Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register: October 29, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63083-63100]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc04-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2004-0325; FRL-7681-9]
Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for the combined
residues of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its
desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate), expressed as parent compound in or on
apple, wet pomace; brassica, head and stem, subgroup; brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup; corn, field, grain; corn, field, forage; corn, field,
stover; corn, field, refined oil; corn, pop, grain; corn, pop, stover;
corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; corn, sweet, forage;
corn, sweet, stover; fruit, pome, group; hop, dried cones; legume,
forage, except peanut and soybean; pea, succulent; pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup; peppermint; soybean, forage;
soybean, hay; soybean, hulls; soybean, seed; spearmint; sunflower;
vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group; vegetable, leaves of root and
tuber, except sugar beet; and vegetable, legume, edible podded,
subgroup. This regulation also increases the tolerances for citrus,
dried pulp; citrus, oil; fruit, citrus, group; and strawberry and
removes the currently existing tolerance for bean, dry, seed. The
latter tolerance is superseded by the tolerance for pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup. BASF Corporation and Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances 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 October 29, 2004. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 28, 2004.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0325. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S.
Bell St., 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-6742; e-mail address: mcneilly.dennis@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:
? Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; commercial applicators;
farmers.
? Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
? Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., food manufacturing
plant employees; produce truck drivers; waste disposal truck drivers;
consumers.
? Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., pesticide
manufacturing plant employees; pesticide distribution employees;
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers.
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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.regulations.gov/), 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 E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr/ . To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at
http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of August 13, 2003 (68 FR 48367) (FRL-7320-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of three pesticide petitions
(PP 2E6473, 3E6548, and 3E6553) by Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ
08902-3390. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.582 be amended by
establishing tolerances for the combined residues of the fungicide
carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester], pyraclostrobin, and
methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl]
carbamate, the
desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound],
in or on brassica, head and stem, subgroup at 5 ppm (PP 3E6553);
lettuce, head at 22 ppm (PP 2E6473); lettuce, leafy at 22 ppm (PP
[[Page 63084]]
2E6473); and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group at 16 ppm (PP
3E6548).
In the Federal Register of August 27, 2004 (69 FR 52670) (FRL-7676-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of three pesticide petitions
(PP 0F6139, 2F6431, and 3F6581) by BASF Corporation, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709 and one pesticide petition (PP 3E6774) by Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 681 U.S. Highway #1 South,
North Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.582 be amended by establishing tolerances for the combined residues
of the fungicide carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester, pyraclostrobin, and
methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate, the
desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound,
in or on apple, wet pomace at 8.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup at 16.0 ppm (PP 3F6581); corn, field, grain at 0.1 ppm
(PP 2F6431); corn, field, forage at 5.0 ppm (2F6431); corn, field,
stover at 17.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); corn, field, refined oil at 0.2 ppm (PP
2F6431); corn, pop, grain at 0.1 ppm (PP 2F6431); corn, pop, stover at
17.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed
at 0.04 ppm (PP 2F6431); corn, sweet, forage at 5.0 ppm (PP 2F6431);
corn, sweet, stover at 23.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); fruit, pome, group 11 at
1.5 ppm (PP 2F6431); hop, dried, cones at 23.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); legume,
forage, except peanut and soybean at 25.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); pea,
succulent at 0.2 ppm (PP 2F6431); pea and bean, dried shelled, except
soybean, subgroup at 0.3 ppm (PP 0F6139); peppermint at 8.0 ppm
(PP2F6431); soybean, forage at 5.0 ppm (PP 3F6581); soybean, hay at 7.0
ppm (PP 3F6581); soybean, hulls at 0.06 ppm (PP 3F6581); soybean, seed
at 0.04 ppm (PP 3F6581); spearmint at 8.0 ppm (PP 2F6431); sunflower at
0.3 ppm (PP 2F6431); vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group at 29.0
ppm (PP 3E6774); and vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup at 0.5
ppm (PP 2F6431). Tolerance petition 3F6581 also requests that 40 CFR
180.582 be amended by increasing the tolerances for the combined
residues of pyraclostrobin and the desmethoxy metabolite of
pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound, in or on citrus, dried
pulp to 12.5 ppm (PP 3F6581); citrus, oil to 9.0 ppm (PP 3F6581); and
fruit, citrus, group to 2.0 ppm (PP 3F6581). Tolerance petition 0F6139
also requests that 40 CFR 180.582 be amended by removing the tolerance
for the combined residues of pyraclostrobin and the desmethoxy
metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound, in or on
bean, dry, seed at 0.3 ppm. The latter tolerance has been superseded by
the tolerance for pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup
at 0.3 ppm.
In the Federal Register of August 30, 2004 (68 FR 52891) (FRL-7676-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
4F6850) by BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.582 be amended by increasing the
tolerance for the combined residues of the fungicide carbamic acid, [2-
[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,methyl
ester, pyraclostrobin, and methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate, the desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin,
expressed as parent compound, in or on strawberry to 1.5 ppm.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that`` there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
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 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 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 FFDCA, to establish (or increase) tolerances for the
combined residues of carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester, pyraclostrobin,
and methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate,
the desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent
compound in or on apple, wet pomace 8.0 ppm; brassica, head and stem,
subgroup at 5.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup at 16.0 ppm;
citrus, dried pulp at 12.5 ppm (increased from 5.5 ppm); citrus, oil at
9.0 ppm (increased from 4.0 ppm); corn, field, grain at 0.1 ppm; corn,
field, forage at 5.0 ppm; corn, field, stover at 17.0 ppm; corn, field,
refined oil at 0.2 ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.1 ppm; corn, pop, stover
at 17.0 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.04
ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 5.0 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 23.0 ppm;
fruit, citrus, group at 2.0 ppm (increased from 0.7 ppm); fruit, pome,
group at 1.5 ppm; hop, dried cones at 23.0 ppm; legume, forage, except
peanut and soybean at 25.0 ppm; pea, succulent at 0.2 ppm; pea and
bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup at 0.3 ppm; peppermint at
8.0 ppm; soybean, forage at 5.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 7.0 ppm; soybean,
hulls at 0.06 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.04 ppm; spearmint at 8.0 ppm;
strawberry at 1.5 ppm (a temporary increased tolerance with an
expiration date of December 31, 2005); sunflower at 0.3 ppm; vegetable,
legume, edible podded, subgroup at 0.5 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group at 29.0 ppm; and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber,
except sugar beet at 16.0 ppm ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing the tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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 pyraclostrobin 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.
[[Page 63085]]
Table 1.--Subchronic, Chronic and Other Toxicity Profile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline No. Study Type Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity-rat The study is acceptable/guideline.
Dosing levels were 0, 50, 150, 500, 1,000,
and 1,500 ppm (males: 0, 3.5, 10.7, 34.7,
68.8, and 105.8 mg/kg/day; females: 0,
4.2, 12.6, 40.8, 79.7, and 118.9 mg/kg/
day).
The NOAEL was 10.7 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 34.7 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight and weight gain in
males, reduced food intake in both sexes,
increased relative liver weight and spleen
weight in females, the histopathology of
the duodenum and liver in males, and the
histopathology of the spleen in both
sexes.
----------------------------------------
870.3100 90-Day oral toxicity-mouse The study is acceptable/guideline.
Dosing levels were 0, 50, 150, 500, 1,000,
and 1,500 ppm (males: 0, 9.2, 30.4, 119.4,
274.4, and 475.5 mg/kg/day; females: 0,
12.9, 40.4, 162.0, 374.1, and 634.8 mg/kg/
day).
The NOAEL was 9.2 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 30.4 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight and body weight gain
in males, changes in clinical chemistry
(increased urea and decreased
triglycerides) in both sexes, and
increased incidences in females of lymph
node apoptosis, thymus atrophy, and
ulceration and erosion in the glandular
stomach.
----------------------------------------
870.3150 90-Day oral toxicity-dog The study is acceptable/guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 100, 200, and 450
ppm (males: 0, 2.8, 5.8, and 12.9 mg/kg/
day; females: 0, 3.0, 6.2, and 13.6 mg/kg/
day).
The NOAEL was 5.8 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 12.9 mg/kg/day based on
increased diarrhea, clinical chemistry
changes, and increased incidence of
thickening and mucosal hypertrophy of the
duodenum in both sexes; and body weight
loss, reduced food intake, and reduced
food efficiency in females.
----------------------------------------
870.3050 28-Day oral toxicity-rat The study is acceptable/guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 20, 100, 500, and
1,500 ppm (males: 0, 1.8, 9.0, 42.3, and
120.2 mg/kg/day; females: 0, 2.0, 9.6,
46.6, and 126.3 mg/kg/day.
The NOAEL was 9.0 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 42.3 mg/kg/day based on
changes in hematology parameters,
increased absolute and relative spleen
weight, histopathology in spleen and
liver, and increased duodenal mucosal
hyperplasia in both sexes.
----------------------------------------
870.3200 28-Day dermal toxicity-rat This study was judged to be unacceptable/
guideline because a higher dose could have
been tolerated and the limit dose is 1,000
mg/kg/day.
The dosing levels were 0, 40, 100, 250 mg/
kg for 5 days/wk
The dermal NOAEL was 40 mg/kg/day.
The dermal LOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day based on
scale formation, hyperkeratosis, and
epidermal thickening.
----------------------------------------
870.3465 28-Day inhalation toxicity- Study pending.
rat Required due to the potential for
occupational/residential exposure via this
route.
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal development-rat The study is acceptable/guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 10, 25, 50 mg/kg/
day.
The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day; the
maternal LOAEL was 25 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight, body weight gain,
food intake, and food efficiency.
The developmental NOAEL was 25 mg/kg/day;
the developmental LOAEL was 50 mg/kg/day
based on increased incidences of dilated
renal pelvis and cervical ribs with no
cartilage.
----------------------------------------
870.3700 Prenatal development- This study is acceptable/guideline.
rabbit The dosing levels were 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, and
20 mg/kg/day.
The maternal NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day
The maternal LOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day based
on reduced body weight gain, reduced food
intake, and reduced food efficiency.
The developmental NOAEL was 5 mg/kg/day;
the developmental LOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day
based on increased resorption and post-
implantation loss.
----------------------------------------
[[Page 63086]]
870.3800 Two generation This study is acceptable/guideline when
reproduction study-rat combined with the one generation
preliminary study (below).
The dosing levels were 0, 25, 75, and 300
ppm (F0 males: 0, 2.5, 7.4, and 29.0 mg/kg/
day; F0 females 0, 2.6, 7.8, and 30.4 mg/
kg/day; F1 males: 0, 2.8, 8.6, and 35.0 mg/
kg/day; F1 females: 0, 3.0, 9.0, and 36.0
mg/kg/day.
The parental/systemic NOAEL was 29 mg/kg/
day.
The parental/systemic LOAEL was greater
than 29 mg/kg/day based on no observed
effects.
The reproductive NOAEL was 29 mg/kg/day.
The reproductive LOAEL was greater than 29
mg/kg/day based on no observed effects.
The offspring NOAEL was 29 mg/kg/day.
The offspring LOAEL was greater than 29 mg/
kg/day based on no observed effects.
----------------------------------------
870.3800 One-generation The dosing levels were 0, 200, 400, and 600
reproduction study-rat ppm (F0 males: 0, 20.5, 39.9, and 59.1 mg/
kg/day; F0 females: 0, 21.3, 42.5, and
60.4 mg/kg/day).
The offspring NOAEL was less than 20.5 mg/
kg/day.
The offspring LOAEL was 20.5 mg/kg/day
based on decreased pup body weight and
body weight gain on and after post-natal
day 7.
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity-rat This study was judged to be unacceptable/
guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 25, 75, and 200
ppm (males: 0, 1.1, 3.4, and 9.0 mg/kg/
day; females: 0, 1.5, 4.6, and 12.3 mg/kg/
day.
The NOAEL was 9.0 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL
was greater than 9.0 mg/kg/day, so the
Agency judged the study to be unacceptable
because the highest dosing level was
insufficient to produce a significant
toxicological response.
----------------------------------------
870.4100 Chronic toxicity-dog This study is acceptable/guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 100, 200, and 400
ppm (males: 0, 2.7, 5.4, and 10.8 mg/kg/
day; female: 0, 2.7, 5.4, and 11.2 mg/kg/
day.
The NOAEL was 5.4 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 10.8 mg/kg/day based on
increased diarrhea and clinical chemistry
changes in both sexes (decreased
cholesterol, protein, albumin, and
globulin); and reduced body weight gain
and food intake and efficiency in females.
----------------------------------------
870.4200 Carcinogenicity-rat This study is acceptable/guideline.
The dosing levels were 0, 25, 75, and 200
ppm (males: 0, 1.2, 3.4, and 9.2 mg/kg/
day; females: 0, 1.5, 4.7, and 12.6 mg/kg/
day).
The NOAEL was 3.4 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL was 9.2 mg/kg/day based on
reduced body weight and body weight gain,
kidney atrophy and tubular casts in both
sexes, and hepatic necrosis plus gross and
microscopic ulcerations and lesions in the
glandular and fore-stomachs in males.
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------
870.4300 Carcinogenicity-mouse This study was judged to be unacceptable/
guideline.
The dosing levels for males were 0, 10, 30,
and 120 ppm (0, 1.4, 4.1, and 17.2 mg/kg/
day).
The dosing levels for females were 0, 10,
30, 120, and 180 ppm (0, 1.6, 4.8, 20.5,
and 32.8 mg/kg/day).
The NOAEL for males was 4.1 mg/kg/day and
for females was 32.8 mg/kg/day.
The LOAEL for males was 17.1 mg/kg/day
based on decrease of 20% in body weight
gain at 13 weeks that was supported by the
results of a 90-day study.
The LOAEL for females was greater than 32.8
mg/kg/day.
The Agency judged the highest dosing level
to be inadequate in females because it did
not produce a significant toxicological
response. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity
----------------------------------------
870.5100 Gene mutation: Bacterial This study is acceptable/guideline.
reverse mutation assay The results were negative ± S9
up to 5,000 [mu]g/plate by standard plate
and tube preincubation.
There was no cytotoxicity at any dose but
there was precipitation at >=2,500 [mu]g/
plate.
----------------------------------------
870.5300 Gene mutation: Mammalian This study is acceptable/guideline.
cell culture The results were negative ± S9
up to cytotoxic and precipitating
concentration of 20 [mu]g/mL.
----------------------------------------
870.5375 Cytogenetics (in vitro): This study is acceptable/guideline.
Chromosomal aberrations The results were negative ± S9
for clastogenic/aneugenic activity up to
25 [mu]g/mL.
Precipitation and cytotoxicity (reduced
cell attachment and poor quality of
metaphases) were seen at concentrations
>='50 [mu]g/mL.
----------------------------------------
[[Page 63087]]
870.5395 Cytogenetics: Micronucleus This study is acceptable/guideline.
test in mouse The results were negative for clastogenic/
aneugenic activity up to the highest dose
tested (HDT) (300 mg/kg). In a preliminary
study, doses >=400 mg/kg caused death.
----------------------------------------
870.5550 Unscheduled DNA synthesis: This study is acceptable/guideline.
Rat hepatocyte culture The results were negative up to a cytotoxic
concentration of 1.0 [mu]g/mL.
----------------------------------------
870.6200 Acute neurotoxicity This study is acceptable/guideline.
screening-rat The dosing levels were 0, 100, 300, and
1,000 mg/kg.
The neurotoxicity NOAELs were 1000 mg/kg
and the LOAELS were greater than 1,000 mg/
kg for both males and females.
The systemic NOAEL was 300 mg/kg for males
and 1,000 mg/kg for females.
The systemic LOAEL was greater than 1,000
mg/kg for females; it was 1,000 mg/kg for
males based on reduced body weight gain in
males.
----------------------------------------
870.6200 Subchronic neurotoxicity This study is acceptable/guideline.
screening-rat The dosing levels were 0, 50, 250, and 750
(males)/1500 (females) ppm (males: 0, 3.5,
16.9, 49.9 mg/kg/day; females: 0, 4.0,
20.4, 111.9 mg/kg/day).
The neurotoxicity NOAEL for males was 49.9/
111.9 mg/kg/day and for females was 111.9
mg/kg/day.
The neurotoxicity LOAEL for males was
greater than 49.9 mg/kg/day and for
females was greater than 111.9 mg/kg/day.
The systemic NOAEL for males was 16.9 mg/kg/
day and for females was 20.4 mg/kg/day.
The systemic LOAEL for males was 49.9 mg/kg/
day and for females was 111.9 mg/kg/day
based on reduced body weight gain, food
intake and food efficiency.
----------------------------------------
870.7485 Metabolism and This study is acceptable/guideline.
pharmacokinetics-rat Nearly 35% of an oral dose of
pyraclostrobin is absorbed, with urinary
and fecal excretion accounting for about
15% and 85% of excretion, respectively.
Bile elimination accounted for about 30%.
Two peak plasma concentrations were
reached at 0.5 - 1 and at 8 hours with 16
to 38% lower plasma concentrations in
males than females during the early peak
phase. Elimination was biphasic at a low
dose with plasma half lives of nearly 10
and 35 hours and monophasic at a high dose
with a half-life of nearly 20 hours.
Tissue distribution was fast, peaking at
0.5 hours, and was slightly higher among
females. Some of the highest
concentrations were found in the liver,
thyroid, kidney, lung, adrenal glands, and
pancreas but all levels dropped by more
than 20-fold within 72 hours. About 33
metabolites were identified in urine,
feces, and bile with no sex- or dose-
related differences but the position of
the label seemed to alter the profile,
particularly in the urine. Desmethoxy
pyraclostrobin is one of the major
metabolites (labeled 500M07) in rat and is
also found in large amounts in plants
(labeled BF 500-3) and livestock (also
labeled 500M07). The rat metabolic pathway
included phase I reactions such as N-
demethoxylation, various hydroxylations,
and cleavage of the ether bond with
subsequent oxidation; these reactions were
followed by phase II glucuronidation and
sulfation.
----------------------------------------
870.7600 Dermal penetration-rat This study was judged to be unacceptable/
guideline because most of the test
material was retained on the dressing and
was therefore unavailable for absorption.
This makes it very difficult to determine
the actual dose. However, the Agency was
able to calculate a maximum possible
dermal penetration rate of 14%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Mg/kg = milligram(s) per kilogram; mg/kg/day = milligram(s) per kilogram per day; mL = milliliter(s);
days/wk = days per week; [mu]g = microgram(s)
B. Toxicological Endpoints
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (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 adverse effects of concern are
identified (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 intraspecies differences.
Three other types of safety or uncertainty factors may be used:
``Traditional uncertainty factors;'' the ``special FQPA safety
factor;'' and the ``default FQPA safety factor.'' By the term
``traditional uncertainty factor,'' EPA is referring to those
additional uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA passage to account
for database deficiencies. These traditional uncertainty factors have
been incorporated by the FQPA into the additional safety factor for the
protection of infants and children. The term ``special FQPA safety
factor'' refers to those safety factors that are deemed necessary for
the protection of infants
[[Page 63088]]
and children primarily as a result of the FQPA. The ``default FQPA
safety factor'' is the additional 10X safety factor that is mandated by
the statute unless it is decided that there are reliable data to choose
a different additional factor (potentially a traditional uncertainty
factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
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 an UF of
100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies differences and any
traditional uncertainty factors deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF).
Where a special FQPA safety factor or the default FQPA safety factor is
used, 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 safety factor.
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). Examples of how such a probability risk is expressed are
description of the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 X
10-\5\), one in a million (1 X 10-\6\), or one in ten million (1 X
10-\7\). 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 pyraclostrobin that
were used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2.--Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Pyraclostrobin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dose Used in Risk
Assessment; Inter- Special FQPA SF and Study and Toxicological
Exposure Scenario species, Intraspecies, Level of Concern for Effects
and UF; RfD Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (Females 13-50 years of NOAEL= 5 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Rabbit prenatal
age) UF = 100............... aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day.. developmental toxicity
Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/ study.
day. LOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day
based on developmental
toxicity findings of
increased resorptions
per litter and
increased total
resorptions (i.e.,
dams with complete
litter loss).
--------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General population NOAEL = 300 mg/kg FQPA SF = 1X Rat acute oral
including infants and children) UF = 100............... aPAD = 3.0 mg/kg/day... neurotoxicity study.
Acute RfD = 3.0 mg/kg/ LOAEL = 1000 mg/kg/day
day. based on decreased
body weight gain in
males.
--------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 3.4 mg/kg/day FQPA SF = 1X Rat oral
UF = 100............... cPAD = 0.034 mg/kg/day. carcinogenicity study.
Chronic RfD = 0.034 mg/ LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day
kg/day. based on decreased
body weight and body
weight gain, and
kidney tubular casts
and atrophy in both
sexes, increased
incidence of liver
necrosis and erosion/
ulceration of the
glandular stomach and
forestomach in males,
plus
hemolymphoreticular
tumors in males and
mammary adenocarcinoma
in females.
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Incidental Oral (1-30 NOAEL= 5.8 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE 13-Week dog feeding
days) = 100 study. LOAEL = 12.9 mg/
Occupational LOC for kg/day based on
MOE = NA. increased incidence of
diarrhea, clinical
chemistry changes,
duodenum mucosal
hypertrophy, and
decreased body weight,
food intake, and food
efficiency.
--------------------------------------
Intermediate-Term Incidental Oral (1- NOAEL= 5.8 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE 13-Week dog feeding
6 months) = 100 study.
Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 12.9 mg/kg/day
MOE = NA. based on increased
incidence of diarrhea,
clinical chemistry
changes, duodenum
mucosal hypertrophy,
and decreased body
weight, food intake,
and food efficiency.
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Dermal (1 to 30 days) Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rabbit prenatal
NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day = 100 developmental toxicity
(dermal absorption Occupational LOC for study.
rate = 14 %). MOE = 100. LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day
based on developmental
toxicity findings of
increased resorptions
per litter and
increased total
resorptions (i.e.,
dams with complete
litter loss).
--------------------------------------
[[Page 63089]]
Intermediate-Term Dermal (1 to 6 Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rabbit prenatal
months) NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day = 100 developmental toxicity
(dermal absorption Occupational LOC for study.
rate = 14 %). MOE = 100. LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day
based on developmental
toxicity findings of
increased resorptions
per litter and
increased total
resorptions (i.e.,
dams with complete
litter loss).
--------------------------------------
Long-Term Dermal (>6 months) Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rat oral
NOAEL = 3.4 mg/kg/day = 100 carcinogenicity study.
(dermal absorption Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day
rate = 14 %). MOE = 100. based in males on
decreased body weight
and body weight gain,
and kidney tubular
casts and atrophy in
both sexes, increased
incidence of liver
necrosis, and erosion
and ulceration of the
glandular stomach and
forestomach in males,
plus
hemolymphoreticular
tumors in males and
mammary adenocarcinoma
in females.
--------------------------------------
Short-Term Inhalation (1 to 30 days) Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rabbit prenatal
NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day = 100 developmental toxicity
(inhalation absorption Occupational LOC for study.
rate = 100%). MOE = 100. LOAEL = 10.0 mg/kg/day
based on developmental
toxicity findings of
increased resorptions
per litter and
increased total
resorptions (i.e.,
dams with complete
litter loss).
--------------------------------------
Intermediate-Term Inhalation (1 to 6 Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rabbit prenatal
months) NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/day = 100 developmental toxicity
(inhalation absorption Occupational LOC for study.
rate = 100%). MOE = 100. LOAEL = mg/kg/day based
on developmental
toxicity findings of
increased resorptions
per litter and
increased total
resorptions (i.e.,
dams with complete
litter loss).
--------------------------------------
Long-Term Inhalation(>6 months) Oral study Residential LOC for MOE Rat oral
NOAEL = 3.4 mg/kg/day = 100 carcinogenicity study.
(inhalation absorption Occupational LOC for LOAEL = 9.2 mg/kg/day
rate = 100%). MOE = 100. based in both sexes on
decreased body weight
and body weight gain,
and kidney tubular
casts and atrophy in
both sexes, increased
incidence of liver
necrosis and erosion
and ulceration of the
glandular stomach and
forestomach in males,
plus
hemolymphoreticular
tumors in males and
mammary adenocarcinoma
in females.
--------------------------------------
Cancer (MOE Approach) NOAEL = 32.8 Mouse oral
carcinogenicity study.
Results were that
mortality, clinical
signs, body weight,
body weight gain, food
consumption, food
efficiency,
hematology, organ
weights, and gross and
microscopic findings
for both sexes at all
doses were unaffected
by treatment. The HDT
was 32.8 mg/kg/day in
females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NA = Not Applicable
The Agency has concluded that the rat carcinogenicity study is
acceptable for both sexes and did not show either a significant
increasing tumor trend or a significant difference in tumor incidence
in the pair-wise comparison of the dosed groups with the controls. The
Agency has also concluded that the mouse carcinogenicity study was
acceptable for males, in which there was no evidence of
carcinogenicity. In general, acceptable study results indicate that
pyraclostrobin is unlikely to be a carcinogen. However, the Agency has
also concluded that the carcinogenicity data available for
pyraclostrobin are inadequate to allow full assessment of the human
carcinogenic potential of this pesticide because the highest dosing
levels for females in the mouse carcinogenicity study were not great
enough to produce significant toxicological effects (that is, the HDT
is the NOAEL for female mice in this study). The company is performing
an additional carcinogenicity study in female mice to remedy this
deficiency. Because neither of the cancer studies show any evidence of
carcinogenicity, a non-threshold (Q-star) approach cannot be used to
estimate cancer risk. Instead, a regulatory MOE has been chosen as a
tool for bounding any potential chronic dietary cancer risk from
pyraclostrobin that may exist. The regulatory MOE is derived from the
HDT in female mice (a NOAEL of 32.8 mg/kg/day) and is 10 times higher
than the NOAEL used for chronic non-cancer risk. This is not the
traditional MOE approach used to assess the risks of using threshold
carcinogens but is believed by the Agency to be appropriate in this
situation for the following reasons:
? The genotoxicity data indicate that pyraclostrobin is not mutagenic,
[[Page 63090]]
? Both sex groups in the rat study and the male group in the
mouse study showed no treatment-related increase in tumors, and
? Two structural analogs of pyraclostrobin have been found
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
It is, as well, commonly accepted that developing cancers which have
been triggered by non-genotoxic substances are reversible if exposure
is discontinued prior to complete propagation of the pre-neoplastic
lesions or the full expression of cancer.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have
previously been established (see 40 CFR 180.582) for the combined
residues of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its
desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate), expressed as parent compound, in or on a
variety of raw agricultural commodities, including barley, grain; beet,
sugar, roots; berry, group; fruit, citrus, group; fruit, stone, group;
nut, tree, group; peanut; rye, grain; vegetable, bulb, group;
vegetable, cucurbit, group; vegetable, fruiting, group; vegetable,
root, except sugar beet, subgroup; vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup; and wheat, grain. Tolerances have also been established for
the combined residues of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester)
and its metabolites convertible to 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-ol
and 1-(4-chloro-2-hydroxyphenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-ol, expressed as parent
compound, in or on the fat, liver, meat, and meat byproducts except
liver of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep, and in milk. Risk
assessments to assess dietary exposures from pyraclostrobin in food
were conducted by EPA 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.
In conducting the acute dietary risk assessments EPA used the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCID\TM\, Version 2.0), which accumulates food
consumption (exposure) data directly from reports 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. EPA also used the Lifeline\TM\, Version 2.0 model to conduct
the acute dietary risk assessments. Lifeline\TM\ also uses the CSFII,
1994-1996 and 1998 food consumption database but accumulates exposure
data using statistical and random samplings of the database. The
following assumptions were made for the acute exposure assessments.
Tolerance level pyraclostrobin residues, default processing factors,
and a 100% crop treated assumption were used for all commodities, as
appropriate, except as follows. The highest average field trial residue
data were used for leafy vegetables. Mango and papaya, on which no
action has yet been taken, were also included in this analysis.
ii. Chronic exposure. Chronic dietary risk assessments are
performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study and the use
pattern of the pesticide have indicated the possibility of an effect of
concern occurring as a result of a long-term exposure.
In conducting the chronic dietary risk assessment EPA used the
DEEM-FCID\TM\ model, which incorporates food consumption data as
reported by respondents in the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 CSFII and
accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. EPA also used
the Lifeline\TM\, Version 2.0 model to conduct the chronic dietary risk
assessments. Lifeline\TM\ also uses the CSFII, 1994-1996 and 1998 food
consumption database but accumulates exposure data using statistical
and random sampling of the database. The following assumptions were
made for the chronic exposure assessments. Tolerance level
pyraclostrobin residues and default processing factors were used for
raw and processed agricultural commodities, as appropriate, except as
detailed below. Percent crop treated (PCT) data were used for most crop
plant commodities but 100% crop treated values were assumed for banana
commodities, mango and papaya (on which no action has been taken yet)
commodities, and all animal commodities. The highest average field
trial residue data (instead of tolerance level residues) were used for
vegetables, leafy, except brassica, group. A proposed tolerance level
residue value of 1.5 ppm was used for strawberries instead of the
current tolerance level value of 0.4 ppm because BASF Corporation has
petitioned for an increase in the pyraclostrobin tolerance in or on
strawberries based on additional field trial data. No action has been
taken on this petition yet but inclusion of the higher value adds to
the conservatism of the exposure estimate. Finally, as noted above,
mango and papaya, for which no action has yet been taken on proposed
tolerances, were also included in this analysis.
iii. Cancer. The chronic dietary risk assessment for cancer
utilized the same models, food consumption data, and PCT and residue
assumptions as the chronic dietary risk assessment.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated pesticide residue levels 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.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if 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, that the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit
data on PCT.
Below is a description of how the Agency used PCT information,
including a list of the PCT data used in the chronic cancer and
noncancer PCT values. The value for each crop or crop group also
applies to all raw or processed agricultural commodities that are
encompassed by that crop or crop group. For example, the value for
fruit, pome, group applies to such commodities as apple fruit, dried
apples, apple juice and sauce, pear fruit, and pear juice.
Barley-- 2%
Beet, sugar--55%
Berry group--2%
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup--1%
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup--2%
[[Page 63091]]
Cherry, sweet--53%
Cherry, tart--53%
Corn, field--1%
Corn, pop--1%
Corn, sweet--1%
Fruit, citrus, group--6%
Fruit, pome, group--7%
Fruit, stone, group--28%
Grape--16%
Hop, dried cones--2%
Nut, tree, group--1%
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup--1%
Pea, succulent--1%
Peanut--19%
Peppermint--2%
Pistachio--6%
Rye-- 2%
Soybean--1%
Spearmint--2%
Strawberry--80%
Sunflower--1%
Vegetable, bulb, group--17%
Vegetable, cucurbit, group--37%
Vegetable, fruiting, group--18%
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group--5%
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, except sugar beet--2%
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup--6%
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup--25%
Wheat-- 2%
The PCT data that were used in the chronic cancer and noncancer
dietary risk analyses were derived as follows. (Note: For the acute
analysis the Agency used 100% crop treated.) For crops that were
already registered, the Agency used current usage data. These data were
determined to be the best data available and were found to be reliable
by the Agency.
For crops pending registration, the Agency generally uses projected
PCTs based on the highest or second highest current PCT of relatively
new fungicide alternatives that target the same diseases as
pyraclostrobin, while also taking into account the corresponding market
projections for the new pyraclostrobin uses. For corn, the Agency notes
that the use of fungicides is negligible. Even the commodity sweet
corn, with has the highest use rate of the alternative strobilurin, has
a percent crop treated of only 2%. Therefore, the Agency believe for
use on corn and sweet corn a 1% estimate is conservative. The use of
fungicides on soybean and sunflower is also negligible. The highest use
for any alternative is only < 1% and therefore, the Agency used 1%. For
Pome fruit, the Agency used an estimated percent crop treated of 7%,
there are two alternative one with a percent crop treated of < 1% and
another with a percent crop treated of 15%. The Agency used 7% which is
the Agency's estimate of the likely maximum percent crop treated for
pyraclostrobin on Pome fruit. It is possible that use could increase
beyond this estimated percentage; however, the Agency is requiring
annual reports that would detect this increase. For leafy vegetable,
the two major alternatives attained a 5% crop treated; therefore, the
Agency used a 5% crop treated estimate for leafy vegetables. For
Brassica, head and stem, one alternative had a percent crop treated of
2% for broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower and therefore a 2% crop
treated estimate was used. For Vegetables, leaves of root and tubers,
the best alternative had a maximum percent treated of 3% and the Agency
used 2%. There are a few instances where the Agency did not use the
maximum percent crop treated of any alternative, such as Vegetables,
leaves of root and tubers. In these few instances (Sweet corn, Tree
Nuts, Pome Fruit and Vegetables, leaves of roots and tubers) it is
because in the past the Agency has found the registrants estimates of
percent crop treated to be very reliable, more reliable that estimates
based on the maximum percent crop treated of an alternative. The Agency
conducted this same analysis of the major alternatives for all the
other crops/crop groups to derive these estimates.
As indicated above, for existing uses 2003 PCT data provided by the
registrant were accepted as provided for use in the dietary analysis.
The 2003 data provided by the registrant were the only actual data
available for the registered crops and the registrant best knew, based
on its product sales during 2003, how pyraclostrobin was allocated
across those crops. Usage data for 2003 from USDA/NASS (National
Agricultural Statistics Service), the Agency's proprietary source, and
the California Department of Pesticide Regulation were not available to
the Agency at the time of analysis. These 2003 data from the registrant
were initially presented as market share data--the shares of acre-
treatments of pyraclostrobin in total fungicide treatments for each
crop--as a check on the registrant's previous projections of the same
prior to registration of these crops. These 2003 market shares were
based on actual sales of pyraclostrobin allocated to registered crops
during eleven months of 2003. Since dietary analysis requires PCTs, not
market shares, the Agency converted these 2003 market shares to 2003
PCTs by taking into account the numbers of applications and the total
fungicide treatments to acres planted ratio for each crop. At about the
same time the registrant did the same conversions. Each of the two sets
of 2003 PCTs converted from 2003 market shares were almost identical,
with small differences mainly due to different numbers of applications
used in their calculations by each party. Since the registrant's 2003
PCT data used numbers of applications that were consistent with those
used in its corresponding 2003 market shares data, the registrant's
PCTs were considered to be the more consistent of the two and thus were
used for the dietary analysis. As a condition of registration, the
registrant also will provide corresponding market share or PCT data for
2004 based on sales of its products during 2004 (and, similarly, for
following years) for these same registered crops. Generally, chronic
dietary analysis utilizes actual PCT data, based on either usage data
sources and/or registrant product sales, for registered uses and
projected PCT data for pending uses.
The Agency believes that the three conditions previously discussed
for PCT data have been met. With respect to Condition 1, EPA finds that
the PCT data that are listed above for pyraclostrobin use on a number
of agricultural crops are reliable and have a valid basis. Since
initial registration of this pesticide the Agency has required annual
data submissions concerning the PCT of crops pyraclostrobin is
registered for use on and the same requirement will be a condition of
registration for crops for which tolerances are being established by
this rule.
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
the 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 pyraclostrobin
may be applied in a particular area.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency currently lacks
sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for pyraclostrobin in drinking
water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates
[[Page 63092]]
are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data
on the physical characteristics of pyraclostrobin.
The Agency used the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis
Modeling System model (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations
in surface water and the Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-
GROW) model to predict pesticide concentrations in ground water. PRZM/
EXAMS incorporates an index reservoir environment in its analysis and
includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the
maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin. The
SCI-GROW model estimates pesticide concentrations in shallow
groundwater.
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 screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is
unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health
LOCs.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the
risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs), which are the model estimates of a
pesticide's concentration in water. EDWCs derived from these models are
used 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 pyraclostrobin they
are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit E.
Based on the (Tier II) PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models, the peak
EDWCs of pyraclostrobin for acute exposures are estimated to be 22.6
parts per billion (ppb) in surface water and 0.02 ppb in shallow ground
water. The peak EDWCs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.9 ppb
in surface water and 0.2 ppb in shallow ground water. The 36-year
average concentration of pyraclostrobin in surface water that was
estimated by PRZM-EXAMS for use in the chronic/cancer risk assessment
is 1.2 ppb. These concentrations are based on maximum applications to
turf, which has the highest labeled application rate of any
pyraclostrobin use.
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).
Pyraclostrobin is proposed for application to residential turfgrass
and recreational sites. The risk assessment was conducted using the
following residential exposure assumptions. Turf applications will be
made by professional pest control operators (PCOs) only, so residential
handler exposure is not expected and was not evaluated. Postapplication
scenarios evaluated assumed that exposure via the dermal route is
likely for both adults and children entering treated lawns. Toddlers
may also experience exposure via hand-to-mouth contact, object-to-mouth
contact, and soil ingestion. The postapplication risk assessment is
based on generic assumptions specified in the Recommended Revisions to
the Residential SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and recommended
approaches by an EPA science advisory council. It is also assumed that
postapplication turf exposure can occur over periods of from one day to
multiple weeks because of pyraclostrobin residue decline times and
multiple treatments being made in a season. Thus, these exposures are
classified as short-term (one day to one month) and intermediate-term
(one to six months).
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to pyraclostrobin and any
other substances. Pyraclostrobin also does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite that is produced by other substances. For the purposes
of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
pyraclostrobin 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 policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408 of 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 based on reliable data 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. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional safety
factor value based on the use of traditional uncertainty factors and/or
special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no substantial
evidence of increased prenatal or postnatal susceptibility following in
utero exposure to rats. That is, the lowest-dose adverse developmental
effects were seen at a higher dose than that which caused maternal
toxicity. However, in the rabbit developmental toxicity study there was
qualitative evidence of higher prenatal susceptibility: Increases in
resorptions per litter and post-implantation losses were seen in the
presence of maternal toxicity (decreases in body weight gain and food
consumption). In the 2-generation reproduction study the HDT did not
elicit maternal systemic, reproductive, or offspring toxicity. In the
1-generation toxicity study there was an apparent quantitative
susceptibility in pups (not seen in the 2-generation reproduction
study) that is based on a possible marginal decline (threshold effect)
in body weight and body weight gain at the lowest dose level of 21 mg/
kg/day (developmental LOAEL) while the parental systemic toxicity NOAEL
and LOAEL were 40 and 60 mg/kg/day, respectively, based
[[Page 63093]]
on decreased body weight and body weight gain.
3. Conclusion. There is an adequate toxicity data base for the
selection of doses and endpoints for use in risk assessment for
pyraclostrobin. Exposure data are complete or are estimated based on
data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA has
evaluated and reevaluated the potential for increased susceptibility of
infants and children to pyraclostrobin and has concluded that the
special FQPA safety factor (FQPA SF) should be reduced to 1X for all
potential pyraclostrobin exposure scenarios because there are no
residual uncertainties for pre- or post-natal toxicity and no
substantial evidence of increased sensitivity of infants and children
to pyraclostrobin. There is low concern for the qualitative
susceptibility seen in the rabbit prenatal development study and no
residual uncertainties because the developmental effects were seen in
the presence of maternal toxicity and there are no clear NOAELs for
maternal and developmental toxicities. There is also low concern for
the quantitative susceptibility seen in the one-generation rat
reproduction study and no residual uncertainties because:
i. The offspring effects seen in this study were not repeated in
the two-generation reproduction study.
ii. The marginal increase in pup weights seen at or after post-
natal day 7 may be due to higher exposure via their diet.
iii. The dose used for risk assessment would address the effects of
concern seen in the offspring.
iv. Even though the mouse cancer study must be repeated, the MOE
approach used for cancer risk assessment provides an adequate margin of
safety because a NOAEL was established. The repeated study will be done
at higher doses.
The Agency therefore concludes that the dietary (food and drinking
water) and residential exposure assessments will not underestimate the
potential exposure of infants, children, or women of childbearing age.
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 EDWCs. 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 as used by the EPA's 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 EDWCs for surface water and ground water 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) will
not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk.
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
pyraclostrobin is estimated to occupy 2% of the aPAD for the U.S.
population in the DEEM-FCID\TM\ model run and 1% of the aPAD for the
U.S. population in the Lifeline\TM\ model run; 74% of the aPAD for
females 13 - 49 years old in the DEEM-FCID\TM\ model run and 85% of the
aPAD for females 13 - 49 years old in the Lifeline\TM\ model run; 3% of
the aPAD for all infants (less than one year old) in the DEEM-FCID\TM\
model run and 3% of the aPAD for all infants (less than one year old)
in the Lifeline\TM\ model run; and 4% of the aPAD for children 1-2
years old in the DEEM-FCID\TM\ model run and 3% of the aPAD for
children 1-2 years old in the Lifeline\TM\ model run. In addition,
there is the potential for acute dietary exposure to pyraclostrobin in
drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the
EDWCs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Acute Exposure to Pyraclostrobin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup aPAD (mg/ % aPAD Water EDWC Water EDWC Acute DWLOC
kg) (Food)* (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 3.0 1 22.6 0.02 1.0 x 10\5\
------------------------------------------------
All Infants (less than 1 year old) 3.0 3 22.6 0.02 2.9 x 10\4\
------------------------------------------------
Children 1-2 years old 3.0 3 22.6 0.02 2.9 x 10\4\
------------------------------------------------
Children 3-5 years old 3.0 3 22.6 0.02 2.9 x 10\4\
------------------------------------------------
Children 6-12 years old 3.0 1 22.6 0.02 3.0 x 10\4\
------------------------------------------------
Youths 13-19 years old 3.0 1 22.6 0.02 8.9 x 10\4\
------------------------------------------------
Females 13-49 years old 0.05 85 22.6 0.02 230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lifeline\TM\ model results
[[Page 63094]]
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure and the Lifeline\TM\ model, EPA has concluded
that exposure to pyraclostrobin from food will utilize 6% of the cPAD
for the U.S. population, 10% of the cPAD for the subgroup all infants
(less than 1 year old), 16% of the cPAD for the subgroup children 3-5
years old, and 5% of the cPAD for the subgroup females 13-49 years old.
Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of
pyraclostrobin is not expected. In addition, there is the potential for
chronic dietary exposure to pyraclostrobin in drinking water. After
calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EDWCs for surface and
ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100%
of the cPAD, as Table 4 demonstrates.
Table 4.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Chronic (Non-Cancer) Exposure to Pyraclostrobin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Ground
Population Subgroup cPAD mg/kg/ % cPAD Water EDWC Water EDWC Chronic
day (Food)* (ppb) (ppb) DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 0.034 6 1.9 0.02 1100
------------------------------------------------
All Infants (less than 1 year old) 0.034 10 1.9 0.02 310
------------------------------------------------
Children 1-2 years old 0.034 21 1.9 0.02 270
------------------------------------------------
Children 3-5 years old 0.034 16 1.9 0.02 290
------------------------------------------------
Children 6-12 years old 0.034 9 1.9 0.02 310
------------------------------------------------
Youths 13-19 years old 0.034 4 1.9 0.02 980
------------------------------------------------
Females 13-49 years old 0.034 5 1.9 0.02 970
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Lifeline\TM\ model results
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
Pyraclostrobin is proposed to be registered for application, by
professional pest control operators only, to residential and
recreational turfgrass sites that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term
exposures for pyraclostrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that aggregated food and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 230 for the U.S. population as a
whole and 130 for the subgroup children 1-2 years old. These aggregate
MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for aggregate exposure
to food and residential uses. In addition, short-term DWLOCs were
calculated and compared to the EDWCs for chronic exposure of
pyraclostrobin in ground and surface water. After calculating DWLOCs
and comparing them to- the EDWCs for surface and ground water, EPA does
not expect short-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level
of concern, as shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Short-Term Exposure to Pyraclostrobin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Surface Ground
Population Subgroup MOE (Food + Target MOE Water EDWC Water EDWC Short-Term
Residential) (ppb) (ppb) DWLOC (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 230 100 22.6 0.02 980
-----------------------------------------------
Children 1-2 years old 130 100 22.6 0.02 110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Pyraclostrobin is currently registered for use(s) that could result
in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and
intermediate-term exposures for pyraclostrobin.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food and
residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 230 for
the U.S. population as a whole and 130 for the subgroup children 1-2
years old. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of
concern for aggregate exposure to food and residential uses. In
addition, intermediate-term DWLOCs were calculated and compared to the
EDWCs for chronic exposure of pyraclostrobin in ground and surface
water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EDWCs for
surface and ground water, EPA does not expect (see Table 6)
intermediate-term aggregate exposure to exceed the Agency's level of
concern.
[[Page 63095]]
Table 6.--Aggregate Risk Assessment for Intermediate-Term Exposure to Pyraclostrobin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Surface Ground Intermediate-
Population Subgroup MOE (Food + Target MOE Water EDWC Water EDWC Term DWLOC
Residential) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population 230 100 22.6 0.02 980
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
calculated aggregate MOEs (food and drinking water exposure) for
pyraclostrobin. The SCI-GROW model estimates that the chronic
concentration of pyraclostrobin in shallow ground water from the
proposed use on turf grasses is 0.2 ppb. The PRZM/EXAMS model estimates
that the 36-year average chronic/cancer concentration is 1.2 ppb. The
aggregate regulatory bounded MOE for food plus drinking water is
therefore estimated to be 17,000, as detailed in Table 7 below.
Table 7.-- Margins of Exposure (MOEs) for Cancer Based Upon Chronic Aggregate Exposure (Food Plus Water) to
Pyraclostrobin for the U.S. Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure Exposure Total MOE
NOAEL (mg/kg/day) from Food MOE (food) from Water MOE (water) (food +
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) water)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32.8 0.00198 17,000 3.5 X 10- 950,000 17,000
\5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
therefore concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the general population or to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues.
IV. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
1. Enforcement methods for plant commodities. The petitioner has
proposed two tolerance enforcement methods for the determination of
residues of pyraclostrobin and its desmethoxy metabolite (BF 500-3) in/
on plant commodities: Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method D9808 and high pressure liquid
chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) method D9904. The validated method
levels of quantitation (LOQs) for pyraclostrobin and BF 500-3 for both
the LC/MS/MS and HPLC/UV methods are 0.02 ppm for each analyte in plant
matrices. Adequate independent method validation and radiovalidation
data have been submitted for both methods.
2. Enforcement methods for livestock commodities. The proposed
enforcement methods were used for data collection in the ruminant and
poultry feeding studies. The concurrent method validation recoveries
demonstrate that the methods are adequate for data collection. The
petitioner has proposed two tolerance enforcement methods for ruminant
commodities: HPLC/UV method 439/0 and Method 446, consisting of gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method 446/0 and LC/MS/MS
method 446/1. Radiovalidation data submitted for the GC/MS and LC/MS/MS
methods are adequate for liver, milk, and muscle. The HPLC/UV method
determines residues of pyraclostrobin per se. Method 446 has a
hydrolysis step and determines residues of pyraclostrobin and its
metabolites as BF 500-5 and BF 500-8. Independent method validation
data for the HPLC/UV and LC/MS/MS methods are acceptable.
3. Multiresidue methods. Pyraclostrobin was successfully evaluated
through several of the FDA protocols, while recovery of BF 500-3 was
unsuccessful in all protocols. Pyraclostrobin was completely recovered
through Protocol D (in grape) and E (in grape), and partially recovered
through Protocol F (in peanut). Metabolite BF 500-3 had poor peak shape
and inadequate sensitivity with Protocol C columns and therefore was
not further analyzed under Protocols D, E, and F. The results of the
multiresidue testing for pyraclostrobin have been forwarded to FDA for
inclusion in PAM (Pesticide Analytical Methods) Volume I.
Adequate enforcement methodology (such as gas chromatography) is
therefore available to enforce the tolerance expression. The methods
may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
residuemethods@epa.gov.
B. International Residue Limits
No Codex or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) have been
proposed or are established for residues of pyraclostrobin. It appears
that Canadian MRLs for pyraclostrobin have not yet been published.
C. Conditions
The following conditions are placed upon the initial registration
of the uses that are the subject of this rule.
1. Additional data requirements.
i. A 28-day inhalation toxicity study that follows the 90-day
inhalation toxicity protocol is required due to the potential
occupational exposure via this route.
ii. A new carcinogenicity study in female mice, using higher
dosing, because no systemic toxicity was seen in the initial study at
the HDT.
iii. To support the tolerance for vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group, six additional analyses of residue samples of head
lettuce with wrapper leaves are required from the submitted field
trials and one additional field trial from either Region 1 or 2 is
required for leaf lettuce.
iv. To support the tolerance for brassica, head and stem, subgroup,
analyses of four more samples of cabbage with wrapper leaves are
required from the submitted field trials.
v. To support the tolerance for brassica, leafy greens, subgroup,
three additional field trials on mustard greens
[[Page 63096]]
are required, one each from Regions 2, 3, and 10.
vi. To support the tolerance for pea and bean, dried shelled,
subgroup, one additional field trial is required from Region 11.
vii. To support the tolerances for soybean, forage and soybean,
hay, two additional field trials from Region 5 and one more from Region
4 are required.
viii. To support the increased tolerance for strawberry, one final
study of residues from field trials in California is required.
ix. Percent crop treated data will be required at the end of each
year for 5 years after registration of the new crop uses for which
tolerances are established in this final rule.
2. Other.
A reasonable amount of new analytical standard for pyraclostrobin
(BAS 500 F) and the desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin (BF 500-3)
must be submitted to the Agency.
V. Comments
Two communications were received from B. Sachau of New Jersey in
response to the notices of filing. The communications objected to
establishment of the proposed tolerances for several reasons and mostly
involve generalized and unsubstantiated disagreement with EPA's risk
assessment methodologies or safety findings. Each comment is listed
below, followed by the Agency response.
1. Ms. Sachau feels that establishment of these tolerances would
add to the pesticide body load that is already carried by the human
population.
Agency response: When new or amended tolerances are requested for
the presence of the residues of a pesticide and its toxicologically
significant metabolite(s) in food or feed, the Agency, as is required
by Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
estimates the risk of the potential exposure to these residues by
performing an aggregate risk assessment. Such a risk assessment
integrates the individual assessments that are conducted for food,
drinking water, and residential exposures. Additionally, the Agency, as
is further required by Section 408 of the FFDCA, considers available
information concerning what are termed the cumulative toxicological
effects of the residues of that pesticide and of other substances
having a common mechanism of toxicity with it. The Agency has concluded
after this assessment that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from exposure to the residues of interest. Therefore, the
proposed tolerance(s) are found to be acceptable. These assessments
consider body residue loads of the pesticide, as well as available
information concerning the potential that other substances have a
common mechanism of toxicity, in reaching a conclusion as to whether or
not the reasonable certainty of no harm decision can be made.
2. Ms. Sachau does not want American universities to use tax
dollars to promote pesticides (Interregional Research Project Number 4
is affiliated with Rutgers University).
Agency response: Although Ms. Sachau's concerns regarding use of
tax dollars to seek pesticide tolerances and registrations are not
germane to EPA's statutory basis for acting on the pyraclostrobin
tolerance petitions, and thus technically no response is required to
this comment, EPA can provide the following information regarding the
Interregional Research Project Number4 (IR-4). The Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) Program was created by Congress in
1963 to assist the growers of minor crops in obtaining registration of
pesticides for those uses that might otherwise be uneconomic for
pesticide companies to pursue. The IR-4 National Coordinating
Headquarters is located at Rutgers University in New Jersey and
receives the majority (90%) of its funding from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). It is the only publicly funded program that
conducts research, submits petitions for tolerances, and operates in
collaboration with USDA, the Land Grant University System, the
agrochemical industry, commodity associations, and the EPA. The IR-4
program takes the lead in identifying and prioritizing minor crop
pesticide needs, and in conducting the research needed to obtain the
tolerances for use on these crops. Under the Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act (PRIA), IR-4 works in cooperation with the pesticide
registrant to request a waiver of the fees that are charged for the
registration services provided by EPA. The waiver will be granted if
the labeling containing the use(s) of interest is closely associated
with submission of a tolerance petition by IR-4 and if it is in the
public interest. This fee waiver serves as an incentive to the IR-4
program to pursue registration of minor uses. In addition to the work
performed for minor use crop pesticide registration, IR-4 also develops
risk mitigation measures for existing registered products.
3. Ms. Sachau feels that animal testing is cruel to the animals, is
inaccurate, and is potentially even irrelevant to the issue being
researched.
Agency response: Animal testing is used because it is currently the
only reasonably accurate and acceptable way in which the potential
impacts of the use of new chemicals (including pesticides) on humans
can be determined. The EPA Test Guidelines recommend the types of
animals to be used as test animals in acute irritation studies as well
as in longer term, subchronic and chronic, studies such as
developmental toxicity, reproduction, and carcinogenicity studies.
Results obtained from these animal studies are generally felt by the
scientific community to be relevant to humans because the cells and
molecules of the selected test species are very similar to those of
humans. Therefore, if a pesticide causes toxicity in the test animals,
it is likely to do so in humans as well. That said, EPA supports
efforts to use the least possible number of animals in the studies that
are required to support pesticide registration actions. Concerning
alternatives, the use of humans as test subjects is widely felt to be
morally unacceptable and there are no in vitro type studies that can
adequately address the concerns the animal studies satisfy. The EPA is
currently working with the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the
Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to investigate in vitro
methods that can acceptably investigate the toxicological concerns
associated with the use of pesticides but the use of animal tests is
still necessary if the Agency is to make the reasonable certainty of no
harm decisions that it is legally required to make.
4. Ms. Sachau feels that the end point effects noted for
pyraclostrobin are, by themselves, sufficient that the Agency should
reject use of pyraclostrobin for any pesticidal purpose in the U.S.
Agency response: As is the case with almost all conventional
pesticides, numerous tests have been performed to study the
toxicological effects of pyraclostrobin. The various tests use doses
that range from quite low to many times higher than virtually any
member of the population of the U.S. could ever be exposed to. The
highest doses are, in fact, deliberately chosen to try to elicit
toxicological symptoms because a description of these symptoms and the
dose levels at which they occur is one of the desired outcomes of the
studies. Virtually any chemical (vitamins, for example) is toxic if
taken in excessively large doses. Risk, however, is a function of the
exposure levels that actually occur in the population in comparison to
the threshold exposure level at which
[[Page 63097]]
adverse symptoms begin to be elicited . For a toxicologically average
person, if actual exposure is less than the adverse symptom exposure
threshold, no such symptoms are expected to be seen. However, in order
to make the reasonable certainty of no harm determination the Agency
requires more assurance than this that the use of animals (instead of
humans) for testing, variations in susceptibility among members of the
U.S. population, greater sensitivity of infants and children, etc., has
been accounted for in the risk assessment process. Therefore, safety
factors are used in conjunction with dosing levels at which no or only
the first symptoms of exposure to the pesticide were seen to provide a
substantial additional margin of safety. This mechanism helps assure
that toxicological symptoms will not be elicited in members of the U.S.
population by beneficial, labeled uses of the pesticide. The fact that
very high doses of a pesticide cause toxicological symptoms is not, by
itself, enough to make approval of uses of that pesticide unreasonable.
5. Ms. Sachau feels that if all data are not available, the Agency
should not proceed with establishment of the tolerances.
Agency response: The studies the Agency still requires for
reasonably complete data support of the currently registered uses and
the additional uses that will be enabled by the establishment of the
tolerances in this rule are as follow, along with the reasons why they
do not interfere with the completion of this rule. It should also be
noted that there are always more data that could theoretically be
required, and that data requirements do change through time. Data gaps
such as those discussed below are, in general, considered to simply be
supplementary or confirmatory to the large body of acceptable data that
has already been submitted to the Agency in support of the tolerances
and uses that are contemplated by this rule.
? A 28-day inhalation toxicity study. - This study has been
required so that the Agency can confirm that repeated exposure of the
lungs to pyraclostrobin, an irritating chemical, is reasonably safe.
Since no incidents are known to the Agency, after two years of
registration, where exposure to pyraclostrobin has lead to lung damage,
continued use of this fungicide while this study is being completed
does not seem unreasonable.
? A new carcinogenicity study of female mice. - Two
carcinogenicity studies of pyraclostrobin have been completed. One,
testing both sexes of rats, was acceptable for both sexes and produced
no evidence of carcinogenicity. The other, testing both sexes of mice,
was acceptable for males and produced no evidence of carcinogenicity.
It was unacceptable for females because there was no evidence of
carcinogenicity and no significant evidence of toxicity even at the
highest dose. Because of this, and despite the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity to date, the Agency wants confirmation that
pyraclostrobin is not a carcinogen. Despite the lack of carcinogenicity
in the acceptable carcinogenicity studies to date, the Agency performed
an MOE threshold-type analysis based on the NOAEL for female mice to
produce a worst-case cancer risk assessment and found there to be no
risk of concern.
? Six more residue samples from previous studies of head
lettuce with wrapper leaves, one more residue field trial on head
lettuce, and one more residue field trial on leaf lettuce. - A total of
6 acceptable head lettuce and 6 acceptable leaf lettuce residue field
trials were submitted and, along with 12 acceptable celery and 8
acceptable spinach residue field trials, provide strong support for
establishment of a pyraclostrobin tolerance of 29 ppm on leafy
vegetables (except brassica). The Agency therefore believes that the
additional studies, while required by our standard operating procedure,
will simply serve to confirm the results of the acceptable data we have
already evaluated.
? Four more treated samples of cabbage with wrapper leaves.
- A total of 8 acceptable residue field trials on cabbage have already
been submitted and, together with 7 broccoli field trials, provide
strong support for establishment of pyraclostrobin tolerances of 16 ppm
in/on brassica head and stem vegetables. The Agency therefore believes
that the additional studies, while required by our standard operating
procedure, will simply serve to confirm the results of the acceptable
data we have already evaluated.
? Three more residue field trial on mustard greens. - A
total of 5 acceptable residue field trials on mustard greens have
already been submitted and provide strong support for establishment of
pyraclostrobin tolerances of 16 ppm in/on brassica leafy greens. The
Agency therefore believes that the additional studies, while required
by our standard operating procedure, will simply serve to confirm the
results of the acceptable data we have already evaluated.
? One more residue field trial on dried shelled peas. - A
total of 9 acceptable residue field trials on dried shelled peas have
already been submitted and, along with acceptable residue data
previously submitted for dried shelled beans, provide substantial
support for establishment of a pyraclostrobin tolerance of 0.3 ppm in/
on dried shelled peas and beans. The Agency therefore believes that the
additional study, while required by our standard operating procedure,
will simply serve to confirm the results of the acceptable data we have
already evaluated.
? Three more residue field trials on soybean forage and hay.
- A total of 17 acceptable residue field trials on soybean forage and
hay have already been submitted and provide strong support for
establishment of pyraclostrobin tolerances of 5 ppm in/on soybean
forage and 7 ppm in/on soybean hay. The Agency therefore believes that
the additional studies, while required by our standard operating
procedure, will simply serve to confirm the results of the acceptable
data we have already evaluated.
6. Ms. Sachau feels that the lack of data on endocrine disruption
show that the ``product'' is not ready to be used in the U.S.
Agency response: EPA is required by the FFDCA, as amended by the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), to develop a screening program to
determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide product
active and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or
other such endocrine effects as the [EPA]
Administrator may
designate.'' Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor
and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was
a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen
and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone
system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program
include evaluations of potential effects on wildlife. For pesticide
chemicals EPA will use Federal Fungicide, Insecticide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help
determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA
authority the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and
resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added
to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). In the available
toxicity studies on pyraclostrobin, there was no estrogen, androgen,
and/or thyroid mediated toxicity. When additional appropriate
[[Page 63098]]
screening and/or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's
EDSP have been developed, pyraclostrobin may be subjected to further
screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to
endocrine disruption. The Agency will respond to new information in
such a way as is appropriate at that time, but currently has no
evidence that pyraclostrobin is an endocrine disruptor.
Furthermore and in conclusion, Ms. Sachau's comments contained no
scientific data or other substantive evidence to rebut the Agency's
conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin from the establishment
of these tolerances.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, tolerances are established for the combined residues of
carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester, pyraclostrobin, and
methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate, the
desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound,
in or on apple, wet pomace at 8.0 parts per million (ppm); brassica,
head and stem, subgroup at 5.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup at
16.0 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.1 ppm; corn, field, forage at 5.0
ppm; corn, field, stover at 17.0 ppm; corn, field, refined oil at 0.2
ppm; corn, pop, grain at 0.1 ppm; corn, pop, stover at 17.0 ppm; corn,
sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at 0.04 ppm; corn, sweet,
forage at 5.0 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 23.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group
at 1.5 ppm; hop, dried cones at 23.0 ppm; legume, forage, except peanut
and soybean at 25.0 ppm; pea, succulent at 0.2 ppm; pea and bean, dried
shelled, except soybean, subgroup at 0.3 ppm; peppermint at 8.0 ppm;
soybean, forage at 5.0 ppm; soybean, hay at 7.0 ppm; soybean, hulls at
0.06 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.04 ppm; spearmint at 8.0 ppm; sunflower at
0.3 ppm; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group at 29.0 ppm;
vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, except sugar beet at 16.0; and
vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup at 0.5 ppm. Tolerances are
increased for the combined residues of carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester,
pyraclostrobin, and methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-
tolyl] carbamate, the desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin,
expressed as parent compound, in or on citrus, dried pulp to 12.5 ppm;
citrus, oil to 9.0 ppm; and fruit, citrus, group to 2.0 ppm, and
deletes the currently existing tolerance in 40 CFR 180.582 for the
combined residues of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester)
and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-
3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate), expressed as parent compound in or on
bean, dry, seed at 0.3 ppm. The latter tolerance is superseded by the
tolerance for pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup at
0.3 ppm. A temporary tolerance is established for the combined residues
of (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester), pyraclostrobin, and
methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate, the
desmethoxy metabolite of pyraclostrobin, expressed as parent compound,
in or on strawberry at 1.5 ppm, the increased tolerance expiring on
December 31, 2005.
VII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by 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 FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of 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 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-2004-0325 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 December
28, 2004.
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 (1900L),
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 Suite 350, 1099 14\th\ St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. 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 (202) 564-6255.
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
[[Page 63099]]
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
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 PIRIB for its inclusion in
the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your copies,
identified by docket ID number OPP-2004-0325, 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 ADDRESSES. 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).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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 FFDCA, such as the tolerances in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. 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 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.
IX. 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: September 30, 2004.
Lois Rossi,
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 63100]]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
? 2. Section 180.582 is amended as follows:
i. In paragraph (a)(1) by alphabetically adding commodities to the
table; by revising the tolerance levels for ``Citrus, dried pulp, ''
``Citrus, oil'' and ``Fruit, citrus, group'', and by removing the
commodity ``Bean, dry, seed''.
ii. By adding paragraph (a)(3).
The amendments to paragraph (a) read as follows:
Sec. 180.582 Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.
(a) General. (1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Apple, wet pomace.................................... 8.0
* * * * *
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup.................... 5.0
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup..................... 16.0
Citrus, dried pulp................................... 12.5
Citrus, oil.......................................... 9.0
Corn, field, forage.................................. 5.0
Corn, field, grain................................... 0.1
Corn, field, refined oil............................. 0.2
Corn, field, stover.................................. 17.0
Corn, pop, grain..................................... 0.1
Corn, pop, stover.................................... 17.0
Corn, sweet, forage.................................. 5.0
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed...... 0.04
Corn, sweet, stover.................................. 23.0
Fruit, citrus, group................................. 2.0
Fruit, pome, group................................... 1.5
* * * * *
Hop, dried cones..................................... 23.0
Legume, forage, except peanut and soybean, subgroup.. 25.0
* * * * *
Pea, succulent....................................... 0.2
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 0.3
* * * * *
Peppermint........................................... 8.0
* * * * *
Soybean, forage...................................... 5.0
Soybean, hay......................................... 7.0
Soybean, hulls....................................... 0.06
Soybean, seed........................................ 0.04
Spearmint............................................ 8.0
* * * * *
Sunflower............................................ 0.3
* * * * *
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group............. 29.0
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, except sugar 16.0
beet................................................
Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup........... 0.5
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(3) Tolerances are established for combined residues of the
fungicide pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its
desmethoxy metabolite methyl 2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl carbamate, expressed as parent compound, in or on
the following raw agricultural commodity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawberry............................................... 1.5 12/31/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-24247 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S