94-15925. Pesticides; Proposed Rule Revoking Certain Food Additive Regulations  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-15925]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 1, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    40 CFR PART 185
    
    [OPP-300335; FRL-4770-3]
    RIN 2070-AC18
    
     
    
    Pesticides; Proposed Rule Revoking Certain Food Additive 
    Regulations
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke certain food additive regulations 
    for several pesticides which EPA has determined ``induce cancer'' 
    within the meaning of the Delaney Clause of section 409 of the Federal 
    Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The food additive regulations 
    being proposed for revocation include captan, ethylene oxide, mancozeb, 
    oxyfluorfen, propargite, propylene oxide, and simazine. As a result of 
    a 1992 court decision regarding the Delaney Clause, EPA recently 
    revoked food additive regulations for four pesticides found to ``induce 
    cancer'' that were subject to the litigation. This proposal continues a 
    series of actions revoking food additive regulations for additional 
    pesticides found to ``induce cancer'' within the meaning of the Delaney 
    Clause.
    
    DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number, 
    [OPP-300335], must be received on or before September 29, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments to: Public Response Section, Field 
    Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
    Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
    In person, bring comments to: OPP Docket, Public Information Branch, 
    Field Operations Division, Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson 
    Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The telephone number for the OPP docket is 
    (703)-305-5805.
        Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be 
    claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as 
    ``Confidential Business Information'' (or CBI). Information so marked 
    will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
    40 CFR part 2 and in section 10 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 
    and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). For questions related to disclosure of 
    materials, contact the OPP Docket at the telephone number given above. 
    A copy of the comment 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. All written comments 
    will be available for public inspection in the OPP Docket, Rm. 1132 at 
    the Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through 
    Friday, excluding legal holidays.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Niloufar Nazmi, Special 
    Review and Reregistration Division (7508W), Environmental Protection 
    Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and 
    telephone number: Crystal Station #1, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, 
    VA. Telephone 703-308-8028.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Introduction
    
    A. Statutory Background
    
        The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 301 et 
    seq.) authorizes the establishment of maximum permissible levels of 
    pesticides in foods, which are referred to as ``tolerances'' (21 U.S.C. 
    346(a), 348). Without such a tolerance or an exemption from a 
    tolerance, a food containing a pesticide residue is ``adulterated'' 
    under section 402 of the FFDCA and may not be legally moved in 
    interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). Monitoring and enforcement of 
    pesticide residues are carried out by the U.S. Food and Drug 
    Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture 
    (USDA).
        The FFDCA governs tolerances for raw agricultural commodities 
    (RACs) and processed foods separately. For pesticide residues in or on 
    RAC's, EPA establishes tolerances, or exemptions from tolerances when 
    appropriate, under section 408 of the FFDCA. In processed foods, food 
    additive regulations setting maximum permissible levels of pesticide 
    residues are established under section 409 of the FFDCA. Section 409 
    tolerances are required, however, only for certain pesticide residues 
    in processed food. Under section 402(a)(2) of the FFDCA, no section 409 
    tolerance is required if the pesticide residue in a processed food, 
    when ready to eat, is equal to or below the tolerance for that 
    pesticide in or on the RAC from which it was derived. This exemption in 
    section 402(a)(2) is commonly referred to as the ``flow-through'' 
    provision because it allows the section 408 raw food tolerance to flow 
    through to the processed food form. Thus, a section 409 tolerance is 
    only necessary to prevent foods from being deemed adulterated when the 
    concentration of the pesticide residue in a processed food is greater 
    than the tolerance prescribed for the raw agricultural commodity, or if 
    the processed food itself is treated or comes in contact with a 
    pesticide.
        If a food additive regulation must be established, section 409 of 
    the FFDCA requires that the use of the pesticide will be ``safe'' (21 
    U.S.C. 348(c)(3)). Relevant factors in this safety determination 
    include: (1) the probable consumption of the pesticide or its 
    metabolites; (2) the cumulative effect of the pesticide in the diet of 
    man or animals, taking into account any related substances in the diet; 
    and (3) appropriate safety factors to relate the animal data to the 
    human risk evaluation. Section 409 also contains the Delaney Clause, 
    which specifically provides that ``no additive shall be deemed safe if 
    it has been found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation 
    of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer when ingested by man 
    or animal.'' (21 U.S.C.348(c)(3)).
    
    B. Regulatory Background
    
        On May 25, 1989, the State of California, the Natural Resources 
    Defense Council, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and several individuals 
    filed a petition requesting that EPA revoke several food additive 
    regulations and challenging EPA's de minimis interpretation of the 
    Delaney Clause. The petition, which sought a ``zero-risk'' 
    interpretation of the Delaney Clause, requested that EPA revoke certain 
    food additive regulations. The petitioners argued that these food 
    additive regulations should be revoked because they are carcinogens and 
    therefore violate the Delaney Clause.
        EPA responded to the petition by revoking certain food additive 
    regulations, but retained several others on the grounds that the 
    Delaney Clause provides an exception for pesticide residues posing de 
    minimis risk, and EPA denied the petition for the food additive 
    regulations determined to fall under this exception.
        EPA's response was challenged by the petitioners in the U.S. Court 
    of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. On July 8, 1992, the court ruled in Les v. 
    Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361 (1993), 
    that the Delaney Clause barred the establishment of a food additive 
    regulation for pesticides which ``induce cancer'' no matter how 
    infinitesimal the risk.
        On July 14, 1993, EPA issued a revised response to the petition 
    taking into account the court's ruling. That revised response granted 
    the original petition and revoked the food additive regulations named 
    in the petition. Published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
    Register, EPA is issuing an Order denying all objections to the 
    revocation. Although the court's ruling dealt only with the pesticides 
    named in the lawsuit, EPA is proceeding with the revocation of other 
    food additive regulations for pesticides which EPA has determined 
    ``induce cancer.''
        In implementing the court's decision in Les v. Reilly, EPA has 
    taken steps to identify and revoke all section 409 tolerances for 
    pesticides which have been found to ``induce cancer.'' In February 
    1993, EPA issued two lists of pesticide uses which would likely be 
    affected by the court's decision. The first list contains affected food 
    and feed additive regulations, and the second identifies pesticide uses 
    where data show a food or feed additive regulation must be established, 
    but cannot because the pesticide has been found to ``induce cancer.'' 
    Both lists are updated regularly to reflect changes in data reviews and 
    other regulatory actions.
    
    II. Proposed Revocation of the Subject Section 409 Tolerances Which 
    are Inconsistent with the Delance Clause
    
        EPA intends to revoke all food and feed additive regulations which 
    it finds are inconsistent with the Delaney Clause. To ensure an orderly 
    revocation, EPA will proceed in a phased manner. This document proposes 
    revocation of food additive regulations established for pesticides 
    classified as a Group ``B'' (probable human) carcinogens and those 
    Group ``C'' (possible human) carcinogens quantified by a linear low-
    dose extrapolation model and found to ``induce cancer'' within the 
    meaning of the Delaney Clause. In the near future, EPA will be 
    proposing revocations of other section 409 tolerances affected by the 
    court's ruling.
    
    A. Basis for Proposing Revocation
    
        As a result of the court's 1992 decision, the only issue to be 
    considered for these proposed revocations is whether, under the Delaney 
    Clause, a pesticide chemical induces cancer in man or animals. If EPA 
    makes this determination, the Delaney Clause prohibits the food 
    additive regulation.
        In construing the ``induce cancer'' standard as to animals, EPA 
    follows a weight- of-the-evidence approach, which is guided, where 
    appropriate, by the principles in EPA's Cancer Assessment Guidelines. 
    As regards animal carcinogenicity, EPA, in general, agrees with FDA's 
    explanation of the term ``induce cancer'':
    The carcinogenicity of a substance in animals is established when 
    administration in adequately designed and conducted studies results 
    in an increase in the incidence of one or more types of malignant 
    (or, where appropriate, a combination of benign and malignant) 
    neoplasms in treated animals compared to untreated animals 
    maintained under identical conditions except for exposure to the 
    test compound. Determination that the incidence of neoplasms 
    increases as the result of exposure to the test compound requires a 
    full biological, pathological, and statistical evaluation. 
    Statistics assist in evaluating the biological conclusion, but a 
    biological conclusion is not determined by the statistical results.
    
    (52 FR 49577, Dec. 31, 1987). Each of the pesticides subject to this 
    proposal qualifies as an animal carcinogen under this test.
        Summarized below is the information supporting EPA's determination. 
    EPA has determined that each of these pesticides ``induces cancer'' in 
    animals within the meaning of the Delaney Clause. Full copies of each 
    of these reviews, as well as other references in this section, are 
    available in the OPP Docket, the location of which is given under 
    ``ADDRESSES'' above in this document.
    
    Captan
    
        Based on several rodent studies, EPA has concluded that exposure to 
    captan results in an increased incidence of malignant tumors of the 
    small intestines in mice. The carcinogenic potential of captan is 
    supported by the increased incidence of other tumor types found outside 
    of historical control range. The direct-acting genotoxicity and 
    reactivity of captan support EPA's finding that captan ``induces 
    cancer'' within the meaning of the Delaney Clause.
        Three mouse studies demonstrated positive carcinogenic results. In 
    one study, captan was fed to CD-1 male and female mice. Initial dosing 
    of 0, 2,000, 6,000 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm) was administered, 
    but was increased after 4 weeks to 0, 6,000, 10,000 and 16,000 ppm. 
    Marked increases in adenomas and carcinomas of the small intestine were 
    found by pair-wise comparison between all dose groups and controls. A 
    positive dose-related trend for carcinomas, the malignant component of 
    the induced tumors, was found in both sexes. While the highest dose 
    tested (HDT) appears excessive, it does not diminish the biological 
    significance of the tumors which were seen at lower doses and which 
    continued to increase at the HDT. In another 2-year study, B6C3F1 mice 
    were fed 0, 6,000, and 16,000 ppm of captan for 80 weeks. At the HDT, 
    the combined incidence of adenomas/polyps and carcinomas was increased 
    by pairwise comparison with control animals in male mice; no compound-
    related increase in tumors occurred in female mice. A special study was 
    performed in CD-1 mice (at 0 or 600 ppm for 3, 6, 9, 12, or 18 to 20 
    months) to examine the relationship between the hyperplastic and 
    neoplastic epithelial lesions produced by captan in the small 
    intestine. The fact that a significant increase in tumors was seen 
    during the recovery period following captan administration supports the 
    decision that, although intestinal hyperplasia may regress after 
    removal of captan, the potential for progression to benign and 
    malignant neoplasia remains.
        In a 2-year male and female CR CD rat study at 0, 500, 2,000, or 
    5,000 ppm, a dose-related trend for combined renal tubular cell 
    adenomas/carcinomas was found for male rats. The combined incidence of 
    tumors induced by captan exceeded the testing laboratory's historical 
    control range. In another study, male and female Wistar Cpb : WU rats 
    were fed captan at 0, 125, 500 or 2,000 ppm for 30 months. The 
    incidence of uterine sarcomas was increased by pair-wise comparison to 
    the HDT with control animals in female rats, but no compound-related 
    increase in tumors was observed in male rats.
        A range of studies demonstrate that captan is a genotoxic agent. It 
    is positive in almost all in vitro studies for gene mutations, 
    structural chromosomal aberrations, and induction of DNA repair.
        The direct acting genotoxicity and reactivity of captan would 
    suggest a likely mechanism for carcinogenicity. Structural analogues 
    closely related to captan are also carcinogenic and induce cancer at 
    similar sites as captan (small intestine and renal cells). Based on 
    these results, EPA has determined that captan induces cancer in 
    animals. Additional information is included in the December 5, 1988 HED 
    Peer Review document.
    
    Ethylene Oxide (EtO)
    
        Based on several rodent studies, EPA has concluded that exposure to 
    EtO results in the induction of benign and malignant tumors in multiple 
    sites in both sexes of test animals. The carcinogenicity of EtO is 
    supported by its DNA reactivity, genotoxic properties, and structural 
    relation to other carcinogenic compounds. Two studies administered by 
    the inhalation route to Fischer 344 rats demonstrate positive 
    carcinogenic results. In the first 2-year bioassay administered as 0, 
    10, 33, or 100 ppm EtO vapor, six types of carcinogenic responses were 
    considered treatment related. There were statistically significant 
    increases in mononuclear cell leukemia (spleen) in females at the HDT 
    and tumors of the pancreas (males at the HDT), skin (males at the HDT), 
    and brain (both sexes at the HDT and also in males at the middle dose). 
    There were also treatment-related increases in the peritoneal 
    mesothelioma (males in all treatment groups) and pituitary gland 
    adenomas (males at the highest two doses). In a second 2-year study 
    using male Fischer 344 rats at 0, 50, or 100 ppm EtO vapor, there were 
    dose-related increases in the incidences of peritoneal mesotheliomas 
    and brain tumors, which were statistically significant at the HDT. A 
    significantly increased incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia was seen 
    at the low dose; the absence of a dose-related effect was attributed to 
    mortality at the HDT. Although both rat tests were disrupted by non-
    treatment related infections, these infections do not appear to have 
    affected the tumor induction described above.
        Carcinogenic effects were also induced during tests when B6C3F1 
    mice were exposed by inhalation to EtO (at 0, 50 or 100 ppm EtO vapor). 
    The incidences of alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas, carcinomas, and 
    combined adenomas/carcinomas in the HDT for each sex (except for 
    adenomas in male mice) were significantly greater than in control mice. 
    There were also significant positive trends in lung tumors in each sex. 
    Malignant lymphomas of the hematopoietic system occurred with a 
    positive trend in female mice with the incidence at the HDT higher than 
    in controls. The incidence of mammary gland adenocarcinomas or 
    adenosqamous carcinomas (combined) in low-dose females was greater than 
    that in controls. The incidence of hepatocellular adenomas in low dose 
    females was also greater than that in controls.
        In addition to the inhalation studies, there is a gavage study 
    which showed forestomach tumors (primarily squamous cell carcinomas) 
    and a subcutaneous study in mice which showed tumors at the site of 
    injection. Other studies show induction of gene mutations in bacteria, 
    fungi, higher plants and Drosophila. EtO has been shown to be a direct-
    acting mutagen, inducing dominant lethal effects and heritable 
    translocation in rodents and chromosomal aberrations in both higher 
    plants and rodents.
        Although the majority of carcinogenicity studies involved routes of 
    exposure other than ingestion, because tumors were produced distant 
    from the site of administration, e.g., brain tumors, the data show that 
    ethylene oxide has tumor-inducing potential independent of the route of 
    exposure, and thus EPA concludes that these tests are appropriate for 
    evaluating the safety of ethylene oxide in the diet. EPA also 
    considered the gavage study in making the decision that ethylene oxide 
    induces cancer. A more complete evaluation of the carcinogenicity of 
    EtO may be found in EPA's Office of Research and Development document 
    entitled ``Health Assessment Document for Ethylene Oxide'' (EPA/600/8-
    84/009F, 1985). Also, the National Toxicology Program has published a 
    Technical Report (No. 326, 1987) on its inhalation study in mice, which 
    is described above. Although the Office of Pesticide Programs has not 
    conducted a Peer Review on the carcinogenicity of EtO, the program 
    agrees with the analyses found in these documents and has determined 
    that EtO induces cancer in animals.
    
    Mancozeb
    
        As made clear in an Order published in the Federal Register on June 
    30, 1994, EPA has previously determined that mancozeb induces cancer in 
    animals within the meaning of the Delaney Clause. Information relevant 
    to that determination is laid out below. Any commenter who seeks 
    reconsideration of that determination must submit new evidence 
    demonstrating that reconsideration of the previous determination is 
    warranted or otherwise explain why reconsideration is appropriate.
        EPA has concluded that exposure to mancozeb results in an increased 
    incidence of cancer in animals, namely benign and malignant thyroid 
    tumors in rodents. In a study using male Sprague-Dawley rats, the 
    incidences of thyroid follicular cell adenomas, carcinomas, and 
    combined adenomas/carcinomas at the HDT was significantly increased in 
    pair-wise comparison to controls; female rats had a significant 
    increase for combined thyroid tumors. Mancozeb was also associated with 
    increasing trends in thyroid follicular cell adenomas, carcinomas and 
    combined adenomas/carcinomas. A study in mice was also conducted; 
    however, the HDT was considered inadequate to assess carcinogenic 
    potential.
        EPA also has concluded that mancozeb is carcinogenic because of the 
    presence of ethylene thiourea (ETU), a metabolite, contaminant and 
    degradation product present in mancozeb products. A 2-year bioassay in 
    mice showed statistically significant increases in combined 
    hepatocellular liver adenomas/carcinomas in both sexes at two doses, as 
    well as significant positive (increasing) trends in tumors. EPA 
    believes that summing of adenomas and carcinomas is appropriate for 
    this type of tumor, but notes the study also showed that hepatocellular 
    liver carcinomas alone were statistically increased at both doses in 
    females and at the high dose in males. This study also showed increased 
    incidences of thyroid follicular cell adenomas and carcinomas. In rat 
    studies, exposure to ETU was related to increased incidences of thyroid 
    follicular cell adenomas and carcinomas in both sexes (note the same 
    tumor type as the mancozeb studies).
    
    Oxyfluorfen
    
        EPA has concluded that exposure to oxyfluorfen results in an 
    increased incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in mice. 
    In a 20-month study, CD-1 mice were fed oxyfluorfen with doses ranging 
    from 0 (as well as an additional control group fed ethanol) to 200 ppm. 
    During weeks 57 and 58 of the testing, the HDT was increased to 800 
    ppm. Upon final examination of the mice, there were significant 
    positive dose-related trends for hepatocellular adenomas, carcinomas, 
    and combined adenomas/carcinomas in males. The incidences of these 
    tumors exceeded the historical controls for carcinomas at the two 
    highest doses tested and for adenomas at the HDT. There were no 
    compound-related increases in tumors observed in the female mice. The 
    HDT was assessed to be inadequate for maximal dosing to assess the full 
    carcinogenic potential of oxyfluorfen. A rat study was also conducted; 
    however, errors during the test resulted in a dose range deemed 
    insufficient to assess the carcinogenicity of oxyfluorfen.
        Oxyfluorfen is structurally related to four other diphenyl ether 
    herbicides that have also induced the tumors types similar to those 
    noted in the oxyfluorfen mouse study (liver tumors). Several studies 
    provide evidence that oxyfluorfen has mutagenic activity, namely gene 
    mutations in Salmonella and mouse lymphoma assays.
        In 1989, an EPA Carcinogenicity Peer Review convened to assess the 
    carcinogenicity studies of oxyfluorfen. Although the mouse test may not 
    have achieved the maximum tolerated dose for a full assessment of 
    carcinogenicity, the liver tumors observed were dose related. The 
    occurrence of these tumors was not significant by pair-wise comparison 
    to concurrent controls; however, the Peer Review committee noted that 
    if a maximum dose actually had been administered, the incidences of 
    both benign and malignant tumors would have likely been statistically 
    significant. In addition, the incidences, even at less than maximal 
    appropriate dose, exceeded the historical control range. The supporting 
    evidence on oxyfluorfen's mutagenicity and structural similarity to 
    other chemicals which also induce liver tumors has led EPA to conclude 
    that oxyfluorfen induces cancer in animals. The Peer Review committee's 
    document (dated September 29, 1989) contains more discussion on the 
    studies and supporting evidence.
    
    Propargite
    
        EPA has concluded that exposure to propargite results in an 
    increased incidence of undifferentiated sarcoma of the jejunum (a tumor 
    in the gastrointestinal tract) in both sexes of rats. Male and female 
    Sprague-Dawley rats were fed 0, 50, 80, 400, or 800 ppm of propargite 
    for 2-years. Both sexes had a significant increasing trend for this 
    malignant tumor type with dose increments of propargite as well as a 
    pair-wise difference from controls. Undifferentiated sarcoma of the 
    gastrointestinal tract is a rare tumor in rats. In the historical 
    control data, no tumors of the jejunum were noted. Propylene oxide, a 
    known carcinogen, was used as a stabilizer in early batches of 
    propargite. However, EPA has concluded that since the tumors were 
    mesodermal in origin, they were unlikely to have been due to the 
    presence of propylene oxide. In another study male and female mice were 
    fed 0, 50, 160, 500, or 1,000 ppm propargite for 18 months. There were 
    no apparent increases in tumors associated with increases in the dose 
    level of propargite. These tests, however, were considered to be 
    inadequate for judging carcinogenicity since the dose levels were too 
    low owing to lack of systemic effects and to the older age of the mice 
    at the time dosing was initiated.
        Propargite was demonstrated to be mutagenic in a Chinese hamster 
    ovary cell gene mutation study in the absence of metabolic activation, 
    which indicates that propargite is a direct-acting mutagen. Overall 
    these data provide evidence for a mutagenicity concern that would 
    support a carcinogenicity concern.
        Exposure to propargite results in an increased incidence of 
    undifferentiated sarcoma of the jejunum in both sexes of Sprague-Dawley 
    rats. This malignant tumor was produced with a high incidence at an 
    unusual site. Based on these results, EPA has determined that 
    propargite induces cancer in animals. Full details and references can 
    be found in the report from the February 12, 1992 Peer Review Committee 
    meeting.
    
    Propylene Oxide
    
        EPA has concluded that exposure to propylene oxide results in the 
    induction of benign and malignant tumors in the nasal cavity of mice 
    and rats. In a 2-year inhalation study at 0, 200, or 400 ppm using 
    B6C3F1 mice, hemangiomas and hemangiosarcomas of the nasal cavity were 
    statistically increased both individually and when the two tumor types 
    were combined in male mice at the HDT. In addition there were 
    significant positive (increasing) trends for both benign and malignant 
    tumors of this type. In female mice, the incidence of combined 
    hemangiomas/hemangiosarcomas was also statistically significant at the 
    HDT. The female mice also showed a significant dose-related trend of 
    mammary gland adenocarcinomas relative to controls. In a 2-year 
    inhalation study, Cpb:WU Wistar rats were exposed to propylene oxide at 
    doses of 0, 30, 100, or 300 ppm. A statistically significant increase 
    in mammary gland fibroadenomas and adenocarcinomas was found in the 
    high-dose females when compared to controls. The number of mammary 
    tumors per rat was also significantly increased. While there was no 
    increase in tumors of the nasal cavity, a statistically significant 
    increase in nonneoplastic alterations (degenerative changes and 
    hyperplasia) of the olfactory and respiratory epithelium was observed 
    in each sex in each exposure group. In addition to the inhalation 
    studies, there is a gavage study, which showed forestomach tumors 
    (primarily squamous cell carcinomas), and a subcutaneous study in mice, 
    which showed tumors at the site of injection.
        Like other epoxides, propylene oxide is DNA-reactive. It is a 
    direct-acting mutagen with positive results in bacterial, yeast, 
    Drosophila, and cultured mammalian cells. Propylene oxide is a clear 
    alkylating agent and is mutagenic.
        Although the majority of carcinogenicity studies involved routes of 
    exposure other than ingestion, because tumors were produced distant 
    from the site of administration (e.g., mammary gland tumors), the data 
    shows that propylene oxide has tumor-inducing potential independent of 
    the route of exposure and thus EPA concludes that these tests are 
    appropriate for evaluating the safety of propylene oxide in the diet. 
    (EPA also considered the gavage study in making its induce cancer 
    call.) Details on the studies related to the carcinogenicity and 
    supporting information can be found in EPA's Integrated Risk 
    Information System (IRIS) prepared by the Agency's Carcinogenicity Risk 
    Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) group. Based on the positive 
    response in the carcinogenicity studies, propylene oxide's structural 
    similarity to other known animal carcinogens (epichlorohydrin and 
    ethylene oxide), and its genotoxic potential, EPA has determined that 
    in appropriate tests propylene oxide induces cancer in animals.
    
    Simazine
    
        EPA has concluded that exposure to simazine results in increased 
    incidents of malignant mammary gland carcinomas and malignant pituitary 
    gland carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats at the HDT. Male and 
    female Sprague-Dawley rats were fed simazine for 2 years at doses of 0 
    ppm (as controls), 10 ppm, 100 ppm, or 1,000 ppm. Due to excessive 
    mortality and significant decreased weight gain in female rats at the 
    HDT (1,000 ppm), this dose appeared excessive for testing 
    carcinogenicity. However, when the shortened lifespan in the females 
    was considered in the statistical analysis, the incidence of malignant 
    mammary gland carcinoma at both the 100 and 1,000 ppm doses was 
    statistically significant compared to controls. There was a 
    statistically significant increase in the combined mammary gland 
    adenoma/carcinoma compared to control incidence as well. These and 
    other dose-related trends suggest that the mammary gland carcinomas 
    contributed to the increased mortality at the HDT. There were no dose-
    related adverse effects seen in the male rats tested.
        Male and female CD-1 mice were fed simazine for 95 weeks at levels 
    ranging from 0 to 4000 ppm. There was no increased incidence of tumors 
    associated with simazine exposure.
        Simazine is structurally related to other S-triazine herbicides. 
    Studies involving several of these compounds show that exposure leads 
    to an increased incidence of mammary gland tumors. Simazine was found 
    to be negative for gene mutations in the Salmonella assay, but positive 
    in the mouse lymphoma assay, the Drosophila assay and plant cytogenic 
    assays.
        Studies showing statistically significant increases in malignant 
    mammary gland tumors and pituitary gland carcinomas, together with the 
    structural similarity with other S-triazine compounds, lead EPA to 
    conclude that simazine induces cancer in female rats. Discussions of 
    the various studies on the carcinogenicity of simazine can be found in 
    the Health Effects Division (HED) Peer Review of simazine (July 31, 
    1989).
    
    B. Proposed Food Additive Revocations
    
    Captan
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulation for the 
    fungicide captan (or N-trichloromethylmercapto-4-cyclohexene-1,2-
    dicarboximide) in or on washed raisins. This food additive regulation, 
    set at 50 ppm, is codified at 40 CFR 185.500. EPA is proposing 
    revocation of this regulation because the Agency has determined that 
    captan induces cancer in animals. Thus the regulation violates the 
    Delaney Clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
    
    Ethylene Oxide
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations permitting 
    the direct application of ethylene oxide to ground spices. This food 
    additive regulation is codified at 40 CFR 185.2850. EPA is proposing 
    revocation of this food additive regulation because, based on tests 
    which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food 
    additives, ethylene oxide has been found to induce cancer in animals. 
    Thus the regulation violates the Delaney Clause in section 409 of the 
    FFDCA.
        The American Spice Trade Association (ASTA) has submitted a letter 
    challenging the applicability of the inhalation studies described in 
    section II. A of this notice to the conclusion that EtO induces cancer 
    within the meaning of the Delaney Clause. ASTA refers to section 409, 
    which prohibits the approval of a food additive (including pesticide 
    residues) if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or 
    animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the 
    evaluation of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animals. ASTA 
    does not believe that the inhalation studies are appropriate for 
    assessing whether EtO induces cancer when ingested. A copy of this 
    letter is available for inspection and comment through the OPP docket 
    at the location and telephone number listed under ``ADDRESSES'' above 
    in this document
    
    Mancozeb
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations for 
    mancozeb (expressed as the coordination product of zinc ion and maneb 
    (or manganous ethylenebisdithiocarbamate)) for residues in the brans of 
    barley, oats, and rye (20 ppm) and in the flours of barley, oats, rye, 
    and wheat (1 ppm). These food additive regulations are codified at 40 
    CFR 185.6300. EPA is proposing to revoke this food additive regulation 
    because the Agency has determined that mancozeb induces cancer in 
    animals. Thus the regulation violates the Delaney Clause in section 409 
    of the FFDCA.
    
    Oxyfluorfen
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations for 
    residues of oxyfluorfen on cottonseed oil, peppermint oil, spearmint 
    oil, and soybean oil. These food additive regulations, set at 0.25 ppm, 
    are codified at 40 CFR 185.4600. EPA is proposing to revoke these food 
    additive regulations because the Agency has determined that oxyfluorfen 
    induces cancer in animals. Thus the regulation violates the Delaney 
    clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
    
    Propargite
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations for 
    residues of propargite on dried figs (9 ppm), raisins (25 ppm), and 
    dried tea (10 ppm), which are codified at 40 CFR 185.5000. EPA is 
    proposing to revoke these food additive regulations because the Agency 
    has determined that propargite induces cancer in animals. Thus the 
    regulation violates the Delaney Clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
        It should be noted that this proposed revocation of the section 409 
    tolerances for propargite does not affect hops. EPA recently announced 
    a change in its policy with respect to the classification of dried hops 
    under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (PR Notice 93-12, 
    December 23, 1993). Under this revision, hops are considered for 
    regulatory purposes as a raw agricultural commodity in both the fresh 
    (green) and dried forms. EPA has reclassified dried hops as a raw 
    agricultural commodity consistent with recent legislative directives on 
    this subject.
    
    Propylene Oxide
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations for 
    residues of propylene oxide on cocoa (300 ppm), glace fruit (700 ppm), 
    gums (300 ppm), processed nutmeats (except peanuts) (300 ppm), dried 
    prunes (700 ppm), processed spices (300 ppm), and starch (300 ppm). The 
    food additive regulations are codified at 40 CFR 185.5150. EPA is 
    proposing revocation since the Agency has determined that propylene 
    oxide induces cancer in animals and induces cancer in tests appropriate 
    for the evaluation of the safety of food additives. Thus the regulation 
    violates the Delaney Clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
    
    Simazine
    
        EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulations for 
    simazine, codified at CFR 185.5350, for residues on sugarcane molasses 
    (1 ppm), potable water (0.01 ppm) and sugarcane syrup (1 ppm). EPA is 
    proposing revocation of the food additive regulations because EPA has 
    determined that Simazine induces cancer in animals. Thus the regulation 
    violates the Delaney Clause in section 409 of the FFDCA.
    
           Table 1--Food Additive Regulations Proposed for Revocation       
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       CFR       Commodity and food additive
              Pesticide              Citation      regulation level (ppm)   
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Captan.......................      185.500  Raisins (50.0)              
    Ethylene oxide...............     185.2850  Ground spices (50.0)        
    Mancozeb.....................     185.6300  Bran of oats, barley, rye   
                                                 (20); flours of oats,      
                                                 barley, rye, wheat (1.0)   
    Oxyfluorfen..................     185.4600  Peppermint, spearmint,      
                                                 soybean, and cottonseed    
                                                 oils (0.25)                
    Propargite...................     185.5000  Dried tea (10), raisins     
                                                 (25), and dried figs (9)   
    Propylene oxide..............     185.5150  Glace fruit (700), cocoa    
                                                 (300), gums (300),         
                                                 processed nutmeats (except 
                                                 peanuts) (300), dried      
                                                 prunes (700), starch (300),
                                                 processed spices (300)     
    Simazine.....................     185.5350  Sugarcane molasses (1.0),   
                                                 potable water (0.1),       
                                                 sugarcane syrup (1.0)      
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    C. Consideration of Comments
    
        Any interested person may submit comments on this proposed action 
    on or before September 29, 1994 at the address given in the section 
    entitled ``ADDRESSES.'' Before issuing final actions, EPA will consider 
    all relevant comments, which should be limited only to the pesticides 
    and food additive regulations subject to this proposed notice, as well 
    as comments that have already been submitted in response to a February 
    5, 1993 notice which asked for comments on various EPA, FDA, and USDA 
    policies for regulating pesticide residues in foods and feeds (58 FR 
    7470). That notice requested comments on the following areas: 
    coordination of section 408 and 409; concentration of residues; 
    classification of foods as ``ready-to-eat''; the fate of affected FIFRA 
    registrations; the DES proviso; section 18 emergency exemptions; and 
    regulatory impacts.
    
    III. Executive Order 12866
    
        The Agency has not completed an evaluation of the economic impacts 
    of this regulatory action because an evaluation of benefits is 
    irrelevant to action under the Delaney Clause. The Agency is compelled 
    to take this action without regard to the cost-benefit relationship. 
    However, the Agency welcomes any comments and information which would 
    contribute to an analysis of the impacts of this action and similar 
    future actions.
    
    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 
    1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA to analyze regulatory options 
    to assess the economic impact on small businesses, small governments, 
    and small organizations. As explained above, the Agency is compelled to 
    take this action without regard to the economic impacts. Again, EPA 
    welcomes any information on impacts to small businesses, governments, 
    and organizations.
    
    V. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        This order does not contain any information collection requirements 
    subject to review by Office of Management and Budget under the 
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 185
    
        Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
    Agricultural commodities, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, 
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirments.
    
    Dated: June 18, 1994.
    
    Lynn R. Goldman,
    Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
    Substances.
    
        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 185 be amended as 
    follows:
        1. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 348.
    
    Sec. 185.500   [Removed]
    
        2. By removing Sec. 185.500 Captan.
    
    
    Sec. 185.2850   [Removed]
    
        3. By removing Sec. 185.2850 Ethylene oxide.
    
    
    Sec. 185.4600   [Removed]
    
        4. By removing Sec. 185.4600 Oxyfluorfen.
    
    
    Sec. 185.5000   [Amended]
    
        5. By amending Sec. 185.5000 Propargite by removing from the table 
    therein the entries for dried tea, raisins, and dried figs.
    
    
    Sec. 185.5150   [Removed]
    
        6. By removing Sec. 185.5150 Propylene oxide.
    
    
    Sec. 185.5350   [Removed]
    
        7. By removing Sec. 185.5350 Simazine.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-15925 Filed 6-28-94; 4:15 pm]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
07/01/1994
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-15925
Dates:
Written comments, identified by the document control number, [OPP-300335], must be received on or before September 29, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: July 1, 1994, OPP-300335, FRL-4770-3
RINs:
2070-AC18
CFR: (6)
40 CFR 185.500
40 CFR 185.2850
40 CFR 185.4600
40 CFR 185.5000
40 CFR 185.5150
More ...