[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33472-33479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13071]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300999; FRL-6555-1]
RIN 2070-AB78


Tebufenozide; Benzoic Acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-
(4-ethylbenzoyl) hydrazide; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of 
tebufenozide [benzoic acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-
ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide], in or on the tree nut crop group (including 
pistachios) at 0.1 part per million (ppm) and on almond hulls at 25 
ppm. Rohm and Haas Company requested this tolerance under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection 
Act of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 24, 2000. Objections and 
requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-300999, 
must be received by EPA on or before July 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by 
mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions 
for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the ``SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.'' To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and 
hearing requests must identify docket control number OPP-300999 in the 
subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joseph Tavano, Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 
NW.,Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6411 and e-mail 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#087c697e6966672662677b6d7860486d7869266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f2b3e293e31307135302c3a2f371f3a2f3e71383029">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be affected by this action if you sell, distribute, 
manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, process 
food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide 
regulations. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, 
but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NAICS    Examples of potentially
             Categories                 codes       affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                                    111  Crop production
                                            112  Animal production
                                            311  Food manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          32532  Pesticide manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Stakeholders                        Growers/Agricultural
                                                  Workers, Contractors
                                                  (Certified/Commercial
                                                  Applicators, Handlers,
                                                  Advisors, etc.),
                                                  Commercial Processors,
                                                  Pesticide
                                                  Manufacturers, User
                                                  Groups, Food Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Distributors                                Wholesale Contractors,
                                                  Retail Vendors,
                                                  Commercial Traders/
                                                  Importers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inter governmental Stakeholders                  State, Local, and/or
                                                  Tribal Government
                                                  Agencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Entities                                 Governments, Growers,
                                                  Trade Groups,
                                                  Exporters
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 33473]]

    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 the table could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.''

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly 
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPP-300999. The official record 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and 
other information related to this action, including any information 
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official 
record includes the documents that are physically located in the 
docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for 
inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch 
(PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 
Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44439) (FRL 6019-
6), and February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7883) (FRL 6060-1), EPA issued a 
notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a as amended by the Food Quality Protection 
Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) announcing the filing of a 
pesticide petition (PP) 7F4815 for a tolerance by Rohm and Haas 
Company, 100 Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, 19106-2399. This 
notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Rohm and Haas 
Company, the registrant. There were no comments received in response to 
the notice of filing.
    The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.482 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide tebufenozide in 
or on the tree nut crop group (including pistachios) at 0.1 ppm and on 
almond hulls at 25 ppm.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish 
tolerances (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a 
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the 
pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures 
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This 
includes exposure through food and drinking water and in residential 
settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 
408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of 
infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing 
a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that 
no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to 
the pesticide chemical residue * * *.''
    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 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), 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), for tolerances for residues of tebufenozide on the tree nut 
crop group (including pistachios) at 0.1 ppm and on almond hulls at 25 
ppm. EPA's assessment of the exposures and risks associated with 
establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by tebufenozide are 
discussed in this unit.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    1. Acute toxicity-- i. Acute toxicity studies with technical grade: 
Oral LD<INF>50</INF> in the rat is > 5 grams for males and females--
Toxicity Category IV; dermal LD<INF>50</INF> in the rat is = 5,000 
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) for males and females--Toxicity Category 
III; inhalation LC<INF>50</INF> in the rat is >4.5 milligram/Liter (mg/
L) - Toxicity Category III; primary eye irritation study in the rabbit 
is a non-irritant; primary skin irritation in the rabbit >5 mg/kg--
Toxicity Category IV. Tebufenozide is not a sensitizer.
    ii. In a 21-day dermal toxicity study, Crl:CD rats (6/sex/dose) 
received repeated dermal administration of either the technical (96.1%) 
product (RH-75,992) at 1,000 (mg/kg/day) (Limit-Dose) or the 
formulation (23.1% active ingredient (a.i.)) product (RH-755,992 2F) at 
0, 62.5, 250, or 1,000 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), 6 hours/day, 
5 days/week for 21 days. Under conditions of this study, RH-75,992 
Technical or RH-75,992 2F demonstrated no systemic toxicity or dermal 
irritation at the highest dose tested (HDT) 1,000 mg/kg during the 21-
day study. Based on these results, the no-observed adverse effect level 
(NOAEL) for systemic toxicity and dermal irritation in both sexes is 
1,000 mg/kg/day HDT. A lowest-observed

[[Page 33474]]

adverse effect level (LOAEL) for systemic toxicity and dermal 
irritation was not established.
    iii. A 1-year dog feeding study with a LOAEL of 250 ppm (9 mg/kg/
day for male and female dogs) based on decreases in RBC, HCT, and HGB, 
increases in Heinz bodies, methemoglobin, MCV, MCH, reticulocytes, 
platelets, plasma total bilirubin, spleen weight, and spleen/body 
weight ratio, and liver/body weight ratio. Hematopoiesis and sinusoidal 
engorgement occurred in the spleen, and hyperplasia occurred in the 
marrow of the femur and sternum. The liver showed an increased pigment 
in the Kupffer cells. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity in both sexes is 
50 ppm (1.9 mg/kg/day).
    iv. An 18-month mouse carcinogenicity study with no carcinogenicity 
observed at dosage levels up to and including 1,000 ppm.
    v. A 2-year rat carcinogenicity study with no carcinogenicity 
observed at dosage levels up to and including 2,000 ppm (97 mg/kg/day 
and 125 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively)
    vi. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study in Sprague-Dawley 
rats (25/group), tebufenozide was administered on gestation days 6-15 
by gavage in aqueous methyl cellulose at dose levels of 50, 250, or 
1,000 mg/kg/day and a dose volume of 10 ml/kg. There was no evidence of 
maternal or developmental toxicity; the maternal and developmental 
toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    vii. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study conducted in New 
Zealand white rabbits (20/group), tebufenozide was administered in 5 
ml/kg of aqueous methyl cellulose at gavage doses of 50, 250, or 1,000 
mg/kg/day on gestation days 7-19. No evidence of maternal or 
developmental toxicity was observed; the maternal and developmental 
toxicity NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    viii. In a 1993 2-generation reproduction study in Sprague-Dawley 
rats, tebufenozide was administered at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 
150, or 1,000 ppm (0, 0.8, 11.5, or 154.8 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 
0.9, 12.8, or 171.1 mg/kg/day for females). The parental systemic NOAEL 
was 10 ppm (0.8/0.9 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively) and 
the LOAEL was 150 ppm (11.5/12.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, 
respectively) based on decreased body weight, body weight gain, and 
food consumption in males, and increased incidence and/or severity of 
splenic pigmentation. In addition, there was an increased incidence and 
severity of extramedullary hematopoiesis at 2,000 ppm. The reproductive 
NOAEL was 150 ppm. (11.5/12.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, 
respectively) and the LOAEL was 2,000 ppm (154.8/171.1 mg/kg/day for 
males and females, respectively) based on an increase in the number of 
pregnant females with increased gestation duration and dystopia. 
Effects in the offspring consisted of decreased number of pups per 
litter on postnatal days 0 and/or 4 at 2,000 ppm (154.8/171.1 mg/kg/day 
for males and females, respectively) with a NOAEL of 150 ppm (11.5/12.8 
mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively).
    ix. In a 1995 2-generation reproduction study in rats, tebufenozide 
was administered at dietary concentrations of 0, 25, 200, or 2,000 ppm 
(0, 1.6, 12.6, or 126.0 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 1.8, 14.6, or 143.2 
mg/kg/day for females). For parental systemic toxicity, the NOAEL was 
25 ppm (1.6/1.8 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), and the 
LOAEL was 200 ppm (12.6/14.6 mg/kg/day in males and females), based on 
histopathological findings (congestion and extramedullary 
hematopoiesis) in the spleen. Additionally, at 2,000 ppm (126.0/143.2 
mg/kg/day in M/F), treatment-related findings included reduced parental 
body weight gain and increased incidence of hemosiderin-laden cells in 
the spleen. Columnar changes in the vaginal squamous epithelium and 
reduced uterine and ovarian weights were also observed at 2,000 ppm, 
but the toxicological significance was unknown. For offspring, the 
systemic NOAEL was 200 ppm (12.6/14.6 mg/kg/day in males and females), 
and the LOAEL was 2,000 ppm (126.0/143.2 mg/kg/day in M/F) based on 
decreased body weight on postnatal days 14 and 21.
    x. Several mutagenicity tests which were all negative. These 
include an Ames assay with and without metabolic activation, an in vivo 
cytogenetic assay in rat bone marrow cells, and in vitro chromosome 
aberration assay in CHO cells, a CHO/HGPRT assay, a reverse mutation 
assay with E. Coli, and an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay (UDS) in rat 
hepatocytes.
    xi. The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of tebufenozide were 
studied in female Sprague-Dawley rats (3-6/sex/group) receiving a 
single oral dose of 3 or 250 mg/kg of RH-5992, <SUP>14</SUP>C labeled 
in one of three positions (A-ring, B-ring or N-butylcarbon). The extent 
of absorption was not established. The majority of the radio labeled 
material was eliminated or excreted in the feces within 48 hours; small 
amounts (1 to 7% of the administered dose) were excreted in the urine 
and only traces were excreted in expired air or remained in the 
tissues. There was no tendency for bioaccumulation. Absorption and 
excretion were rapid. A total of 11 metabolites, in addition to the 
parent compound, were identified in the feces; the parent compound 
accounted for 96 to 99% of the administered radioactivity in the high 
dose group and 35 to 43% in the low dose group. No parent compound was 
found in the urine; urinary metabolites were not characterized. The 
identity of several fecal metabolites was confirmed by mass spectral 
analysis and other fecal metabolites were tentatively identified by 
cochromatography with synthetic standards. A pathway of metabolism was 
proposed based on these data. Metabolism proceeded primarily by 
oxidation of the three benzyl carbons, two methyl groups on the B-ring 
and an ethyl group on the A-ring to alcohols, aldehydes or acids. The 
type of metabolite produced varies depending on the position oxidized 
and extent of oxidation. The butyl group on the quaternary nitrogen 
also can be cleaved (minor), but there was no fragmentation of the 
molecule between the benzyl rings.
    No qualitative differences in metabolism were observed between 
sexes, when high or low dose groups were compared or when different 
labeled versions of the molecule were compared.
    xii. The absorption and metabolism of tebufenozide were studied in 
a group of males and female bile-duct cannulated rats. Over a 72-hour 
period, biliary excretion accounted for 30% females to 34% males of the 
administered dose while urinary excretion accounted for <persptv-2>55% 
of the administered dose and the carcass accounted for <0.5% of the 
administered dose for both males and females. Thus, systemic absorption 
(percent of dose recovered in the bile, urine and carcass) was 35% 
females to 39% males. The majority of the radioactivity in the bile 
(20% females to 24% males of the administered dose) was excreted within 
the first 6 hours postdosing indicating rapid absorption. Furthermore, 
urinary excretion of the metabolites was essentially complete within 24 
hours postdosing. A large amount (67% males to 70% females) of the 
administered dose was unabsorbed and excreted in the feces by 72 hours. 
Total recovery of radioactivity was 105% of the administered dose.
    A total of 13 metabolites were identified in the bile; the parent 
compound was not identified (i.e. - unabsorbed compound) nor were the 
primary oxidation products seen in the

[[Page 33475]]

feces in the pharmacokinetics study. The proposed metabolic pathway 
proceeded by primary oxidation of the benzylic carbons to alcohols, 
aldehydes or acids. Bile contained most of the other highly oxidized 
products found in the feces. The most significant individual bile 
metabolites accounted for 5% to 18% of the total radioactivity (males 
and/or females). Bile also contained the previously undetected (in the 
pharmacokinetics study) ``A'' Ring ketone and the ``B'' Ring diol. The 
other major components were characterized as high molecular weight 
conjugates. No individual bile metabolite accounted for >5% of the 
total administered dose. Total bile radioactivity accounted for 
<nearly-eq>17% of the total administered dose. No major qualitative 
differences in biliary metabolites were observed between sexes. The 
metabolic profile in the bile was similar to the metabolic profile in 
the feces and urine.
    2. Short- and intermediate-term toxicity. No dermal or systemic 
toxicity was seen in rats receiving 15 repeated dermal applications of 
the technical (97.2%) product at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose) as well 
as a formulated (23% active ingredient (a.i)) product at 0, 62.5, 250, 
or 1,000 mg/kg/day over a 21-day period. The Agency noted that in spite 
of the hematological effects seen in the dog study, similar effects 
were not seen in the rats receiving the compound via the dermal route 
indicating poor dermal absorption. Also, no developmental endpoints of 
concern were evident due to the lack of developmental toxicity in 
either rat or rabbit studies. This risk is considered to be negligible.
    3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the chronic population 
adjusted dose (cPAD) for tebufenozide at 0.018 mg/kg/day. This 
reference dose (RfD) is based on a NOAEL of 1.8 mg/kg/day and an 
uncertainty factor (UF) of 100. The NOAEL was established from the 
chronic toxicity study in dogs where the NOAEL was 1.8 mg/kg/day based 
on growth retardation, alterations in hematology parameters, changes in 
organ weights, and histopathological lesions in the bone, spleen and 
liver at 8.7 mg/kg/day. EPA determined that the 10x factor to protect 
children and infants (as required by FQPA) should be reduced to 1x. 
Therefore, the cPAD is the same as the RfD: 0.018 mg/kg/day.
    4. Carcinogenicity. Tebufenozide has been classified as a Group E, 
``no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans,'' chemical by EPA.

C. Exposures and Risks

    1. Dietary-- i. From food and feed uses. Tolerances have been 
established (40 CFR 180.482) for the residues of tebufenozide, in or on 
a variety of raw agricultural commodities. In today's action tolerances 
will be established for the residues of tebufenozide in or on the tree 
nut crop group including pistachios at 0.1 ppm, and on almond hulls at 
25.0 ppm. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary 
exposures from tebufenozide as follows:
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) 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 
under estimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and 
Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food 
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not 
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the 
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To 
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of percent crop 
treated (PCT) as required by section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require 
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    a. Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary risk assessments are 
performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological study has 
indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result 
of a 1-day or single exposure. Neither neurotoxicity nor systemic 
toxicity was observed in rats given a single oral administration of 
tebufenozide at 0, 500, 1,000 or 2,000 mg/kg. No maternal or 
developmental toxicity was observed following oral administration of 
tebufenozide at 1,000 mg/kg/day (Limit-Dose) during gestation to 
pregnant rabbits. This risk is considered to be negligible.
    b. Chronic exposure and risk. In conducting the DEEM (Dietary 
Exposure Evaluation Model) analysis for chronic exposure to and risk 
from tebufenozide residues in food, the Agency used tolerance level 
residues and some PCT (Tier 2). For the subject crops, the tolerances 
used are: 0.1 ppm for tree nuts (including pistachios) and 25.0 ppm for 
almond hulls. The analysis evaluates individual food consumption as 
reported by respondents in the USDA, Continuing Surveys of Food Intake 
by Individuals conducted in 1989 through 1992. Summaries of the 
exposures and their representations as percentages of the cPAD for the 
general population and subgroups of interest are presented in Table 1.

 Table 1. Chronic Exposure Analysis by the DEEM System for Tebufenozide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Exposure (mg/kg/
       Population subgroup               day)                cPAD%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population (48 continguous   0.0026............  14%
 states).
Non-nursing infants (<1 years     0.0097............  54%
 old).
Females (13+/nursing)...........  0.0024............  13%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the table, ``cPAD%'' means cPAD% = Exposure x 100% divide by 
cPAD.
    The subgroups listed above are: (1) The U.S. population (48 
continguous states ); (2) highest exposed population subgroup that 
includes infants and children; and (3) females 13+.
    This chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment should be viewed 
as conservative. Further refinement using anticipated residue values 
and additional PCT information would result in a lower estimate of 
chronic dietary exposure from food.
    The estimates of PCT were used as follows. In all cases the maximum 
estimates were used.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Crop                      Average             Maximum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almonds.........................   <1%..............   <1%
Apples..........................   1%...............   2%
Beans/Peas, Dry.................   0%...............   1%
Cabbage, Fresh..................   2%...............   3%
Cole Crops......................   1%...............   2%
Cotton..........................   1%...............   4%
Spinach, Fresh..................   2%...............   3%
Spinach, Processed..............   20%..............   29%
Sugarcane.......................   3%...............   5%
Walnuts.........................   10%..............   16%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. From drinking water-- a. Acute exposure and risk. Because no 
acute dietary endpoint was determined, the Agency concludes that there 
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from acute exposure from drinking 
water.
    b.Chronic exposure and risk. The Agency calculated the Tier I 
Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for tebufenozide using 
generic expected environmental concentration (GENEEC) (surface water) 
and screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) (ground water) 
models for use in the human health risk assessment. For chronic 
exposure, the worst case EECs for surface water and ground water

[[Page 33476]]

were 16.5 parts per billion (ppb) and 1.04 ppb, respectively. These 
values represent upper-bound estimates of the concentrations that might 
be found in surface and ground water. These modeling data were compared 
to the chronic drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOC) for 
tebufenozide in ground and surface water (SOP for Drinking Water 
Exposure and Risk Assessments, November 20, 1997).
    For purposes of chronic risk assessment, the estimated maximum 
concentration for tebufenozide in surface and ground waters (16.5 
ppb=16.5 <greek-m>g/L) was compared to the back-calculated human health 
DWLOCs for the chronic (non-cancer) endpoint. These DWLOCs for various 
population categories are summarized in Table 2.

               Table 2. Drinking Water Levels of Comparison for Chronic Exposure to Tebufenozide<SUP>1</SUP>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     EEC<SUP>7</SUP> calc.
                                               Chronic RfD      Food      Max. water   DWLOC <SUP>4,5,6</SUP>  max. (<greek-
             Population Category<SUP>2</SUP>              (mg/kg/day)    exposure    exposure<SUP>3</SUP>   (<greek-m>g/     m>g/L)
                                                            (mg/kg/day)  (mg/kg/day)       L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population (48 continguous states)......        0.018       0.0026       0.0154           540          16.5
Females (13+ years)..........................        0.018       0.0024       0.0156           470          16.5
Non-nursing infants (<1 year)................        0.018       0.0097       0.0083            83         16.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Values are expressed to 2 significant figures.
\2\Within each of these categories, the subgroup with the highest food exposure was selected.
\3\Maximum water exposure (chronic) (mg/kg/day) = Chronic PAD (mg/kg/day)--Food exposure (mg/kg/day).
\4\DWLOC(<greek-m>g/L) = Max. water exposure (mg/kg/day) x body wt (kg) <divide> [(10<SUP>-3</SUP> mg/<greek-m>g) x water
  consumed daily (L/day)].
\5\HED Default body weights are: General U.S. population, 70 kg; females (13+ years old), 60 kg; other adult
  populations, 70 kg; and, all infants/children, 10 kg.
\6\HED Default daily drinking rates are 2 L/day for adults and 1 L/day for children.
\7\EEC: Estimated Environmental Concentration. (Chronic 56-day value).

    2. From non-dietary exposure. There is a potential for occupational 
exposure to tebufenozide during mixing, loading, and application 
activities. However, the Agency did not identify dermal or inhalation 
endpoints for tebufenozide and determined that risks from these routes 
of exposure are negligible.
    3. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering 
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency 
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of 
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a 
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine 
whether tebufenozide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other 
substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk 
assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a 
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, 
tebufenozide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by 
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, 
EPA has not assumed that tebufenozide has a common mechanism of 
toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts 
to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to 
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule 
for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for U.S. Population

    1. Acute risk. The Agency did not identify an acute dietary 
toxicological endpoint, therefore, the risk from this route of exposure 
is negligible.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described above, 
and taking into account the completeness and reliability of the 
toxicity data, the Agency has concluded that dietary (food only) 
exposure to tebufenozide will utilize 14% of the cPAD for the U.S. 
population, and 54% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population 
subgroup (non- nursing infants <1 yr). EPA generally has no concern for 
exposures below 100% of the cPAD. Submitted environmental fate studies 
suggest that tebufenozide is moderately persistent to persistent and 
mobile; thus, tebufenozide could potentially leach to ground water and 
runoff to surface water under certain environmental conditions. The 
modeling data for tebufenozide indicate levels less than the Agency's 
DWLOCs. There are no chronic non- occupational/residential exposures 
expected for tebufenozide. Therefore, the Agency concludes that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to adults, infants 
and children from chronic aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. There are potential non-
occupational/residential short-term post application exposures 
(incidental non-dietary ingestion) to toddlers from the use of 
tebufenozide on ornamentals. However, since the Agency did not identify 
acute dietary endpoint, the short-term post application exposure risk 
assessment is expected to be negligible. Intermediate-term incidental 
non-dietary exposures are not expected.
    4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
from aggregate exposure to tebufenozide residues.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety for Infants and Children

    1. Safety factor for infants and children. In assessing the 
potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to 
residues of tebufenozide, EPA considered data from developmental 
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction 
study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to 
evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from 
maternal pesticide exposure gestation. Reproduction studies provide 
information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the 
reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic 
toxicity.
    FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional 
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of 
threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and 
the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. 
Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either 
directly through use of a margin of exposure (MOE) analysis or through 
using uncertainty (safety) factors in calculating a dose level that 
poses no appreciable risk to humans. EPA

[[Page 33477]]

believes that reliable data support using the standard uncertainty 
factor (usually 100 for combined interspecies and intraspecies 
variability) and not the additional tenfold MOE/uncertainty factor when 
EPA has a complete data base under existing guidelines and when the 
severity of the effect in infants or children or the potency or unusual 
toxic properties of a compound do not raise concerns regarding the 
adequacy of the standard MOE/safety factor.
    2. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for 
tebufenozide and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on 
data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. For the reasons 
summarized above, the Agency concludes that an additional safety factor 
is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children.
    3. Acute risk. Since no acute toxicological endpoints were 
established, it is unlikely that acute aggregate risk exists.
    4. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described above, 
and taking into account the completeness and reliability of the 
toxicity data, the Agency has concluded that dietary (food only) 
exposure to tebufenozide will utilize 14% of the cPAD for the U.S. 
population, and 54% of the cPAD for the most highly exposed population 
subgroup (non-nursing infants <1 yr). EPA generally has no concern for 
exposures below 100% of the cPAD. Despite the potential for exposure to 
tebufenozide in drinking water and from non-dietary, non- occupational 
exposure, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of 
the RfD.
    5. Short- or intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
risks are judged to be negligible due to the lack of significant 
toxicological effects observed.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to tebufenozide 
residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism in Plants and Animals

    1. Nature of the residue--Plants. The qualitative nature of the 
residue in plants is adequately understood based upon acceptable apple, 
sugar beet, and rice metabolism studies. The Agency has concluded that 
the residue of regulatory concern is tebufenozide per se.
    2. Nature of the residue--Animal. The results of the ruminant and 
poultry metabolism studies have been reviewed by the Agency and the 
determination was made that the tebufenozide residues of regulatory 
concern in animals are the parent tebufenozide and the four metabolites 
designated: RH-2703 [benzoic acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-
2-((4-carboxymethyl)benzoyl)hydrazide], RH-9886 [benzoic acid, 3-
hydroxymethyl,5-methyl-1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-(4-
ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide], the stearic acid conjugate of RH-9886, and RH-
0282 [benzoic acid, 3-hydroxymethyl-5-methyl-1-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-2-
(4-(1-hydroxyethyl) benzoyl)hydrazide].

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    1. Analytical methods--Plant tissues. The Rohm and Haas method TR 
34-95- 20, with minor modifications, was used to determine tebufenozide 
residue levels in/on pecans and almonds (MRID 44414304). This method 
has been validated by EPA and was submitted to the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) for inclusion in PAM II. The method limit of 
quantitation (LOQ) and limit of detection (LOD) for tebufenozide are 
0.01 ppm and 0.003 ppm, respectively.
    2. Analytical methods--Animal tissues. A submitted HPLC/UV Method, 
Rohm and Haas Method TR 34-96-109, has been determined to be adequate 
for collecting data on residues of tebufenozide in animal tissues. The 
validated LOQ for tebufenozide in animal tissue is 0.02 ppm. The LOQ 
for each of the metabolites studied are as follows: RH-2703 in liver, 
0.02 ppm; RH-9886 and RH-0282 in meat, 0.02 ppm; RH-9526 in fat, 0.02 
ppm. The LODs for the analytes are 0.006 ppm in tissues.
    3. Multi-residue methods. Rohm and Haas has previously submitted 
data involving multi-residue method testing.
    Adequate enforcement methodology (example--gas chromatography) is 
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be 
requested from: Calvin Furlow, PRRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 
305-5229; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9cfdcdbc5c6de87cac8c5dfc0c7e9ccd9c887cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a4c5f5846455d04494b465c43446a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>.

C. Magnitude of Residues

    1. The petitioner submitted data from tests on pecans, almonds, and 
almond hulls. A bridging study was also submitted showing that there 
were no differences in the amount of RH-5992 residues on pecans 
(nutmeat) from the two formulations. Residues of tebufenozide were 
determined in/on nuts harvested 11-14 days following the last of 4 
foliar applications of tebufenozide for a total of <difference>2.0 lbs 
ai/acre per season (1x the proposed seasonal rate). Tebufenozide 
residues in/on pecans were below the LOQ of 0.01 ppm: values ranged 
from <0.003 ppm (the LOD) to 0.0058 ppm. Tebufenozide residues in/on 
almonds were < 0.003-0.052 ppm, and in/on almond hulls were 7.880-19.9 
ppm.
    2. The inclusion of pistachios into the tree nut crop group without 
a change in the representative crops, pecans and almonds, has been 
recommended but has not as yet been published. The submitted pecan, 
almond, and almond hull field trial residue studies are adequate to 
support the proposed 0.1 ppm tolerance for the tree nut crop group 
including pistachios and the 25.0 ppm tolerance for almond hulls.
    3. Processed food/feed. There are no tree nut (including pistachio) 
processed commodities of regulatory interest.

D. International Residue Limits

    Codex MRLs have been established for residues of tebufenozide in/on 
pome fruit (1.0 ppm), husked rice (0.1 ppm) and walnuts (0.05 ppm). 
Tebufenozide is registered in Canada, and a tolerance for residues in/
on apples is established at 1.0 ppm. EPA has set the pome fruit 
tolerance at 1.0 ppm to harmonize with the Codex and Canadian levels.

E. Rotational Crop Restrictions

    Since tree nuts and pistachios are perennial crops, rotational crop 
restrictions are not required for the tree nut crop group and 
pistachios.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of 
tebufenozide, in or on the tree nut crop group (including pistachios) 
at 0.1 ppm, and on almond hulls at 25 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any 
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may 
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural 
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for 
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those 
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to 
the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those 
procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary 
modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially 
the same process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an

[[Page 33478]]

exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new 
section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. 
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 control number OPP-300999 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 July 24, 
2000.
    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 issue(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 (1900), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to 
the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. 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) 260-4865.
    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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7602191b061d1f1805581c1f1b3613061758111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec9883819c8785829fc2868581ac899c8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>, 
or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration 
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    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, Ariel Rios Bldg., 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or 
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you 
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion 
in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.2. Mail your 
copies, identified by docket control number OPP-300999, to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and 
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the 
location of the PIRIB described in Unit I.B.2. You may also send an 
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec1dede83cac1cdc5cbdaeecbdecf80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234c53530e474c40484657634653420d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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 file 
format 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 issue(s) in the manner sought 
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 
CFR 178.32).

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) 
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). 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 prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 
13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998); special considerations as 
required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or require OMB review 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 FFDCA section 408(d), such 
as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a 
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has 
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect 
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the

[[Page 33479]]

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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

VIII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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: May 10, 2000.
James Jones,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and 371.
    2. In Sec. 180.482, by alphabetically adding the following entries 
to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows.


Sec. 180.482  Tebufenozide; tolerances for residues.

    *    *    *    *    *
    (a) General. (1) ***

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Parts
                           Commodity                               per
                                                                 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Almond hulls...................................................     25
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
Tree nut crop group including pistachios.......................      0.1
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-13071 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>