April 7, 2008

Environmental Protection Agency\
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (7502C)\
Office of Pesticide Programs\
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW\
Washington, DC 20460-0001

**Re: [2,4-D, Bensulide, DCPA, Desmedipham, Dimethoate, Fenamiphos,
Phorate, Sethoxydim, Terbufos, and Tetrachlorvinphos; Proposed Tolerance
Actions](http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/February/Day-06/p2094.htm).**

**EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674-0001.pdf**

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0674

FR Notice:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/February/Day-06/p2094.htm

We submit these comments on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). NRDC is pleased to see that EPA has either cancelled or
reduced many tolerances for these toxic, harmful chemicals. However, in
a significant number of cases listed below, EPA has raised tolerances.

EPA sets the tolerance based on residue data, not chemical efficacy
data. That is, EPA doesn't try to determine how little of the toxic
chemical could be used and still be an effective pesticide. Instead, EPA
the allowable level (i.e. tolerance) is set based on how much pesticide
ends up on the commodity. First, EPA determines how much pesticide will
end up on commodity when the pesticide is used at an effective level
(i.e. the status quo). Then, EPA evaluates exposure, based on dietary
exposure (PDP data, etc.). Finally, if the exposure is found to exceed
the reference dose (RfD, i.e. acceptable level of residue without
appreciable health impacts), then EPA will negotiate with the
registrant, and leave it to the registrant to respond with a proposal
for a lower application rate, cancellation of that use, etc. The only
time a tolerance is reassessed is with an application for a new use,
which forces EPA to go back and review the aggregate (IRED) assessment,
or according to regular scheduled reviews. Tolerances are not reassessed
based on new data, new science, new evidence of harm, etc.

The approach that is used to set tolerances favors high levels of food
contamination, rather than prudent minimal use of toxic agriculture
pesticides. The regulatory review schedule makes it difficult to re-do
regulatory decisions, even when mitigation measures are ineffective or
inadequate, or when new science shows increased harm.

Therefore, NRDC continues to advocate for reducing and replacing these
toxic agriculture chemicals with reduced-risk and non-chemical
alternatives, and is specifically against any increases in tolerances,
or establishment of new tolerances.

Respectfully,

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D.

Senior Scientist, NRDC

Washington, DC

Detailed comments and agency proposed actions are below:

**2,4-D**

EPA proposes correcting the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.142(a) for the
combined 2,4-D residues of concern in/on grape from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm;
fruit, stone, group 12 from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm; fruit, pome group 11 from
0.1 to 0.05 ppm, and strawberry from 0.1 to 0.05 ppm.

NRDC continues to have significant concerns about the EPA human health
risk assessment for 2,4-D. We brought our concerns to the attention of
EPA in 2004 with a written letter (2,4-D Risk Assessment; Docket ID No.
OPP-2004-0167), incorporated here by reference. Specifically, we raise
the following issues in these comments:

1.  EPA proposes to remove the full FQPA-mandated 10X safety factor to
    protect children from 2,4-D despite the evidence of their greater
    susceptibility to 2,4-D and the existence of significant data gaps
    related to both 2,4-D's toxicity and exposure;

2.  EPA does not designate farm children as a population of special
    concern and ignores aggregate risk to these children as a result
    oftheir additional pathways of exposure;

3.  EPA underestimates exposure risk and overestimates safety to
    farmworkers;

4.  EPA selects a dermal absorption factor that fails to protect
    infants, people wearing DEET or sunscreen, and people who have
    consumed alcohol, all of whom will have enhanced absorption of 2,4-D
    through the skin;

5.  EPA fails to fully assess risk to toddlers playing on lawns that
    were recently treated with 2,4-D;

6.  EPA fails to use the maximum water concentration of 2,4-D and
    because of the data gaps for dissipation rates, underestimates
    potential exposure risks

7.  EPA underestimates risks to swimmers in treated waters due to
    deficient reasoning and a failure to identify a data gap in
    dissipation rates;

8.  EPA fails to fully assess the risk of inhalation of 2,4-D;

9.  EPA ignores data showing low-dose toxicity in dogs without
    sufficient scientific justification;

10. EPA fails to properly classify the carcinogenicity of 2,4-D in a
    Class C or B. The Agency ignores overwhelming and unique data
    showing that 2,4-D is cytotoxic, genotoxic, and has been associated
    with cancer in humans.;

11. EPA fails to adequately address aggregate risk; and the

12. EPA fails to meet its statutory obligation to assess combined
    effects.

In that letter, and again here, we are of the opinion that once the many
deficiencies are corrected and full exposure and risks are accounted
for, it will be clear that the risks to human health and the environment
from 2,4-D and 2,4-D products are unacceptable and unsafe for use -- at
any level.

**Bensulide**

EPA proposes increasing and revising the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.241(a)
for the combined bensulide residues of concern in/on cucurbits at 0.10
(N) ppm to vegetable, cucurbit group 9 at 0.15; and vegetable, leafy at
0.1 (N) ppm to vegetable, leafy, except brassica group 4 at 0.15 ppm.

EPA proposes establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.241(a) for combined
bensulide residues of concern in/on vegetable, brassica, leafy group 5
at 0.15 ppm

**Desmedipham**

EPA proposes revising the tolerance on sugar beet (roots and tops) from
0.2 ppm to sugar, beet, roots at 0.1 ppm and sugar, beet, tops at 5.0
ppm in 40 CFR 180.353(a) for residues of the herbicide desmedipham
(ethyl- m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate).

**Dimethoate**

The uses of dimethoate on apples, cabbage, collards, head lettuce,
spinach, and grapes were canceled.

Although the use on head lettuce has been canceled, the use on leaf
lettuce remains. There are no active registrations with the use on
blueberries; however, the blueberry tolerance is for the purpose of
imports and for this reason will not be revoked. Lentils are covered by
the existing pea, dry tolerance in accordance with 40 CFR 180.1(g).
Therefore, EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for
the combined dimethoate residues of concern in/on apple at 2 ppm;
cabbage at 2 ppm; collards at 2 ppm; grape at 1 ppm; lentil, seed at 2
ppm; and spinach at 2 ppm; and revise lettuce to lettuce, leaf.

EPA proposes decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.204(a) for the
combined dimethoate residues of concern in/on turnip, roots from 2 ppm
to 0.2 ppm.

Therefore, EPA proposes decreasing and revising the tolerance in 40 CFR
180.204(a) for the combined dimethoate residues of concern from sorghum,
forage at 0.2 ppm to sorghum, grain, forage at 0.1 ppm and establishing
a tolerance on sorghum, grain, stover at 0.1 ppm.

In September, 2005, NRDC commented on the dimethoate revised risk
assessments and risk reduction options (Docket Number: OPP-2005-0084; FR
Notice Vol.70, No. 171, p. 53005. Sept 6, 2005), incorporated here by
reference. At that time, we raised the concern that there is significant
uncertainty inherent with the BMD analysis used by EPA in this
assessment, and therefore poor confidence in the derived reference dose
from this analysis. Further, by failing to use the FQPA to adjust for
database weaknesses and data indicating juvenile sensitivity to
dimethoate, EPA has further eroded confidence in the protective ability
of the population adjusted dose (PAD). These concerns remain
unaddressed.

**Fenamiphos**

EPA proposes increasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for
fenamiphos residues of concern in/on peanut from 0.02 ppm to 1.0 ppm.

EPA proposes decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for
fenamiphos residues of concern in/on eggplant from 0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm
and Brussels sprouts from 0.10 ppm to 0.05 ppm.

EPA proposes removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(1) for
fenamiphos residues of concern in/on grapefruit; lemon; lime; orange,
sweet; and tangerine each at 0.60 ppm and establishing a tolerance for
fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.50 ppm.

EPA proposes revoking all of the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349(a)(2) for
fenamiphos residues of concern in cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle,
meat byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; hog, fat;
hog, meat; hog, meat byproducts; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat
byproducts; milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; sheep, meat byproducts

each at 0.05 ppm

EPA proposes establishing an expiration/revocation date of December 31,
2009, on tolerances in 40 CFR 180.349 for fenamiphos residues of concern
in/on apple; Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cherry, sweet; cherry, tart;
eggplant; okra; peach; peanut; raspberry; strawberry; asparagus; beet,
garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; Bok choy; kiwifruit; and pepper,
nonbell and add the footnote \`\`There are no U.S. registrations as of
December 31, 2009.\'\'

**Phorate**

EPA proposes decreasing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for phorate
residues of concern in/on bean; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed; corn, grain; sorghum, grain; soybean; and sugarcane, cane from
0.1 to 0.05 ppm; and potato from 0.5 to 0.2 ppm.

EPA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.206(a) for
phorate residues of concern in/on hop from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm.

**Sethoxydim**

PA is proposing to increase the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412 for
sethoxydim residues of concern in/on clover, hay from 50 to 55 ppm and
cranberry from 2.0 to 2.5 ppm.

EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.412(a) in/on apple, dry
pomace at 0.8 ppm; citrus, molasses at 1.5 ppm; cotton, seed, soapstock
at 15 ppm; flax, straw at 2.0 ppm; flax, meal at 7 ppm; peanut,
soapstock at 75.0 ppm; tomato,

concentrated products at 24 ppm; and tomato, dry pomace at 12.0 ppm.

**Tetrachlorvinphos**

EPA proposes revising the tolerance expression in 40CFR 180.252(a)(1) to
regulate the residues of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos
((Z)-2-chloro-1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)vinyl dimethyl phosphate) and its
metabolites, 1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanol (free and conjugated
forms), 2,4,5-trichloroacetophenone, and
1-(2,4,5-trichlorophenyl)-ethanediol.

EPA proposes revising and establishing 18--month time-limited tolerances
in newly proposed 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for residues of the insecticide
tetrachlorvinphos and its metabolites in/on cattle, fat and hog, fat
from 1.5 ppm to 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, kidney and hog, kidney at 1.0 ppm (of
which no more than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, liver
and hog, liver at 0.5 ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat and hog, meat at 2.0 ppm (of
which no more than 2.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); cattle, meat
byproducts except kidney and liver and hog, meat byproducts except
kidney and liver at 1.0 ppm; milk, fat at 0.05 ppm reflecting negligible
residues in whole milk (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); eggs from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, fat from 0.7 to 7.0
ppm (of which no more than 7.0 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se);
poultry, meat at 3.0 ppm (of which no more than 3.0 ppm is
tetrachlorvinphos per se); poultry, liver at 2.0 ppm (of which no more
than 0.05 ppm is tetrachlorvinphos per se); and poultry, meat byproducts
except liver at 2.0 ppm all of which expire on \[18 months from the date
of final publication\].

EPA proposes revoking the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.252(a)(1) for
residues of the insecticide tetrachlorvinphos in/on goat, fat at 0.5
ppm; horse, fat at 0.5 ppm; removing 40 CFR 180.252(a)(2); and changing
the designation of 40 CFR

180.252(a)(1) to 40 CFR 180.252(a).