatment and in different species.
Cardiotoxicity was observed in
subchronic and long-term studies, and
in general, the severity and incidence of
the lesion increased with increasing
doses of EPTC. In 90-day feeding and
inhalation studies and in two chronic
feeding/oncogenicity studies,
histopathological evaluation revealed
myocardial degeneration. Myocardial
degeneration in adult rats was also
observed in two separate two-generation
reproduction studies. In two chronic
dog studies, degenerative changes in the
cardiac muscle were observed when
EPTC was administered in a capsule,
but not when administered (at
comparable doses) in the diet. In both
dog studies, electrocardiograms were
taken, but only one high-dose male in
the capsule study had changes which
were described as ‘‘potentially’’
treatment-related.
EPTC, as well as other thiocarbamates
(molinate, cycloate, pebulate, vernolate
and butylate), have toxic effects on the
central and peripheral nervous systems.
With EPTC, there was an increased
incidence and severity of neuronal
necrosis/degeneration in both the
central and peripheral nervous systems
of rats and dogs. In the rat neurotoxicity
studies, dose-related increases in the
incidence of neuronal necrosis were
observed in the brains after acute and
subchronic exposure to EPTC. In the rat
developmental neurotoxicity study, a
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
marginal decrease in absolute (not
relative) pup brain weight (4–6%) was
observed in only one sex (male pups)
and at only one time point (PND63).
Furthermore, this marginal effect had no
dose-response, was not seen after
perfusion, and had no corresponding
necrosis. Therefore, this effect was
considered marginal at best and not
robust. In both of the combined chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity studies in the
rat and in the chronic (capsule) study in
the dog, treatment-related
neuromuscular lesions were observed.
In all of these studies, hindquarter
weakness with corresponding
histopathology findings of atrophy and
degeneration of the skeletal muscle were
observed. In the dog study, the lesions
were described as Wallerian-type
degeneration in the spinal cords and
various peripheral nerves.
EPTC is a reversible
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor.
Toxicology studies with EPTC did not
show any consistent pattern of AChEinhibition between different species,
length of treatment, or the type of AChE
enzyme measured. In some studies,
brain AChE activity was inhibited
without any effect on either plasma or
erythrocyte AChE activities. In other
studies, erythrocyte AChE was inhibited
with no inhibition of either plasma or
brain AChE. AChE-inhibition was
observed at comparable or higher doses
than where cardiac/neuronal effects
were observed.
There is no evidence of increased
susceptibility following in utero
exposure to EPTC in either the rat or
rabbit developmental toxicity study or
following in utero and/or postnatal
exposure in the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats. EPTC is
classified as ‘‘Not Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans.’’ This is based
on the lack of carcinogenic potential
noted in the available studies. There are
no concerns for mutagenicity or
clastogenicity. There is also no concern
for immunotoxicity.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by EPTC as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies scan be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
EPTC: Human Health Risk Assessment
for the Proposed Section 3 Registration
for Use on Grasses Grown for Seed
Production in docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2015–0308.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
42949
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). 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
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/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/assessinghuman-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for EPTC used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1 of this
unit.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR EPTC FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
aRfD/aPAD = 0.2
mg/kg/day.
Acute neurotoxicity rat study.
NOAEL not established in males.
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on neuronal cell necrosis in the
brain in males.
Chronic dietary (all populations
POD = 5 mg/kg/day
including infants and children). UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
cRfD/cPAD = 0.05
mg/kg/day.
Co-critical, chronic/carcinogenicity and 2-generation reproduction in rats.
Incidental oral (short- and intermediate-term).
POD = 5 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100
Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity rat study.
NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day.
LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight and
increased incidences of myocardial and neuromuscular lesions.
Dermal (short- and intermediated-term).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (all populations
LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/
including infants and children).
day.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF/UFL = 10x
POD = 5 mg/kg/day
Dermal absorption
factor= 5%.
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
LOC for MOE = 100
2-generation reproduction toxicity rat study.
Parental NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day.
Parental LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight and cardiomyopathy.
Developmental NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day.
Developmental LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on decreased
mean pup weight during lactation days 4 to 21.
Reproductive NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day.
Reproductive LOAEL >40 mg/kg/day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
42950
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR EPTC FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Inhalation (short- and intermediated-term).
Point of departure
and uncertainty/
safety factors
BMDL10 = 5.05 mg/
m3 mg/kg/day.
UFA = 3x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
RfD, PAD, LOC for
risk assessment
Study and toxicological effects
LOC for MOE = 30 ..
90-day inhalation toxicity study in rats.
BMD10 = 10.84 mg/m3 based on brain cholinesterase inhibition
in males.
Residential bystander HEC = 2.288 mg/m3
Occupational Handler HEC = 9.609 mg/m3;
HED = 0.91 mg/kg/day
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation).
Classified as ‘‘Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.’’ based on the lack of carcinogenic potential noted in
the available studies.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day =
milligram per kilogram per day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a =
acute, c = chronic). POD = point of departure. RfD = reference dose (a = acute, c = chronic). UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from
animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a
LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. HEC = human equivalent concentration. HED = human equivalent dose.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to EPTC, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing EPTC
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.117. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from EPTC
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. Such effects were identified
for EPTC. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2003–2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We
Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA
incorporated tolerance-level residues
(adjusted for metabolites at 15X, to
estimate the concentration of residues of
toxicological concern), 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) for all commodities, and
default processing factors for all
processed commodities except for
potato granules (1.4X) and for sugar
beets (4X).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure assessment
EPA used the same food consumption
data and food residue level information
as described above for acute dietary
exposure.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data
summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that EPTC does not pose a
cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for EPTC. Tolerance-level residues and
100 PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water.
The Agency used screening-level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for EPTC in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of EPTC.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-scienceand-assessing-pesticide-risks/aboutwater-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
Based on the Tier II Surface Water
Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM–GW) model, the highest
estimated drinking water concentration
(EDWC) of EPTC for acute exposure is
estimated to be 378 parts per billion
(ppb) from ground water. For chronic
exposure, the highest EDWC is
estimated to be 335 ppb from ground
water. These EDWCs were directly
entered into the dietary exposure
models for both acute and chronic
dietary risk assessments to assess the
contribution from 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets). EPTC is
not registered for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential
exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’ Although
thiocarbamates share some chemical
and toxicological characteristics, the
toxicological database does not support
a testable hypothesis for a common
mechanism of action. Therefore, for the
purposes of this tolerance action EPA
has assumed that EPTC 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 Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-andassessing-pesticide-risks/cumulativeassessment-risk-pesticides.
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
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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.
As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no
qualitative or quantitative evidence of
increased susceptibility to developing
fetuses following in utero exposure to
EPTC in the rabbit and rat
developmental toxicity studies, or to
offspring in the rat two-generation
reproduction toxicity study. Although
there was evidence of increased
qualitative and quantitative
susceptibility of offspring observed in
the rat developmental neurotoxicity
study. The effect on a marginal
decreased absolute brain weight was
observed only in male pups at one timepoint on postnatal day 63. This effect
was considered marginal and not robust
since it had no dose-response, was not
seen after perfusion, and had no
corresponding necrosis. Therefore, there
is low concern for susceptibility.
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 for assessing
chronic dietary exposure but retained at
10X for assessing acute dietary exposure
to account for extrapolating a NOAEL
from a LOAEL. That decision is based
on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for EPTC is
complete and adequate to assess
potential risk to infants and children.
ii. There is indication that EPTC has
toxic effects on the central and
peripheral nervous systems. Neuronal
necrosis and degeneration were
observed in both the central and
peripheral nervous systems of rats and
dogs after acute and subchronic
exposure. Treatment-related
neuromuscular lesions were also
observed in chronic rat and dog studies.
In all of these studies hindquarter
weakness was noted, and at necropsy
evaluation atrophy and degeneration of
the skeletal muscle was observed. In the
dog study, the lesions were described as
Wallerian-type degeneration in the
spinal cords and various peripheral
nerves. AChE inhibition was also seen
in a number of toxicology studies;
however, no consistent pattern was
witnessed across studies with respect to
AChE inhibition between different
species, length of treatment, or the type
of AChE enzyme measured. All studies
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
provide clear NOAELs and LOAELs,
except the acute neurotoxicity study,
and because the Agency is relying on
that study for selection of the acute
dietary exposure endpoint, EPA is
retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor to
account from the extrapolation from the
LOAEL to the NOAEL.
iii. There is no evidence that EPTC
results in increased susceptibility in in
utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats
in the two-generation reproduction
study. Evidence of increased
susceptibility to offspring was observed
in the developmental neurotoxicity
study; however, this effect was
considered marginal and not robust.
Therefore, there is low concern for the
susceptibility.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed based on 100 PCT and
tolerance-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to EPTC in
drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by EPTC.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure
assumptions discussed in this unit for
acute exposure, the acute dietary
exposure from food and water to EPTC
will occupy 46% of the aPAD for
children between 1–2 years old, the
population subgroup receiving the
greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to EPTC from
food and water will utilize 65% of the
cPAD for children between 1–2 years
old, the population subgroup receiving
the greatest exposure. There are no
residential uses for EPTC.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risks.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate
exposures takes into account short-term
(1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42951
to 6 months) residential exposure plus
chronic exposure from food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level). Short- and
intermediate-term adverse effects were
identified; however, EPTC is not
registered for any use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
Because there is no residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has
already been assessed under the
appropriately protective PADs (which is
at least as protective as the PODs used
to assess short- and intermediate-term
risks), no further assessment of shortand intermediate-term risks are
necessary, and EPA relies on the
chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risks for EPTC.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two
adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies,
EPTC is not expected to pose a cancer
risk to humans.
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 EPTC
residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An adequate gas chromatography with
micro coulometric (GLC/MC) detection
method (RR–50) listed under Method A
in the Pesticide Analytical Manual
(PAM Volume II, Section 180.117; is
available for enforcing tolerances of
EPTC per se in plant commodities. For
the determination of hydroxylated
metabolites (free or conjugated) of EPTC
in or on plant commodities, an adequate
gas chromatography with nitrogenphosphorus detection (GC/NPD)
enforcement method (Method RR–96–
089B) is also available.
These methods may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755–
5350; telephone number: (410) 305–
2905; email address: residuemethods@
epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
42952
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established any MRLs for EPTC.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For
Tolerances
The Agency is establishing tolerances
for the forage and hay forms of ‘‘grass’’
rather than ‘‘grass grown for seed’’ as
requested to conform with its food and
feed commodity vocabulary. Also, the
Agency is establishing the tolerance
levels to conform with its policy of
significant figures.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established
for residues of EPTC, S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on
grass, forage at 0.60 ppm and grass, hay
at 0.50.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes tolerances
under FFDCA section 408(d) 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 action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:59 Sep 12, 2017
Jkt 241001
April 23, 1997). This action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 action 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 FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this action
does not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action 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: August 16, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.117, add alphabetically the
commodities to the table in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.117 S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate;
tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
Grass, forage ........................
Grass, hay ............................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.60
0.50
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–19452 Filed 9–12–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42947-42952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308; FRL-9965-71]
EPTC; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of EPTC,
S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate in or on grass, forage at 0.60 ppm and
grass, hay at 0.50 ppm. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective September 13, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 13, 2017,
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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document
[[Page 42948]]
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, 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-2015-0308 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 13, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerances
In the Federal Register of Friday, July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42462)
(FRL-9929-13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 5F8355) by Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366.
The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide EPTC, S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, in or on grass grown for seed, forage at 0.6
parts per million (ppm) and grass grown for seed, hay at 0.5 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan
Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
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 FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for EPTC, including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with EPTC 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.
On an acute exposure basis, EPTC is highly toxic via inhalation and
is moderately toxic via the oral and dermal routes of exposure. It is
slightly irritating to eyes and minimally-irritating to skin. It is a
weak skin sensitizer.
EPTC is an S-alkylthiocarbamate, which consistently produced
cardiomyopathy and neuronal cell necrosis in studies of varying length
of treatment and in different species. Cardiotoxicity was observed in
subchronic and long-term studies, and in general, the severity and
incidence of the lesion increased with increasing doses of EPTC. In 90-
day feeding and inhalation studies and in two chronic feeding/
oncogenicity studies, histopathological evaluation revealed myocardial
degeneration. Myocardial degeneration in adult rats was also observed
in two separate two-generation reproduction studies. In two chronic dog
studies, degenerative changes in the cardiac muscle were observed when
EPTC was administered in a capsule, but not when administered (at
comparable doses) in the diet. In both dog studies, electrocardiograms
were taken, but only one high-dose male in the capsule study had
changes which were described as ``potentially'' treatment-related.
EPTC, as well as other thiocarbamates (molinate, cycloate,
pebulate, vernolate and butylate), have toxic effects on the central
and peripheral nervous systems. With EPTC, there was an increased
incidence and severity of neuronal necrosis/degeneration in both the
central and peripheral nervous systems of rats and dogs. In the rat
neurotoxicity studies, dose-related increases in the incidence of
neuronal necrosis were observed in the brains after acute and
subchronic exposure to EPTC. In the rat developmental neurotoxicity
study, a
[[Page 42949]]
marginal decrease in absolute (not relative) pup brain weight (4-6%)
was observed in only one sex (male pups) and at only one time point
(PND63). Furthermore, this marginal effect had no dose-response, was
not seen after perfusion, and had no corresponding necrosis. Therefore,
this effect was considered marginal at best and not robust. In both of
the combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies in the rat and in
the chronic (capsule) study in the dog, treatment-related neuromuscular
lesions were observed. In all of these studies, hindquarter weakness
with corresponding histopathology findings of atrophy and degeneration
of the skeletal muscle were observed. In the dog study, the lesions
were described as Wallerian-type degeneration in the spinal cords and
various peripheral nerves.
EPTC is a reversible acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitor.
Toxicology studies with EPTC did not show any consistent pattern of
AChE-inhibition between different species, length of treatment, or the
type of AChE enzyme measured. In some studies, brain AChE activity was
inhibited without any effect on either plasma or erythrocyte AChE
activities. In other studies, erythrocyte AChE was inhibited with no
inhibition of either plasma or brain AChE. AChE-inhibition was observed
at comparable or higher doses than where cardiac/neuronal effects were
observed.
There is no evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero
exposure to EPTC in either the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity
study or following in utero and/or postnatal exposure in the 2-
generation reproduction study in rats. EPTC is classified as ``Not
Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.'' This is based on the lack of
carcinogenic potential noted in the available studies. There are no
concerns for mutagenicity or clastogenicity. There is also no concern
for immunotoxicity.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by EPTC as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies scan be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document EPTC: Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Proposed Section 3 Registration for Use on Grasses Grown for Seed
Production in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0308.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). 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 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/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for EPTC used for human
risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for EPTC for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure
Exposure/scenario and uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Study and toxicological effects
safety factors risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (all populations LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/ aRfD/aPAD = 0.2 mg/ Acute neurotoxicity rat study.
including infants and children). day. kg/day. NOAEL not established in males.
UFA = 10x........... LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day based on
UFH = 10x........... neuronal cell necrosis in the
FQPA SF/UFL = 10x... brain in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations POD = 5 mg/kg/day... cRfD/cPAD = 0.05 mg/ Co-critical, chronic/
including infants and children). UFA = 10x........... kg/day. carcinogenicity and 2-generation
UFH = 10x........... reproduction in rats.
FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral (short- and POD = 5 mg/kg/day... LOC for MOE = 100.. Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity
intermediate-term). UFA = 10x........... rat study.
UFH = 10x........... NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day.
FQPA SF = 1x........ LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day based on
decreased body weight and
increased incidences of
myocardial and neuromuscular
lesions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal (short- and intermediated- POD = 5 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100.. 2-generation reproduction toxicity
term). Dermal absorption rat study.
factor= 5%. Parental NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day.
UFA = 10x........... Parental LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
UFH = 10x........... based on decreased body weight
FQPA SF = 1x........ and cardiomyopathy.
Developmental NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/
day.
Developmental LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
based on decreased mean pup
weight during lactation days 4 to
21.
Reproductive NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day.
Reproductive LOAEL >40 mg/kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 42950]]
Inhalation (short- and BMDL10 = 5.05 mg/ LOC for MOE = 30... 90-day inhalation toxicity study
intermediated-term). m\3\ mg/kg/day. in rats.
UFA = 3x............ BMD = 10.84 mg/m based on brain
UFH = 10x........... cholinesterase inhibition in
FQPA SF = 1x........ males.
-------------------------------------------
Residential bystander HEC = 2.288 mg/m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Handler HEC = 9.609 mg/m\3\;
HED = 0.91 mg/kg/day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.'' based on the lack
of carcinogenic potential noted in the available studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram per kilogram per day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-
effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). POD = point of departure. RfD =
reference dose (a = acute, c = chronic). UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human
(interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. HEC = human equivalent concentration. HED = human equivalent
dose.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to EPTC, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing EPTC tolerances in 40 CFR 180.117.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from EPTC 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. Such effects were identified
for EPTC. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA incorporated tolerance-level residues (adjusted for
metabolites at 15X, to estimate the concentration of residues of
toxicological concern), 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all
commodities, and default processing factors for all processed
commodities except for potato granules (1.4X) and for sugar beets (4X).
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the same food consumption data and food residue
level information as described above for acute dietary exposure.
iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that EPTC does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for EPTC. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water.
The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the
dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for EPTC in drinking
water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical,
chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of EPTC. Further
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide
exposure assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
Based on the Tier II Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC)
and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM-GW) model, the highest
estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of EPTC for acute
exposure is estimated to be 378 parts per billion (ppb) from ground
water. For chronic exposure, the highest EDWC is estimated to be 335
ppb from ground water. These EDWCs were directly entered into the
dietary exposure models for both acute and chronic dietary risk
assessments to assess the contribution from 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). EPTC is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Although thiocarbamates
share some chemical and toxicological characteristics, the
toxicological database does not support a testable hypothesis for a
common mechanism of action. Therefore, for the purposes of this
tolerance action EPA has assumed that EPTC 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 Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
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
[[Page 42951]]
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. As discussed in Unit III.A.,
there was no qualitative or quantitative evidence of increased
susceptibility to developing fetuses following in utero exposure to
EPTC in the rabbit and rat developmental toxicity studies, or to
offspring in the rat two-generation reproduction toxicity study.
Although there was evidence of increased qualitative and quantitative
susceptibility of offspring observed in the rat developmental
neurotoxicity study. The effect on a marginal decreased absolute brain
weight was observed only in male pups at one time-point on postnatal
day 63. This effect was considered marginal and not robust since it had
no dose-response, was not seen after perfusion, and had no
corresponding necrosis. Therefore, there is low concern for
susceptibility.
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 for assessing chronic dietary exposure but
retained at 10X for assessing acute dietary exposure to account for
extrapolating a NOAEL from a LOAEL. That decision is based on the
following findings:
i. The toxicity database for EPTC is complete and adequate to
assess potential risk to infants and children.
ii. There is indication that EPTC has toxic effects on the central
and peripheral nervous systems. Neuronal necrosis and degeneration were
observed in both the central and peripheral nervous systems of rats and
dogs after acute and subchronic exposure. Treatment-related
neuromuscular lesions were also observed in chronic rat and dog
studies. In all of these studies hindquarter weakness was noted, and at
necropsy evaluation atrophy and degeneration of the skeletal muscle was
observed. In the dog study, the lesions were described as Wallerian-
type degeneration in the spinal cords and various peripheral nerves.
AChE inhibition was also seen in a number of toxicology studies;
however, no consistent pattern was witnessed across studies with
respect to AChE inhibition between different species, length of
treatment, or the type of AChE enzyme measured. All studies provide
clear NOAELs and LOAELs, except the acute neurotoxicity study, and
because the Agency is relying on that study for selection of the acute
dietary exposure endpoint, EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor
to account from the extrapolation from the LOAEL to the NOAEL.
iii. There is no evidence that EPTC results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study. Evidence of increased susceptibility to offspring
was observed in the developmental neurotoxicity study; however, this
effect was considered marginal and not robust. Therefore, there is low
concern for the susceptibility.
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to EPTC in drinking water. These assessments will
not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by EPTC.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to EPTC will occupy 46% of the aPAD for children between 1-2 years old,
the population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
EPTC from food and water will utilize 65% of the cPAD for children
between 1-2 years old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for EPTC.
3. Short- and intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures takes into account short-term (1 to 30 days) and
intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) residential exposure plus chronic
exposure from food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified;
however, EPTC is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in residential exposure. Because there is no residential exposure and
chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective PADs (which is at least as protective as the
PODs used to assess short- and intermediate-term risks), no further
assessment of short- and intermediate-term risks are necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and
intermediate-term risks for EPTC.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, EPTC is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
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 EPTC residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An adequate gas chromatography with micro coulometric (GLC/MC)
detection method (RR-50) listed under Method A in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM Volume II, Section 180.117; is available for
enforcing tolerances of EPTC per se in plant commodities. For the
determination of hydroxylated metabolites (free or conjugated) of EPTC
in or on plant commodities, an adequate gas chromatography with
nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) enforcement method (Method RR-
96-089B) is also available.
These methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
[[Page 42952]]
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an
international food safety standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the
Codex level. The Codex has not established any MRLs for EPTC.
C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances
The Agency is establishing tolerances for the forage and hay forms
of ``grass'' rather than ``grass grown for seed'' as requested to
conform with its food and feed commodity vocabulary. Also, the Agency
is establishing the tolerance levels to conform with its policy of
significant figures.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of EPTC, S-ethyl
dipropylthiocarbamate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on grass, forage at 0.60 ppm and grass, hay at 0.50.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action 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: August 16, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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. In Sec. 180.117, add alphabetically the commodities to the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.117 S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Grass, forage........................................... 0.60
Grass, hay.............................................. 0.50
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-19452 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P