Folpet; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register: March 5, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10377-10388]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05mr03-11]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2003-0075; FRL-7296-2]
Folpet; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of folpet
(N-(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide) in or on hop, dried cones.
Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc. requested this tolerance under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
DATES: This regulation is effective March 5, 2003. Objections and
requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0075,
must be received on or before May 5, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests- may be submitted
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 305-7618; e-mail address:
keigwin.richard@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
? Industry (NAICS 111), Crop production.
? Industry (NAICS 112), Animal production.
? Industry (NAICS 311), Food manufacturing.
? Industry (NAICS 32532), Pesticide manufacturing.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0075. The
official public docket consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials
that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html,
a beta site currently under development. To access the OPPTS
Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the
guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in
Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1182) (FRL-7287-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing of
a pesticide petition (PP 2E6512) by Makhteshim-Agan of North America
Inc., 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1100 New York, NY 10176. That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by Makhteshim-Agan of North
America Inc., the registrant. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.191 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide folpet, (N-
(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide), in or on hop at 120 parts per
million (ppm).
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) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to
[[Page 10378]]
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....''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on
Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-
5754-7).
III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of folpet on hop,
dried cones at 100 ppm. EPA's assessment of 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 folpet are
discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
Table 1.-- Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline No. Study Type Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity NOAEL = 160 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/
rodents day)
LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on 5 percent
decrease in body weight
----------------------------------------
870.3150 90-Day oral toxicity in NOAEL = <790 mg/kg/day (lowest dose
nonrodents tested)(LDT)
LOAEL = 790 mg/kg/day based on decreased
weight gain in males and females,
testicular atrophy in males
----------------------------------------
870.3200 28-Day dermal toxicity NOAEL = 1 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day based on dermal
irritation;systemic toxicity as reduced
body weight gain occurred only at doses
greater than 10 mg/kg/day
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal developmental in Maternal NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
rodents LOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day based on reduced body
Crl: COBS-CD-(SD) BR weight
strain.. Developmental NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 360 mg/kg/day based on possible
incomplete ossification of one or both
pubes and/or eschia
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal developmental in Maternal NOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day
rodents LOAEL = 550 mg/kg/day based on decreased
CD Rats................... body weight gain, soft feces
Developmental NOAEL = <150 mg/kg/day (LDT)
LOAEL = 550 mg/kg/day based on small
fetuses, reduced ossification of
interparietal bone as well as increase in
angulated ribs
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal developmental in Maternal NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
nonrodents LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on decrease in
HY/CR Albino Rabbits...... body weight gain and food consumption
Developmental NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on delayed
ossification of sternebrae and lack of
ossification of caudal vertebrae distal to
caudal vertebra 15.
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal developmental in Maternal NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
nonrodents LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on decreased
NZW Rabbits............... food consumption & body weight gain during
gestation. At 60 mg/kg/day, decreased food
consumption & body weight gain,
hydrocephalus and related skull
malformations.
Developmental NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on Increased
incidence of hydrocephalus & domed skull &
irregularly shaped fontanelles
----------------------------------------
870.3800 Reproduction and fertility Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 19.1 mg/kg/day in
effects males; 22.5 mg/kg/day in females
Charles River Rat......... LOAEL = 112 mg/kg/day in males and 134 mg/
kg/day in females based on diffuse
hyperkeratosis of the non-glandular
epithelium of in both sexes of both
generations.
Reproductive NOAEL = 370 mg/kg/day in
males; 436 mg/kg/day in females highest
dose tested (HDT)
Offspring NOAEL = 112 mg/kg/day in males
and 134 mg/kg/day in females
LOAEL = 370 mg/kg/day in males and 565 mg/
kg/day in females based on lower pup body
weights primarily in the F1 litter
generation
----------------------------------------
[[Page 10379]]
870.3800 Reproduction and fertility Parental/Systemic NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
effects LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on decreased
Sprague-Dawley Rat........ weight gain in F1 offspring.
Reproductive NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 160 mg/kg/day based on decreased
fertility in males
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity rodents NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
Crl:CD(SD)BR albino rats.. LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day based on ulceration/
erosion, hyperkeratosis of stomach in
males and females
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity rodents NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day
Fischer 344 Rat........... LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on
hyperkeratosis of nonglandular epithelium
of stomach in both sexes.
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity rodents NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day in males; 15 mg/kg/day
in females
LOAEL = 81 mg/kg/day in males and 100 mg/kg/
day in females based on an increase in
incidence and severity of hyperkeratosis
of the esophagus and non-glandular
epithelium of the stomach.
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity dogs NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
LOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day based on decreased
food consumption & body weight gain;
decreased serum cholesterol and serum
proteins
----------------------------------------
870.4200 Carcinogenicity rats NOAEL = Not achieved.
Crl:CD(SD)BR albino rats.. LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day on increased incidence
of C-cell adenoma & carcinoma of thyroid
in males & intrietical cell tumors of
testes
----------------------------------------
870.4200 Carcino-genicity rats NOAEL =50 mg/kg/day
Fischer 344 Rat........... LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day on increased benign
fibroepithelial tumor of the mammary
glands & C-cell adenoma of the thyroid
No evidence of carcinogenicity
----------------------------------------
870.4200 Carcinogenicity mice NOAEL = Not achieved.
B6C3F1 Strain............. LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on duodenal
carcinoma and stomach papilloma both
sexes; malignant lymphoma in high dose
females only
Evidence of carcinogenicity
----------------------------------------
870.4200 Carcinogenicity mice NOAEL = Not achieved.
CD-1 Mice................. LOAEL = 150 mg/kg/day based on a dose
related increase in incidence of
intestinal adenomas and adenocarcinomas in
both sexes
Evidence of carcinogenicity
----------------------------------------
870.5195 Mutagenic-Lymphoma Positive for forward mutations in L5178Y/TK
Mutation in L5178Y/TK mouse lymphoma cells. Higher concentration
mouse lymphoma cells necessary in the presence of S-9 fraction
----------------------------------------
870.5275 Mutagenic-Sex Link Positive for sex linked recessive lethals
Recessive in Drosophilia
----------------------------------------
870.5300 Mutagenic-In vivo No effect on the incidence of coat color
Cytogenetic toxicity in spots - negative for mutations.
Mouse Significant pup mortality at all doses
levels. Decreased survival of pups during
lactation. Increased melanocyte toxicity
in pups at 4310 ppm, decreased weight gain
in dams at 4310.
----------------------------------------
870.5300 Mutagenic-In Vivo Decreases in the number and percentage of
Cytogenetic in Mouse live born pups; maternal weight gain
----------------------------------------
870.5375 Mutagenic-Chromosome Not a clastogen at the HDT. No measure of
Aberration in Rats cytotoxicity in bone marrow. Dose used not
supported by evidence that the HDT was a
maximum tolerated dose.
----------------------------------------
870.5380 Cytogenetics Chromosome Folpet was tested up to toxicity in non-
Aberration in Chinese activated (2.5 [mu]g/mL) & activated
hamster ovary cells Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) (25.7 &
75.0 [mu]g/mL) in 10 & 20 hour assays.
Results: There was a 10-30 fold difference
in toxicity sensitivity. The test article
induced chromosomal aberrations at
marginally cytotoxic concentrations of
0.75 [mu]g/mL in the non-activated system,
and 0.26 [mu]g/mL in the 10 hour activ.
assay, but required 25.0 [mu]g/mL in the
20 hour activation assay.
----------------------------------------
870.5395 Mutagenic Micronucleus No evidence of mutagenicity.
Assay in the Mouse (CD-1)
----------------------------------------
870.5450 Mutagenic-Dominant Lethal Negative for mutation
Test in the Mouse
----------------------------------------
[[Page 10380]]
870.5500 Mutagenic-Reverse Mutation Positive direct acting mutagen. Both
batches tested were equally mutagenic.
Effect of metabolic activation not
assessed.
----------------------------------------
870.5500 Mutagenic-DNA Repair Test Positive for DNA damage without metabolic
activation.
----------------------------------------
870.5550 Unscheduled DNA Synthesis Positive in the presence of metabolic
in WI 38 Fibroblasts: activation only.
----------------------------------------
870.5500 Reverse Mutation Positive for reverse mutations in
Salmonella TA100, TA1535 & TA1538, & in E.
coli WP2.
Rat liver S-9 had no effect on mutagenicity
----------------------------------------
870.5575 Mutagenic-Recomb/Convers Positive for recombinants with/without
Assay metabolic activity.
----------------------------------------
870.6200 Acute neurotoxicity Not available.
screening battery
----------------------------------------
870.6200 Subchronic neurotoxicity Not available.
screening battery
----------------------------------------
870.6300 Developmental Not available.
neurotoxicity
----------------------------------------
870.7485 Metabolism and Doses: 50 and 5,000 ppm.
pharmacokinetics Results: The 5,000 ppm level had been shown
to cause the tumors in mice but not in
rats. The studies suggested that folpet
was tumorigenic in the mouse and not in
the rat because: Greater intake in the
mouse and greater target tissue exposure
to active metabolites that the mouse could
not detoxify; greater local effects on
mouse upper gastrointestinal tract; and
greater reliance by the mouse on
glutathione for detoxification of folpet.
----------------------------------------
870.7485 Metabolism and C\14\-Folpet was administered orally to
pharmacokinetics Sprague-Dawley rats in 3 studies:
1. Single dose of 10 mg/kg;
2. Single dose of 500 mg/kg; and
3. On day 15, 10 mg/kg of C\14\-Folpet
after 14 consecutive days of unlabeled
folpet at 10 mg/kg. Samples were examined
for radioactivity for up to 120 hours post
C\14\-dosing.
Results:
1. Single C\14\-Folpet at 10 mg/kg was
absorbed > 90% of the dose, there was
rapid urinary excretion and by 120 hours,
there was little detactable radioactivity.
2. Single C\14\-Folpet at 500 mg/kg was
about 60% absorbed with the urinary
excretion rate being slower that after the
10 mg/kg dose (possibly due to rate-
limiting absorption).
3. Single C\14\-Folpet at 10 mg/kg
following 14 daily non-labeled doses of 10
mg/kg yielded results similar to those
observed after a single c\14\ dose.
4. No accumulation of folpet was detected
during the 5 days after dosing;
concentrations of radioactivity in
measured tissues were generally below the
limit of detection at 10 mg/kg or were
detected at very low levels at 500 mg/kg.
5. Phthalamic acid was determined to be the
single active metabolite found in urine &
it was suggested that its formation from
Folpet may have been by trichloro-
methylthio groups loss and hydrolytic
cleavage of the maleimide ring.
At 10 mg/kg,the major fecal metabolite was
phthalamic acid and at 500 mg/kg, the
radioactivity was primarily associated
with unchanged C\14\-folpet (assumed to be
unabsorbed test article).
----------------------------------------
870.7600 Dermal penetration Doses: C\14\-Folpet was administered
dermally to male doses of 10, 1, 0.1, and
0.01 mg/rat (200 uL volume of test
suspension to 18.9 cm2 of clipped skin)
for up to 24 hours.
Blood, urine, feces, carcass and skin
radioactivity was measured (up to 24 hrs).
Results:
1. Rapid absorption into the skin and
carcass;
2. Low blood levels;
3. Primary excretion by urine with rate
apparently inversely related to quantity
applied; and
4. Minor bile involvement in excretion as
little in feces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10381]]
B. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which the NOAEL from the toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the
toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which
the LOAEL is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was
achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF)
is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from
laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity
among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF
of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences
and 10X for intra species differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the
UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or
chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the
appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factors
(SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional
factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional
factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is
a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used
to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X
to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies
differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to
exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and
compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q
approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which
represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases
(e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10-\6\ or one in a million).
Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for
the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non-linear approach, a
``point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects
are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on
an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different
value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio
of the point of departure to exposure (MOEcancer = point of
departure/exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for folpet used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 2
of this unit:
Table 2.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Folpet for Use in Human Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF* and Level of
Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Concern for Risk Study and Toxicological
Assessment, UF Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (Females 13-50 years of NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Developmental Toxicity
age) UF = 100............... aPAD = acute RfD/FQPA Study in Rabbits
Acute RfD = 0.1 mg/kg/ SF. LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
day. = 0.1 mg/kg/day........ based on an increased
number of fetuses and
litters with
hydrocephaly and
related skull
malformations
--------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 9 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Chronic Toxicity Study
UF = 100............... cPAD = chronic RfD/FQPA in Rat
Chronic RfD = 0.09 mg/ SF. LOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
kg/day. = 0.09 mg/kg/day....... based on
hyperkeratosis/
acanthosis and
ulceration/erosion of
non-glandular stomach
epithelium in both
sexes
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Dermal (1 to 7 days) oral study NOAEL= LOC for MOE = Developmental Toxicity
(Residential) 10 mg/kg/day (dermal 100 (Residential)...... Study in Rabbits
absorption rate = LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
2.7%). based on an increased
number of fetuses and
litters with
hydrocephaly and
related skull
malformations
--------------------------------------
Intermediate-Term Dermal (1 week to oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = Developmental Toxicity
several months) (Residential) 10 mg/kg/day (dermal 100 (Residential)...... Study in Rabbits
absorption rate = 2.7%. LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
based on an increased
number of fetuses and
litters with
hydrocephaly and
related skull
malformations
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Inhalation (1 to 7 days) oral study NOAEL= LOC for MOE = Developmental Toxicity
(Residential) 10 mg/kg/day 100 (Residential)...... Study in Rabbits
(inhalation absorption LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
rate = 100%). based on an increased
number of fetuses and
litters with
hydrocephaly and
related skull
malformations
--------------------------------------
Intermediate-Term Inhalation (1 week oral study NOAEL = LOC for MOE = Developmental Toxicity
to several months) (Residential) 10 mg/kg/day 100 (Residential)...... Study in Rabbits
(inhalation absorption LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day
rate = 100%). based on an increased
number of fetuses and
litters with
hydrocephaly and
related skull
malformations
--------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Cancer potency factor Based on increased
(Q1*) is 1.86 x 10- incidences of adenomas
\3\. and carcinomas in the
duodenum of male and
female mice in two
strains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.
[[Page 10382]]
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been
established (40 CFR 180.191) for the residues of folpet, in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities. Risk assessments were
conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from folpet in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. 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. The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food
Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\) analysis evaluated the
individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA
1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity. The following assumptions were made for the acute exposure
assessments: Anticipated residues for most commodities and percent crop
treated for many commodities. For hop, the dietary exposure analysis
assumed tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk
assessment the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM FCID\ \) analysis evaluated the individual food
consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998]
nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and
accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following
assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Anticipated
residues for most commodities and percent crop treated for many
commodities. For hop, the dietary exposure analysis assumed tolerance
level residues and 100 percent crop treated.
iii. Cancer. In conducting this cancer dietary risk assessment the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-
FCID\TM\) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as
reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and
accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following
assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Anticipated
residues for most commodities and percent crop treated for many
commodities. For hop, the dietary exposure analysis assumed tolerance
level residues and 100 percent crop treated.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data
and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues
in food and the actual levels of pesticide chemicals that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. Following the initial data
submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data on a time frame
it deems appropriate. As required by section 408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA,
EPA will issue a data call-in for information relating to anticipated
residues to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of this tolerance.
The Agency did use anticipated residue calculations in conducting
its risk assessment. These calculations are based upon submitted field
trial data and could be further refined through the use of monitoring
data.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA states that the Agency may use
data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic
dietary risk only if the Agency can make the following findings:
Condition 1, that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis
to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to
contain such pesticide residue; Condition 2, that the exposure estimate
does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation
group; and Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by section 408(b)(2)(F) of the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to
submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows. The only registered
food use of folpet in the United States is avocados grown in Florida.
According to data available from the United States Department of
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service, California
accounted for 89 percent of avocado production in the United States,
followed by Florida at nearly 11 percent and Hawaii at approximately
0.1 percent. Therefore, the Agency has assumed that only 11 percent of
the U.S. avocado crop is treated with folpet. As stated earlier, for
the hop use, the Agency assumed 100 percent crop treated even though
imports of hop accounted for less than 50 percent of the crop consumed
in the United States, based upon data available from the Hop Growers of
American 2001 Statistical Report. For all other commodities (except
hops and avocados), the Agency assumed a maximum percent crop treated
value of 1% for each commodity (i.e., apple, cranberry, cucumber,
grape, lettuce, melon, onion, strawberry, and tomato) based upon
information derived through an analysis of import and domestic
production data available from the United States Department of
Agriculture for the years 1995 through 1999 and adjusted for the
countries in which folpet is registered.
The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in Unit III.
have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. In using these data, the Agency also took into
account the specific countries where folpet is registered. In the case
of avocados, the Agency based its PCT estimate on the volume of the
avocado crop grown in the United States, utilizing data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. For all potentially-treated commodities, EPA
used estimated maximum PCT assumptions in conducting both the acute and
chronic dietary exposure assessments. The exposure estimates resulting
from this approach reasonably represent the highest levels to which an
individual could be exposed, and are unlikely to underestimate an
individual's acute dietary exposure. The Agency is reasonably certain
that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available information on the regional consumption of food to
which
[[Page 10383]]
folpet may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for folpet in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical
characteristics of folpet.
The Agency uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) or
the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS),
to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir.
The SCI-GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in
shallow groundwater. For a screening-level assessment for surface water
EPA will use FIRST (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2
model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a
specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and
PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, the PRZM/EXAMS
model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account
for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage
basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing
(mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as
drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the
source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this
stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for
which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would
ever exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) from these models to quantify
drinking water exposure and risk as a %RfD or %PAD. Instead drinking
water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point
of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's
concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a
pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate
exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since
DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to folpet they are further
discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit III.E..
Based on the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) of folpet for acute exposures are estimated to be
309 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.83 ppb for ground
water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.62 ppb for
surface water and 0.83 ppb for ground water.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
Folpet is currently registered for use as an additive in paints and
stains for use both occupationally and by the homeowner. Four major
exposure scenarios for homeowner handlers using folpet containing
paints and stains labeled for pesticidal use and three major scenarios
for homeowners using folpet containing products not labeled for
pesticidal use were evaluated. The highest exposure level for combined
inhalation and dermal exposures were based upon a homeowner applying a
ready-to-use stain formulation with an airless sprayer. This exposure
level was used to estimate the short- and intermediate-term risks for
folpet.
4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine
whether folpet 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, folpet 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 folpet has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals
have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative
effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide
Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).
Captan and folpet share a common metabolite, thiophosgene, which
the Agency believes to be responsible for the carcinogenic effects of
these compounds. Thiophosgene is a highly reactive, short-lived
compound. Studies indicate that thiophosgene causes local irritation of
the site with which it comes in contact, and is believed to cause
tumors through irritation of the duodenum. Because they are so short-
lived, thiophosgene residues cannot be quantified. Without measurable
residues of the common metabolite, it is difficult to relate exposures
of captan to those of folpet since the formation of thiophosgene may be
different for both compounds. However, assuming that the carcinogenic
effects observed in both pesticides are due solely to the metabolite
thiophosgene, the Agency believes it is reasonable to add the estimate
cancer risks from the individual aggregate risks from both folpet and
captan to obtain a worst-case estimate.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure
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.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The data provided no
indication of increased susceptibility in two prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats following in utero or in the two (2) 2-
generation reproduction studies in rats. Two developmental toxicity
studies in rabbits are also available. In a study with New Zealand
rabbits, folpet caused an increase in the incidence of hydrocephalus in
fetuses and with the associated dome skull and irregularly-shaped
fontanelles at the mid and high dose groups in the presence of maternal
toxicity. Both fetal and litter incidences of this malformation were
increased in a dose-related manner. There were no toxicological effects
noted on litter size, resorptions, sex ratio, or number of skeletal
malformations. For maternal toxicity, the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day and
the LOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight gain and
food consumption. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL was
[[Page 10384]]
10 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 20 mg/kg/day, based upon an increase in
the number of fetuses and litters with hydrocephaly and related skull
malformations. Although the developmental malformations (hydrocephaly)
and associated maternal toxicity occur at similar doses, such effects
are toxic manifestations as a result of exposure.
In order to determine the critical period of treatment for the
occurrence of hydorcephaly and other treatment-related fetal anomalies
observed in the above study, another developmental toxicity study was
conducted with the same strain of rabbit with the highest dose group
(60 mg/kg/day) receiving folpet on gestation days 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, or
16-18. The incidence of hydrocephalus was higher than historical or
concurrent controls, but lower than in the previous study. The maternal
toxicity noted was a dose-related decreased food consumption and
variable decrease in body weight gain. Significantly increased
incidence of irregularly-shaped fontanelles and slightly increased
incidences of angulated hyoid alae were noted in the 60 mg/kg/day dose
group.
In a second rabbit developmental toxicity study, HY/CR strain
rabbits received folpet on gestation days 7 through 19. For maternal
toxicity, the NOAEL was 40 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 160 mg/kg/day,
based on decreased body weights and food consumption as well as
clinical signs. For developmental toxicity, the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day
and the LOAEL was 40 mg/kg/day, based on delayed ossification of the
sternebrae. There was no evidence of hydrocephaly observed in this
study at dose levels greater than in the previous study.
In addition, the Agency examined the available studies for captan,
the structural analog of folpet, and determined that there was no
indication of increased susceptibility of rabbits or hamsters to pre-
or post-natal exposure to captan. In prenatal developmental toxicity
studies in rabbits and hamsters and reproduction studies in the rat,
all conducted using captan as the test material, toxicity to the
offspring occurred at equivalent or higher doses than maternal
toxicity.
3. Conclusion. i. There is a complete toxicity data base for folpet
and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that
reasonably accounts for potential exposures. The Agency has determined
that the FQPA Safety Factor can be reduced to 1X based upon the
following weight-of-the-evidence considerations:
a. There was no evidence of quantitative or qualitative
susceptibility in two developmental toxicity studies in the rat;
b. There was no evidence of enhanced suspectibility to the pups in
two different 2-generation reproduction studies in the rat;
c. Folpet is not a cholinesterase inhibitor and, therefore,
comments made at the June 26-27, 2002 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting on
the Determination of the Appropriate FQPA Safety Factor(s) in the
Organophosphorous Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Susceptibility
and Sensitivity to the Common Mechanism, Acetylcholinesterase
Inhibition should not influence this uncertainty factor decision.
d. There is inconsistency between the two available developmental
toxicity studies in the rabbit. When tested at lower doses, there is a
concern for hydrocephaly. However, when this study was repeated in the
same strain of rabbit at higher dose levels, no evidence of
hydrocephaly was observed. Nevertheless, for purposes of risk
assessment, the Agency has selected the developmental NOAEL of 10 mg/
kg/day from the rabbit developmental study in which hydrocephaly was
observed as the endpoint for evaluating acute risk.
e. Other than the one rabbit developmental toxicity study, there
are no other signs from the available toxicology database of a concern
for neurotoxic effects.
f. Furthermore, the Agency's exposure assumptions are conservative.
The assessment assumes that all hops consumed in the United States are
treated with folpet. In addition, the analysis presumes that all
avocados grown in Florida are treated with this fungicide. The percent
crop treated data for the imported commodities assumed that all crop
exported to the U.S. from countries in which folpet is registered are
treated with this chemical. Therefore, a figure of 1% crop treated was
assumed for the following commodities: Apple, cranberry, cucumber,
grape, lettuce, melon, onion, strawberry, and tomato.
ii. The Agency has also determined that a developmental
neurotoxicity study for folpet is not warranted based upon the
following considerations:
a. Although hydrocephalus was observed in one developmental
toxicity study in the rabbit, it occurred at maternally toxic doses and
was only seen in one species;
b. No alterations to the fetal nervous system were seen in the
developmental rat studies at the same doses that induce hydrocephaly in
rabbits;
c. Although there are no acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies
available, there is no evidence of neurotoxicity or neuropathology in
adult animals in any of the studies;
d. The available data indicate that the developmental neurotoxicity
study would have to be tested at dose levels higher than 150 mg/kg/day
because no developmental toxicity was observed in rats at 2,000 mg/kg/
day. In addition, given the results in the 2-generation reproduction
study (NOAEL of 168 mg/kg/day), it is anticipated that in order to
elicit any fetal nervous system abnormalities in the developmental
neurotoxicity study, the selected dose levels would have to be higher
than 160 mg/kg/day.
e. Since the dose level selections for the developmental
neurotoxicity study would be greater than 160 mg/kg/day, the resultant
NOAEL would be either comparable to, or higher than, the doses
currently used in the risk assessment. The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day
selected for the acute reference dose and the residential exposure and
risk assessments is seventeen times lower than the offspring NOAEL in
the reproduction study. The NOAEL of 9 mg/kg/day selected for the
chronic reference dose is nineteen times lower than the offspring NOAEL
in the reproduction study. Therefore, it is unlikely that the
developmental neurotoxicity study would change the current doses used
for overall risk assessments.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food,
drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs
which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of
a pesticide's concentration in water (EECs). DWLOC values are not
regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper
limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of
total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses.
In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the
acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through
drinking water [e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) =
cPAD - (average food + residential exposure)]. This allowable exposure
through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water
consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption
values
[[Page 10385]]
as used by the Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter
(L)/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child).
Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an
individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more
refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure
assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs.
Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used:
Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the
calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that
exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along
with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would
not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at
this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from
multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels
of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new
uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts
of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the
aggregate risk assessment process.
1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to folpet
will occupy <1 % of the aPAD for females 13 years and older. In
addition, there is potential for acute dietary exposure to folpet in
drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs
for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in Table 3 of this unit:
Table 3.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to Folpet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup aPAD (mg/kg/ % aPAD Water EEC Water EEC Acute DWLOC
day) (Food) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females, 13-49 years old 0.1 <1 309 0.83 2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to folpet
from food will utilize less than 1% of the cPAD for all population
subgroups within the United States. Based the use pattern, chronic
residential exposure to residues of folpet is not expected. In
addition, there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to folpet in
drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs
for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in Table 4 of this unit:
Table 4.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to Folpet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup cPAD mg/kg/ % cPAD Water EEC Water EEC Chronic
day (Food) (ppb) (ppb) DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 0.09 <1% 0.62 0.83 3,100
------------------------------------------------
All Infants 0.09 <1% 0.62 0.83 900
------------------------------------------------
Children, 1-2 years 0.09 <1% 0.62 0.83 900
------------------------------------------------
Females, 13-49 years 0.09 <1% 0.62 0.83 2,700
------------------------------------------------
Adults, 50+ years 0.09 <1% 0.62 0.83 3,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
Folpet is currently registered for use that could result in short-
term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water
and short-term and intermediate-term exposures for folpet.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and
residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 370. These
aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for
aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In addition, short-
term and intermediate-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the
EECs for chronic exposure of folpet in ground and surface water. After
calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and
ground water, EPA does not expect short-term or intermediate-term
aggregate exposures to exceed the Agency's level of concern, as shown
in Table 5 of this unit:
Table 5.--Aggregate Risk Assessments for Short-Term and Intermediate-Term Exposures to Folpet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate
Aggregate Level of Surface Ground
Population Subgroup MOE (Food + Concern Water EEC Water EEC DWLOC (ppb)
Residential) (LOC) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Females, 13-49 years 370 100 0.62 0.83 2,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10386]]
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The aggregate cancer
risk (food plus residential) from exposure to folpet is estimated to be
7.2 x 10-\8\. Assuming a negligible risk level of 1.0 x
10-\6\, the cancer DWLOC would be 15 ppb. Based on the FIRST
and SCI-GROW models the EECs for chronic exposures to folpet are
estimated to be 0.62 ppb for surface water and 0.83 ppb for ground
water, significantly lower than the DWLOC.
As discussed in Unit III.C.4., captan and folpet share a common
metabolite, thiophosgene, which the Agency believes to be responsible
for the carcinogenic effects of these compounds. Thiophosgene is a
highly reactive, short-lived compound. Studies indicate that
thiophosgene causes local irritation of the site with which it comes in
contact, and is believed to cause tumors through irritation of the
duodenum. Because they are so short-lived, thiophosgene residues cannot
be quantified. Without measurable residues of the common metabolite, it
is difficult to relate exposures of captan to those of folpet since the
formation of thiophosgene may be different for both compounds. However,
assuming that the carcinogenic effects observed in both pesticides are
due solely to the metabolite thiophosgene, the Agency believes it is
reasonable to add the estimate cancer risks from the individual
aggregate risks from both folpet and captan to obtain a worst-case
estimate.
For captan, the estimated cancer risk for the U.S. population from
exposure to food only is 1.26 x 10-\7\. As discussed above,
the estimate cancer risk (food only) from exposure to folpet is 7.2 x
10-\8\. If these two risk estimates are added together, the
total estimated cancer risk is 2.0 x 10-\7\. Assuming a
negligible cancer risk in the range of 1.0 x 10-\6\ to 3.0 x
10-\6\, the smallest cancer DWLOC would be 11 ppb. Based on
the FIRST and SCI-GROW models the EECs for chronic exposures to folpet
are estimated to be 0.62 ppb for surface water and 0.83 ppb for ground
water. The EECs for chronic exposure to captan are estimated to be 4
ppb for surface water and 1 ppb for groundwater. The combined EECs for
chronic exposure to captan plus folpet are 5 ppb for surface water and
2 ppb for groundwater, both below the DWLOC of 11 ppb.
5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to folpet residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An adequate gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD)
analytical method is available for enforcing tolerances of folpet in or
on plant commodities. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail
address: residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
No CODEX MRLs exist for folpet on hop.
V. Conclusion
Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of folpet, (N-
(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide), in or on hop, dried cones at 120
ppm.
VI. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA.
However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than
30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0075 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 5,
2003.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
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.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm.104, Crystal Mall #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is
open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is
(703) 603-0061.
2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a
hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or
request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must
mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office
of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please
identify the fee submission by labeling it ``Tolerance Petition Fees.''
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement ``when in the
judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and
not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional
information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James
Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov,
or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection
fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins,
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
[[Page 10387]]
3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.1. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0075, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the
PIRIB described in Unit I.B.1. You may also send an electronic copy of
your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
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(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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) (Public Law
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.
VIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 25, 2003.
Debra Edwards,
Acting 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:
[[Page 10388]]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
2. Section 180.191 is amended:
i. By designating the existing text as paragraph (a) and adding a
heading, and alphabetically adding a commodity to the table in newly
designated paragraph (a); and
ii. By adding and reserving with headings paragraphs (b), (c), and
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.191 Folpet; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Hop, dried cones 120\1\
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 There are no U.S. registrations on hop, dried cones as of February 14,
2003
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
(c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 03-5192 Filed 3-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S