[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 94 (Friday, May 15, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26986-26992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300640; FRL-5784-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
Tebufenozide; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of tebufenozide in or on peppers (bell and non-bell) . This
action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under
section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
authorizing use of the pesticide on peppers (bell and non-bell). This
regulation establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of
tebufenozide in this food commodity pursuant to section 408(l)(6) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance will expire and is
revoked on September 30, 1999.
DATES: This regulation is effective May 15, 1998. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received by EPA on or before July 14,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [OPP-300640], must be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to:
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees),
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk identified by the docket
control number, [OPP-300640], must also be submitted to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket control
number [OPP-300640]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should
be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Andrew Ertman, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9367, e-mail:
ertman.andrew@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on its own initiative, pursuant to
section 408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide tebufenozide, in or on peppers (bell and
non-bell) at 0.5 part per million (ppm). This tolerance will expire and
is revoked on September 30, 1999. EPA will publish a document in the
Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerance from the Code of
Federal Regulations.
I. Background and Statutory Authority
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170)
was signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA amends both the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. The FQPA amendments went into effect immediately. Among other
things, FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA pesticide tolerance-setting
activities under a new section 408 with a new safety standard and new
procedures. These activities are described below and discussed in
greater detail in the final rule establishing the time-limited
tolerance associated with the emergency exemption for use of
propiconazole on sorghum published in the Federal Register of November
13, 1996 (61 FR 58135) (FRL-5572-9).
New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) 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)
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. . . .''
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions
[[Page 26987]]
exist which require such exemption.'' This provision was not amended by
FQPA. EPA has established regulations governing such emergency
exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment.
Because decisions on section 18-related tolerances must proceed
before EPA reaches closure on several policy issues relating to
interpretation and implementation of the FQPA, EPA does not intend for
its actions on such tolerance to set binding precedents for the
application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions.
II. Emergency Exemption for Tebufenozide on Peppers (Bell and Non-
bell) and FFDCA Tolerances
The applicant indicates that emergency conditions exist because
beet armyworm (BAW) populations have demonstrated resistance to
registered insecticides. The survival rate of the pest has been furhter
compounded by a mild winter and unusually dry, hot weather which has
increased. Naturally occurring epizootics require cool, wet conditions
to have their greatest impact on this pest. The applicant also notes
that there are unusually large numbers of BAW and damage due to BAW in
peppers could result in a 50% yield loss without the use of an
effective pesticide. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of tebufenozide on peppers (bell and non-bell) for control of beet
armyworm in Texas. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs
that emergency conditions exist for this State.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed
the potential risks presented by residues of tebufenozide in or on
peppers (bell and non-bell). In doing so, EPA considered the new safety
standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the
new safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need
to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an
urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is
safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and
opportunity for public comment under section 408(e), as provided in
section 408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked
on September 30, 1999, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on peppers (bell and non-bell) after that date will not
be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was
lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was
authorized by this tolerance at the time of that application. EPA will
take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any experience with,
scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide
indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions
EPA has not made any decisions about whether tebufenozide meets EPA's
registration requirements for use on peppers (bell and non-bell) or
whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under
these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this tolerance serves as
a basis for registration of tebufenozide by a State for special local
needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as the
basis for any State other than Texas to use this pesticide on this crop
under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of section
18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for tebufenozide, contact the
Agency's Registration Division at the address provided above.
III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides based primarily on toxicological studies using
laboratory animals. These studies address many adverse health effects,
including (but not limited to) reproductive effects, developmental
toxicity, toxicity to the nervous system, and carcinogenicity. Second,
EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through the diet (e.g., food and
drinking water) and through exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings.
A. Toxicity
1. Threshold and non-threshold effects. For many animal studies, a
dose response relationship can be determined, which provides a dose
that causes adverse effects (threshold effects) and doses causing no
observed effects (the ``no-observed effect level'' or ``NOEL'').
Once a study has been evaluated and the observed effects have been
determined to be threshold effects, EPA generally divides the NOEL from
the study with the lowest NOEL by an uncertainty factor (usually 100 or
more) to determine the Reference Dose (RfD). The RfD is a level at or
below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose
appreciable risks to human health. An uncertainty factor (sometimes
called a ``safety factor'') of 100 is commonly used since it is assumed
that people may be up to 10 times more sensitive to pesticides than the
test animals, and that one person or subgroup of the population (such
as infants and children) could be up to 10 times more sensitive to a
pesticide than another. In addition, EPA assesses the potential risks
to infants and children based on the weight of the evidence of the
toxicology studies and determines whether an additional uncertainty
factor is warranted. Thus, an aggregate daily exposure to a pesticide
residue at or below the RfD (expressed as 100% or less of the RfD) is
generally considered acceptable by EPA. EPA generally uses the RfD to
evaluate the chronic risks posed by pesticide exposure. For shorter
term risks, EPA calculates a margin of exposure (MOE) by dividing the
estimated human exposure into the NOEL from the appropriate animal
study. Commonly, EPA finds MOEs lower than 100 to be unacceptable. This
100-fold MOE is based on the same rationale as the 100-fold uncertainty
factor.
Lifetime feeding studies in two species of laboratory animals are
conducted to screen pesticides for cancer effects. When evidence of
increased cancer is noted in these studies, the Agency conducts a
weight of the evidence review of all relevant toxicological data
including short-term and mutagenicity studies and structure activity
relationship. Once a pesticide has been classified as a potential human
carcinogen, different types of risk assessments (e.g., linear low dose
extrapolations or MOE calculation based on the appropriate NOEL) will
be carried out based on the nature of the carcinogenic response and the
Agency's knowledge of its mode of action.
2. Differences in toxic effect due to exposure duration. The
toxicological effects of a pesticide can vary with different exposure
durations. EPA considers the entire toxicity data base, and based on
the effects seen for different durations and routes of exposure,
determines which risk assessments should be done to assure
[[Page 26988]]
that the public is adequately protected from any pesticide exposure
scenario. Both short and long durations of exposure are always
considered. Typically, risk assessments include ``acute'', ``short-
term'', ``intermediate term'', and ``chronic'' risks. These assessments
are defined by the Agency as follows.
Acute risk, by the Agency's definition, results from 1-day
consumption of food and water, and reflects toxicity which could be
expressed following a single oral exposure to the pesticide residues.
High end exposure to food and water residues are typically assumed.
Short-term risk results from exposure to the pesticide for a period
of 1-7 days, and therefore overlaps with the acute risk assessment.
Historically, this risk assessment was intended to address primarily
dermal and inhalation exposure which could result, for example, from
residential pesticide applications. However, since enaction of FQPA,
this assessment has been expanded to include both dietary and non-
dietary sources of exposure, and will typically consider exposure from
food, water, and residential uses when reliable data are available. In
this assessment, risks from average food and water exposure, and high-
end residential exposure, are aggregated. High-end exposures from all
three sources are not typically added because of the very low
probability of this occurring in most cases, and because the other
conservative assumptions built into the assessment assure adequate
protection of public health. However, for cases in which high-end
exposure can reasonably be expected from multiple sources (e.g.
frequent and widespread homeowner use in a specific geographical area),
multiple high-end risks will be aggregated and presented as part of the
comprehensive risk assessment/characterization. Since the toxicological
endpoint considered in this assessment reflects exposure over a period
of at least 7 days, an additional degree of conservatism is built into
the assessment; i.e., the risk assessment nominally covers 1-7 days
exposure, and the toxicological endpoint/NOEL is selected to be
adequate for at least 7 days of exposure. (Toxicity results at lower
levels when the dosing duration is increased.)
Intermediate-term risk results from exposure for 7 days to several
months. This assessment is handled in a manner similar to the short-
term risk assessment.
Chronic risk assessment describes risk which could result from
several months to a lifetime of exposure. For this assessment, risks
are aggregated considering average exposure from all sources for
representative population subgroups including infants and children.
B. Aggregate Exposure
In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 requires that
EPA take into account available and reliable information concerning
exposure from the pesticide residue in the food in question, residues
in other foods for which there are tolerances, residues in groundwater
or surface water that is consumed as drinking water, and other non-
occupational exposures through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses). Dietary exposure to
residues of a pesticide in a food commodity are estimated by
multiplying the average daily consumption of the food forms of that
commodity by the tolerance level or the anticipated pesticide residue
level. The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) is an
estimate of the level of residues consumed daily if each food item
contained pesticide residues equal to the tolerance. In evaluating food
exposures, EPA takes into account varying consumption patterns of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.The
TMRC is a ``worst case'' estimate since it is based on the assumptions
that food contains pesticide residues at the tolerance level and that
100% of the crop is treated by pesticides that have established
tolerances. If the TMRC exceeds the RfD or poses a lifetime cancer risk
that is greater than approximately one in a million, EPA attempts to
derive a more accurate exposure estimate for the pesticide by
evaluating additional types of information (anticipated residue data
and/or percent of crop treated data) which show, generally, that
pesticide residues in most foods when they are eaten are well below
established tolerances.
Percent of crop treated estimates are derived from federal and
private market survey data. Typically, a range of estimates are
supplied and the upper end of this range is assumed for the exposure
assessment. By using this upper end estimate of percent of crop
treated, the Agency is reasonably certain that exposure is not
understated for any significant subpopulation group. Further, regional
consumption information is taken into account through EPA's computer-
based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations
including several regional groups, to pesticide residues. For this
pesticide, the most highly exposed population subgroup (non-nursing
infants (<1 year="" old))="" was="" not="" regionally="" based.="" iv.="" aggregate="" risk="" assessment="" and="" determination="" of="" safety="" consistent="" with="" 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="" tebufenozide="" and="" to="" make="" a="" determination="" on="" aggregate="" exposure,="" consistent="" with="" section="" 408(b)(2),="" for="" a="" time-limited="" tolerance="" for="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" on="" peppers="" (bell="" and="" non-bell)="" at="" 0.5="" ppm.="" epa's="" assessment="" of="" the="" dietary="" exposures="" and="" risks="" associated="" with="" establishing="" the="" tolerance="" follows.="" a.="" toxicological="" profile="" epa="" has="" evaluated="" the="" available="" toxicity="" data="" and="" considered="" its="" validity,="" completeness,="" and="" reliability="" as="" well="" as="" the="" relationship="" of="" the="" results="" of="" the="" studies="" to="" human="" risk.="" epa="" has="" also="" considered="" available="" information="" concerning="" the="" variability="" of="" the="" sensitivities="" of="" major="" identifiable="" subgroups="" of="" consumers,="" including="" infants="" and="" children.="" the="" nature="" of="" the="" toxic="" effects="" caused="" by="" tebufenozide="" are="" discussed="" below.="" 1.="" acute="" toxicity.="" no="" acute="" dietary="" risk="" endpoint="" was="" identified="" by="" the="" agency,="" therefore="" this="" risk="" assessment="" is="" not="" required.="" 2.="" short="" -="" and="" intermediate="" -="" term="" toxicity--="" i.="" short-term.="" noel="1,000" milligrams/kilogram/day="" (mg/kg/day).="" concerning="" short-term="" dermal="" toxicity,="" the="" agency="" noted="" that="" in="" a="" 21-day="" dermal="" toxicity="" study="" in="" rats="" there="" was="" no="" systemic="" toxicity="" observed="" at="" 1,000="" mg/kg/day,="" the="" highest="" dose="" tested="" (hdt).="" this="" risk="" assessment="" is="" not="" required.="" ii.="" intermediate-term.="" the="" agency="" did="" not="" identify="" an="" intermediate-="" term="" toxicology="" endpoint.="" additionally,="" because="" there="" is="" no="" intermediate="" exposure="" scenario="" with="" this="" section="" 18="" request,="" an="" intermediate-term="" risk="" assessment="" is="" not="" required.="" 3.="" chronic="" toxicity.="" epa="" has="" established="" the="" rfd="" for="" tebufenozide="" at="" 0.018="" mg/kg/day.="" this="" rfd="" is="" based="" on="" a="" 1-year="" feeding="" study="" in="" dogs="" with="" a="" noel="" of="" 1.8="" mg/kg/day.="" an="" uncertainty="" factor="" of="" 100="" was="" used="" to="" account="" for="" both="" the="" interspecies="" extrapolation="" and="" intraspecies="" variability.="" the="" lowest-effect-level="" (lel)="" of="" 8.7="" mg/kg/day="" was="" based="" on="" hematopoietic="" findings="" (decreased="" red="" blood="" cells,="" hematocrit,="" hemoglobin="" levels,="" and="" increased="" heinz="" bodies,="" mcv,="" mch,="" reticulocytes,="" and="" platelets).="" [[page="" 26989]]="" 4.="" carcinogenicity.="" tebufenozide="" has="" been="" classified="" as="" a="" group="" e,="" ``no="" evidence="" of="" carcinogenicity="" for="" humans,''="" chemical="" by="" the="" agency.="" b.="" exposures="" and="" risks="" 1.="" from="" food="" and="" feed="" uses.="" tolerances="" have="" been="" established="" (40="" cfr="" 180.482)="" for="" the="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide,="" in="" or="" on="" a="" variety="" of="" raw="" agricultural="" commodities.="" a="" permanent="" tolerance="" has="" been="" established="" for="" the="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" in/on="" walnuts="" at="" 0.1="" ppm.="" a="" permanent="" tolerance="" at="" 1.0="" ppm="" has="" also="" previously="" been="" established="" for="" imported="" apples.="" time="" limited="" tolerances="" have="" been="" established="" on="" apples="" and="" on="" associated="" animal="" commodities,="" cottonseed="" at="" 0.2="" ppm,="" leafy="" vegetables="" (except="" brassica)="" at="" 5.0="" ppm,="" brassica="" (cole)="" leafy="" vegetables="" at="" 5.0="" ppm,="" sugar="" beets="" at="" 0.3="" ppm,="" sugarcane="" at="" 0.03="" ppm,="" and="" turnip="" tops="" at="" 5.0="" ppm.="" a="" time="" limited="" tolerance="" for="" peppers="" (bell="" and="" non-bell)="" had="" been="" established="" at="" 0.5="" ppm,="" however="" this="" tolerance="" expired="" on="" february="" 28,="" 1998.="" risk="" assessments="" were="" conducted="" by="" epa="" to="" assess="" dietary="" exposures="" and="" risks="" from="" tebufenozide="" as="" follows:="" i.="" acute="" exposure="" and="" risk.="" acute="" dietary="" risk="" assessments="" are="" performed="" for="" a="" food-use="" pesticide="" if="" a="" toxicological="" study="" has="" indicated="" the="" possibility="" of="" an="" effect="" of="" concern="" occurring="" as="" a="" result="" of="" a="" one="" day="" or="" single="" exposure.="" since="" an="" acute="" dietary="" endpoint="" has="" not="" been="" identified="" in="" the="" toxicology="" database,="" an="" assessment="" of="" acute="" dietary="" risk="" was="" not="" conducted="" for="" this="" section="" 18="" request.="" ii.="" chronic="" exposure="" and="" risk.="" in="" conducting="" this="" exposure="" assessment,="" epa="" has="" made="" very="" conservative="" assumptions="" --="" 100%="" of="" sugarcane="" and="" all="" other="" commodities="" having="" tebufenozide="" tolerances="" will="" contain="" tebufenozide="" residues="" and="" those="" residues="" would="" be="" at="" the="" level="" of="" the="" tolerance="" --="" which="" result="" in="" an="" overestimate="" of="" human="" dietary="" exposure.="" thus,="" in="" making="" a="" safety="" determination="" for="" this="" tolerance,="" epa="" is="" taking="" into="" account="" this="" conservative="" exposure="" assessment.="" the="" existing="" tebufenozide="" tolerances="" (published,="" pending,="" and="" including="" the="" necessary="" section="" 18="" tolerances)="" result="" in="" a="" theoretical="" maximum="" residue="" contribution="" (tmrc)="" that="" is="" equivalent="" to="" the="" following="" percentages="" of="" the="" rfd:="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" population="" subgroup="" tmrc="" food="" (mg/kg/day)="" %rfd="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" u.s.="" population="" -="" 48="" states........................="" 0.005516="" 31%="" nursing="" infants=""><1 year="" old)......................="" 0.007384="" 41%="" non-nursing="" infants=""><1 year="" old)..................="" 0.014348="" 80%="" children="" (1-6="" years="" old)...........................="" 0.010646="" 59%="" children="" (7-12="" years="" old)..........................="" 0.007595="" 42%="" non-hispanic="" blacks................................="" 0.006063="" 34%="" non-hispanic="" others................................="" 0.007358="" 41%="" western="" region.....................................="" 0.006033="" 34%="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" the="" subgroups="" listed="" above="" are:="" (a)="" the="" u.s.="" population="" (48="" states);="" (b)="" those="" for="" infants="" and="" children;="" and,="" (c)="" the="" other="" subgroups="" for="" which="" the="" percentage="" of="" the="" rfd="" occupied="" is="" greater="" than="" that="" occupied="" by="" the="" subgroup="" u.s.="" population="" (48="" states).="" for="" chronic="" dietary="" risk="" to="" tebufenozide,="" the="" population="" subgroup="" with="" the="" largest="" percentage="" of="" the="" rfd="" occupied="" is="" non-nursing="" infants=""><1 year="" old)="" at="" 80%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" 2.="" from="" drinking="" water.="" submitted="" environmental="" fate="" studies="" suggest="" that="" tebufenozide="" is="" moderately="" persistent="" to="" persistent="" and="" mobile;="" thus,="" tebufenozide="" could="" potentially="" leach="" to="" ground="" water="" and="" runoff="" to="" surface="" water="" under="" certain="" environmental="" conditions.="" there="" is="" no="" established="" maximum="" contaminant="" level="" (mcl)="" for="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" in="" drinking="" water.="" no="" drinking="" water="" health="" advisories="" have="" been="" issued="" for="" tebufenozide.="" there="" is="" no="" entry="" for="" tebufenozide="" in="" the="" ``pesticides="" in="" groundwater="" database''="" (epa="" 734-12-92-001,="" september="" 1992).="" chronic="" exposure="" and="" risk.="" because="" the="" agency="" lacks="" sufficient="" water-related="" exposure="" data="" to="" complete="" a="" comprehensive="" drinking="" water="" risk="" assessment="" for="" many="" pesticides,="" epa="" has="" commenced="" and="" nearly="" completed="" a="" process="" to="" identify="" a="" reasonable="" yet="" conservative="" bounding="" figure="" for="" the="" potential="" contribution="" of="" water-related="" exposure="" to="" the="" aggregate="" risk="" posed="" by="" a="" pesticide.="" in="" developing="" the="" bounding="" figure,="" epa="" estimated="" residue="" levels="" in="" water="" for="" a="" number="" of="" specific="" pesticides="" using="" various="" data="" sources.="" the="" agency="" then="" applied="" the="" estimated="" residue="" levels,="" in="" conjunction="" with="" appropriate="" toxicological="" endpoints="" (rfd's="" or="" acute="" dietary="" noel's)="" and="" assumptions="" about="" body="" weight="" and="" consumption,="" to="" calculate,="" for="" each="" pesticide,="" the="" increment="" of="" aggregate="" risk="" contributed="" by="" consumption="" of="" contaminated="" water.="" while="" epa="" has="" not="" yet="" pinpointed="" the="" appropriate="" bounding="" figure="" for="" exposure="" from="" contaminated="" water,="" the="" ranges="" the="" agency="" is="" continuing="" to="" examine="" are="" all="" below="" the="" level="" that="" would="" cause="" tebufenozide="" to="" exceed="" the="" rfd="" if="" the="" tolerance="" being="" considered="" in="" this="" document="" were="" granted.="" the="" agency="" has="" therefore="" concluded="" that="" the="" potential="" exposures="" associated="" with="" tebufenozide="" in="" water,="" even="" at="" the="" higher="" levels="" the="" agency="" is="" considering="" as="" a="" conservative="" upper="" bound,="" would="" not="" prevent="" the="" agency="" from="" determining="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" of="" no="" harm="" if="" the="" tolerance="" is="" granted.="" 3.="" from="" non-dietary="" exposure.="" tebufenozide="" is="" not="" currently="" registered="" for="" any="" indoor="" or="" outdoor="" residential="" uses;="" therefore,="" no="" non-dietary="" residential="" exposure="" is="" anticipated.="" 4.="" cumulative="" exposure="" to="" substances="" with="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity.="" section="" 408(b)(2)(d)(v)="" 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.''="" the="" agency="" believes="" that="" ``available="" information''="" in="" this="" context="" might="" include="" not="" only="" toxicity,="" chemistry,="" and="" exposure="" data,="" but="" also="" scientific="" policies="" and="" methodologies="" for="" understanding="" common="" mechanisms="" of="" toxicity="" and="" conducting="" cumulative="" risk="" assessments.="" for="" most="" pesticides,="" although="" the="" agency="" has="" some="" information="" in="" its="" files="" that="" may="" turn="" out="" to="" be="" helpful="" in="" eventually="" determining="" whether="" a="" pesticide="" shares="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" any="" other="" substances,="" epa="" does="" not="" at="" this="" time="" have="" the="" methodologies="" to="" resolve="" the="" complex="" scientific="" issues="" concerning="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" in="" a="" meaningful="" way.="" epa="" has="" begun="" a="" pilot="" process="" to="" study="" this="" issue="" further="" through="" the="" examination="" of="" particular="" classes="" of="" pesticides.="" the="" agency="" hopes="" that="" the="" results="" of="" this="" pilot="" process="" will="" increase="" the="" agency's="" scientific="" understanding="" of="" this="" question="" such="" that="" epa="" will="" be="" able="" to="" develop="" and="" apply="" scientific="" principles="" for="" better="" [[page="" 26990]]="" determining="" which="" chemicals="" have="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" and="" evaluating="" the="" cumulative="" effects="" of="" such="" chemicals.="" the="" agency="" anticipates,="" however,="" that="" even="" as="" its="" understanding="" of="" the="" science="" of="" common="" mechanisms="" increases,="" decisions="" on="" specific="" classes="" of="" chemicals="" will="" be="" heavily="" dependent="" on="" chemical="" specific="" data,="" much="" of="" which="" may="" not="" be="" presently="" available.="" although="" at="" present="" the="" agency="" does="" not="" know="" how="" to="" apply="" the="" information="" in="" its="" files="" concerning="" common="" mechanism="" issues="" to="" most="" risk="" assessments,="" there="" are="" pesticides="" as="" to="" which="" the="" common="" mechanism="" issues="" can="" be="" resolved.="" these="" pesticides="" include="" pesticides="" that="" are="" toxicologically="" dissimilar="" to="" existing="" chemical="" substances="" (in="" which="" case="" the="" agency="" can="" conclude="" that="" it="" is="" unlikely="" that="" a="" pesticide="" shares="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" activity="" with="" other="" substances)="" and="" pesticides="" that="" produce="" a="" common="" toxic="" metabolite="" (in="" which="" case="" common="" mechanism="" of="" activity="" will="" be="" assumed).="" epa="" does="" not="" have,="" at="" this="" time,="" available="" data="" to="" determine="" whether="" tebufenozide="" has="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" other="" substances="" or="" how="" to="" include="" this="" pesticide="" in="" a="" cumulative="" risk="" assessment.="" unlike="" other="" pesticides="" for="" which="" epa="" has="" followed="" a="" cumulative="" risk="" approach="" based="" on="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity,="" tebufenozide="" does="" not="" appear="" to="" produce="" a="" toxic="" metabolite="" produced="" by="" other="" substances.="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" this="" tolerance="" action,="" therefore,="" epa="" has="" not="" assumed="" that="" tebufenozide="" has="" a="" common="" mechanism="" of="" toxicity="" with="" other="" substances.="" c.="" aggregate="" risks="" and="" determination="" of="" safety="" for="" u.s.="" population="" 1.="" acute="" risk.="" since="" no="" acute="" endpoint="" was="" identified="" for="" tebufenozide,="" no="" acute="" risk="" assessment="" is="" required.="" 2.="" chronic="" risk.="" using="" the="" conservative="" exposure="" assumptions="" described="" above,="" and="" taking="" into="" account="" the="" completeness="" and="" reliability="" of="" the="" toxicity="" data,="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" dietary="" (food="" only)="" exposure="" to="" tebufenozide="" will="" utilize="" 31%="" of="" the="" rfd="" for="" the="" u.s.="" population.="" the="" agency="" generally="" has="" no="" concern="" for="" exposures="" below="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd="" because="" the="" rfd="" represents="" the="" level="" at="" or="" below="" which="" daily="" aggregate="" dietary="" exposure="" over="" a="" lifetime="" will="" not="" pose="" appreciable="" risks="" to="" human="" health.="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" tebufenozide="" in="" drinking="" water,="" epa="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" (food="" and="" water)="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" since="" there="" are="" no="" non-dietary="" non-occupational="" exposure="" scenarios="" for="" tebufenozide,="" there="" are="" no="" additional="" exposure="" from="" those="" routes.="" the="" agency="" concludes="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" that="" no="" harm="" will="" result="" from="" aggregate="" chronic="" exposure="" to="" tebufenozide="" residues.="" 3.="" short-="" and="" intermediate-term="" risk.="" since="" there="" were="" no="" toxicity="" endpoints="" identified="" by="" the="" agency="" for="" tebufenozide="" and="" no="" indoor/="" outdoor="" residential="" uses,="" no="" short-="" or="" intermediate-term="" risk="" assessment="" was="" required.="" d.="" aggregate="" cancer="" risk="" for="" u.s.="" population="" since="" tebufenozide="" has="" been="" classified="" as="" a="" group="" e="" chemical,="" ``no="" evidence="" of="" carcinogenicity="" for="" humans,''="" no="" cancer="" risk="" assessment="" was="" required.="" e.="" aggregate="" risks="" and="" determination="" of="" safety="" for="" infants="" and="" children="" 1.="" safety="" factor="" for="" infants="" and="" children--="" i.="" in="" general.="" in="" assessing="" the="" potential="" for="" additional="" sensitivity="" of="" infants="" and="" children="" to="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide,="" epa="" considered="" data="" from="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies="" in="" the="" rat="" and="" rabbit="" and="" a="" two-="" generation="" reproduction="" study="" in="" the="" rat.="" the="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies="" are="" designed="" to="" evaluate="" adverse="" effects="" on="" the="" developing="" organism="" resulting="" from="" maternal="" pesticide="" exposure="" during="" gestation.="" reproduction="" studies="" provide="" information="" relating="" to="" effects="" from="" exposure="" to="" the="" pesticide="" on="" the="" reproductive="" capability="" of="" mating="" animals="" and="" data="" on="" systemic="" toxicity.="" ffdca="" section="" 408="" provides="" that="" epa="" shall="" apply="" an="" additional="" tenfold="" margin="" of="" safety="" for="" infants="" and="" children="" in="" the="" case="" of="" threshold="" effects="" to="" account="" for="" pre-and="" post-natal="" toxicity="" and="" the="" completeness="" of="" the="" database="" unless="" epa="" determines="" that="" a="" different="" margin="" of="" safety="" will="" be="" safe="" for="" infants="" and="" children.="" margins="" of="" safety="" are="" incorporated="" into="" epa="" risk="" assessments="" either="" directly="" through="" use="" of="" a="" moe="" analysis="" or="" through="" using="" uncertainty="" (safety)="" factors="" in="" calculating="" a="" dose="" level="" that="" poses="" no="" appreciable="" risk="" to="" humans.="" epa="" believes="" that="" reliable="" data="" support="" using="" the="" standard="" moe="" and="" uncertainty="" factor="" (usually="" 100="" for="" combined="" inter-="" and="" intra-="" species="" variability)="" and="" not="" the="" additional="" tenfold="" moe/uncertainty="" factor="" when="" epa="" has="" a="" complete="" data="" base="" under="" existing="" guidelines="" and="" when="" the="" severity="" of="" the="" effect="" in="" infants="" or="" children="" or="" the="" potency="" or="" unusual="" toxic="" properties="" of="" a="" compound="" do="" not="" raise="" concerns="" regarding="" the="" adequacy="" of="" the="" standard="" moe/safety="" factor.="" ii.="" developmental="" toxicity="" studies--="" a.="" rats.="" in="" a="" developmental="" toxicity="" study="" in="" rats,="" the="" maternal="" (systemic)="" noel="" was="" 250="" mg/kg/day.="" the="" loel="" was="" 1,000="" mg/kg/day,="" based="" on="" decreased="" body="" weight="" and="" food="" consumption.="" the="" developmental="" (pup)="" noel="" was=""> 1,000 mg/kg/day (HDT).
b. Rabbits. In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, the
maternal and developmental NOELs were >1,000 mg/kg/day (HDT).
iii. Reproductive toxicity study-- Rats. In a multigeneration
reproductive toxicity study in rats, the parental (systemic) NOEL was
0.85 mg/kg/day. Splenic pigmentation changes and extramedullary
hematopoiesis occurred at the LOEL of 12.1 mg/kg/day (Female, Male;
F0, F1). In addition to these effects, decreased
body weight gain and food consumption occurred at 171.1 mg/kg/day. The
reproductive (pup) NOEL was 125 mg/kg/day. The reproductive LOEL of
171.1 mg/kg/day, based on a slight increase in the number of pregnant
females that either did not deliver or had difficulty and had to be
sacrificed (F1). Additionally at the LOEL, in F1
dams, the length of gestation increased and implantation sites
decreased significantly. Finally, the number of pups per litter
decreased on Lactation Day (LD) 4 to 90% of the controls for the
F1 and on LD's 0 and 4 to 80% for the second generation.
iv. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity-- a. Pre-natal sensitivity. The
developmental NOELs of >1,000 mg/kg/day (HDT) from the developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits demonstrate that there is no
developmental (prenatal) toxicity present for tebufenozide.
Additionally, these developmental NOELs are greater than 500-fold
higher than the NOEL of 1.8 mg/kg/day from the 1-year feeding study in
dogs which was the basis of the RfD.
b. Post-natal sensitivity. In the reproductive toxicity study in
rats, the reproductive NOEL (12.1 mg/kg/day) is 14-fold higher than the
parental NOEL (0.85 mg/kg/day) and indicates that post-natal toxicity
in the reproductive studies occurs only in the presence of significant
parental toxicity. These developmental and reproductive studies
indicate that tebufenozide does not have additional post-natal
sensitivity for infants and children in comparison to other exposed
groups.
2. Acute risk. Since no acute endpoint was identified for
tebufenozide, no acute risk assessment is required.
3. Chronic risk. Using the conservative exposure assumptions
described above, HED has concluded that the percentage of the RfD that
will be utilized by dietary (food only) exposure to residues of
tebufenozide ranges from 41% for nursing infants (< 1="" year="" old)="" up="" to="" 80%="" for="" non-nursing="" [[page="" 26991]]="" infants="">< 1="" year="" old).="" despite="" the="" potential="" for="" exposure="" to="" tebufenozide="" in="" drinking="" water,="" hed="" does="" not="" expect="" the="" aggregate="" exposure="" (food="" and="" water)="" to="" exceed="" 100%="" of="" the="" rfd.="" taking="" into="" account="" the="" completeness="" and="" reliability="" of="" the="" toxicity="" data="" and="" the="" conservative="" exposure="" assessment,="" hed="" concludes="" that="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" certainty="" that="" no="" harm="" will="" result="" to="" infants="" and="" children="" from="" aggregate="" exposure="" to="" tebufenozide="" residues.="" v.="" other="" considerations="" a.="" metabolism="" in="" plants="" the="" metabolism="" of="" tebufenozide="" in/on="" plants="" is="" adequately="" understood.="" the="" residue="" of="" concern="" is="" the="" parent="" compound,="" tebufenozide="" per="" se,="" as="" specified="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 180.482.="" b.="" analytical="" enforcement="" methodology="" the="" rohm="" and="" haas="" analytical="" method="" tr="" 34-93-119="" (hplc/uv),="" should="" be="" adequate="" to="" determine="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" per="" se="" in/on="" peppers.="" c.="" magnitude="" of="" residues="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" per="" se="" are="" not="" expected="" to="" exceed="" 0.5="" ppm="" in="" or="" on="" peppers="" as="" a="" result="" of="" this="" section="" 18="" use.="" d.="" international="" residue="" limits="" there="" are="" currently="" no="" codex,="" canadian,="" or="" mexican="" listings="" for="" tebufenozide="" residues,="" therefore="" there="" are="" no="" harmonization="" issues="" for="" this="" action.="" vi.="" conclusion="" therefore,="" the="" tolerance="" is="" established="" for="" residues="" of="" tebufenozide="" in="" peppers="" (bell="" and="" non-bell)="" at="" 0.5="" ppm.="" vii.="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests="" the="" new="" ffdca="" section="" 408(g)="" provides="" essentially="" the="" same="" process="" for="" persons="" to="" ``object''="" to="" a="" tolerance="" regulation="" issued="" by="" epa="" under="" new="" section="" 408(e)="" and="" (l)(6)="" as="" was="" provided="" in="" the="" old="" section="" 408="" and="" in="" section="" 409.="" however,="" the="" period="" for="" filing="" objections="" is="" 60="" days,="" rather="" than="" 30="" days.="" epa="" currently="" has="" procedural="" regulations="" which="" govern="" the="" submission="" of="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests.="" these="" regulations="" will="" require="" some="" modification="" to="" reflect="" the="" new="" law.="" however,="" until="" those="" modifications="" can="" be="" made,="" epa="" will="" continue="" to="" use="" those="" procedural="" regulations="" with="" appropriate="" adjustments="" to="" reflect="" the="" new="" law.="" any="" person="" may,="" by="" july="" 14,="" 1998,="" file="" written="" objections="" to="" any="" aspect="" of="" this="" regulation="" and="" may="" also="" request="" a="" hearing="" on="" those="" objections.="" objections="" and="" hearing="" requests="" must="" be="" filed="" with="" the="" hearing="" clerk,="" at="" the="" address="" given="" above="" (40="" cfr="" 178.20).="" a="" copy="" of="" the="" objections="" and/or="" hearing="" requests="" filed="" with="" the="" hearing="" clerk="" should="" be="" submitted="" to="" the="" opp="" docket="" for="" this="" rulemaking.="" the="" objections="" submitted="" must="" specify="" the="" provisions="" of="" the="" regulation="" deemed="" objectionable="" and="" the="" grounds="" for="" the="" objections="" (40="" cfr="" 178.25).="" each="" objection="" must="" be="" accompanied="" by="" the="" fee="" prescribed="" by="" 40="" cfr="" 180.33(i).="" if="" a="" hearing="" is="" requested,="" the="" objections="" must="" include="" a="" statement="" of="" the="" factual="" issues="" on="" which="" a="" hearing="" is="" requested,="" the="" requestor's="" contentions="" on="" such="" issues,="" and="" a="" summary="" of="" any="" evidence="" relied="" upon="" by="" the="" requestor="" (40="" cfr="" 178.27).="" a="" request="" for="" a="" hearing="" will="" be="" granted="" if="" the="" administrator="" determines="" that="" the="" material="" submitted="" shows="" the="" following:="" there="" is="" genuine="" and="" substantial="" issue="" of="" fact;="" there="" is="" a="" reasonable="" possibility="" that="" available="" evidence="" identified="" by="" the="" requestor="" would,="" if="" established,="" resolve="" one="" or="" more="" of="" such="" issues="" in="" favor="" of="" the="" requestor,="" taking="" into="" account="" uncontested="" claims="" or="" facts="" to="" the="" contrary;="" and="" resolution="" of="" the="" factual="" issues="" in="" the="" manner="" sought="" by="" the="" requestor="" would="" be="" adequate="" to="" justify="" the="" action="" requested="" (40="" cfr="" 178.32).="" information="" submitted="" in="" connection="" with="" an="" objection="" or="" hearing="" request="" may="" be="" claimed="" confidential="" by="" marking="" any="" part="" or="" all="" of="" that="" information="" as="" cbi.="" information="" so="" marked="" will="" not="" be="" disclosed="" except="" in="" accordance="" with="" procedures="" set="" forth="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 2.="" a="" copy="" of="" the="" information="" that="" does="" not="" contain="" cbi="" must="" be="" submitted="" for="" inclusion="" in="" the="" public="" record.="" information="" not="" marked="" confidential="" may="" be="" disclosed="" publicly="" by="" epa="" without="" prior="" notice.="" viii.="" public="" docket="" epa="" has="" established="" a="" record="" for="" this="" rulemaking="" under="" docket="" control="" number="" [opp-300640]="" (including="" any="" comments="" and="" data="" submitted="" electronically).="" a="" public="" version="" of="" this="" record,="" including="" printed,="" paper="" versions="" of="" electronic="" comments,="" which="" does="" not="" include="" any="" information="" claimed="" as="" cbi,="" is="" available="" for="" inspection="" from="" 8:30="" a.m.="" to="" 4="" p.m.,="" monday="" through="" friday,="" excluding="" legal="" holidays.="" the="" public="" record="" is="" located="" in="" rm.="" 119="" of="" the="" public="" information="" and="" records="" integrity="" branch,="" information="" resources="" and="" services="" division="" (7502c),="" office="" of="" pesticide="" programs,="" environmental="" protection="" agency,="" crystal="" mall="" #2,="" 1921="" jefferson="" davis="" highway,="" arlington,="" va.="" electronic="" comments="" may="" be="" sent="" directly="" to="" epa="" at:="">opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section
408(l)(6). 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). This
final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require any prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or
special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
or require OMB review in accordance with Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
In addition, since these tolerances and exemptions that are
established under FFDCA section 408 (l)(6), 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. Nevertheless, the Agency has previously assessed
whether establishing tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising
tolerance levels or expanding exemptions might adversely impact small
entities and concluded, as a generic matter, that
[[Page 26992]]
there is no adverse economic impact. The factual basis for the Agency's
generic certification for tolerance acations published on May 4, 1981
(46 FR 24950), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
X. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Agency has submitted 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 General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in
today's Federal Register. This is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 5, 1998.
James Jones,
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. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.482, in paragraph (b) by revising the entry for
``Peppers'' in the table to read as follows:
Sec. 180.482 Tebufenozide; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiration/
Commodity Parts per million revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
* *
Peppers......................... 0.5 9/30/99
* * * * *
* *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-12718 Filed 5-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
