# i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen, (703) 305 - 7390 Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR- 4) P etition Number (P P# 0E7779 ) EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP# 0E7779, from IR- 4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 b y establishing a tolerance for residues of dicamba (3,6 - dichloro -o - anisic and its metabolite 3,6 - dichloro - 5 - hydroxy-o - a nisic acid (5 - OH dicamba) in or on the raw agricultural commodity teff, forage at 90.0 parts per million (ppm); teff, grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, straw at 30.0 ppm; and teff, hay at 40.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The nature of dicamba residues in dicamba is adequately understood. The primary route of metabolism of dicamba is by demethylation to form DCSA and subsequent hydroxylation to form the minor metabolite DCGA (3,6 - dichlorogentisic acid). DCSA and its gluco se conjugates are the major metabolites from both pre and postemergence applications of dicamba. Parent dicamba can be expected to comprise a significant portion of the residue in both teff forage and hay for postemergence applications. DCGA and its conjugates can be expected to be present only at low levels in teff forage and hay. EPA has previously determined that the dicamba residues of concern are dicamba, DCSA, and 5 - OH dicamba. Based on the results of metabolism studies, the current tolerance expression is adequate for teff forage and hay. 2. Analytical method. Adequate enforcement methods are available for the analysis of residues of dicamba and its relevant metabolites in or on plant and livestock commodities. Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists appropriate analytical methods, based on gas chromatography (GC) with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), that are sufficient to provide for the enforcement of proposed dicamba tolerances in teff forage, grain, straw and hay.2 3. Magn itude of residues. The proposed tolerances are based on a US EPA ChemSAC decision. IR- 4 received a request (PR 10195) for the use of dicamba on teff. Teff is a small grain grown as a warm season cereal crop and the cultural practices are similar to other sm all grains such as wheat, barley, rye and oats. Given that teff and other cereal grains have similar morphological, cultural practices, taxonomical characteristics, and share similar pest problems, IR- 4 proposed extrapolating the tolerances for wheat a nd other grains to tolerances for teff. IR- 4 also stated that crop group 15 is scheduled to be included in a 2011 crop group submission to the EPA, which was confirmed by Bernie Schneider. Bernie stated that currently most of the teff is grown in ID and MT. Considering the low acreage grown in the US and the similarity to other cereal grains, the ChemSAC concurred with the IR- 4 proposal for the use of dicamba on teff. In addition, the proposed tolerances for dicamba in teff forage and hay will not result in secondary residues in meat and milk above the tolerances already published at 40 CFR 180.227. B. Toxicological Profile EPA has previously

evaluated available toxicology data on dicamba and concluded the data are of sufficient quality and reliability

to merit reregistration. EPA also found the available data to be adequate to characterize the toxicity of dicamba as it relates to human health including variability and sensitivity

of major subgroups of consumers including infants and childre n. The nature of dicamba toxicity is discussed in the 2006 Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) and as part of a recent action to establish tolerances on sweet corn commodities (Federal Register: April 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 64, p. 17914 - 18; Petition No . 0E6209; Decision: 304187; EPA- HQ - OPP -2007 - 0325). 1. Acute toxicity. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 2. Genotoxicity. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 4. Subchronic toxicity. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 5. Chronic toxicity. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 6. Animal metabolism. As noted in Dicamba RED, 2006 and Decision 304187 . 7. Metabolite toxicology

. Toxicity studies on DCSA and DCGA have been conducted to further characterize their toxicity. Overall, only a few minor quantitative and qualitative differences in toxicity were observed when comparing DCSA, DCGA and dicamba. These data demonstrate that the overall toxicity profiles of dicamba and its metabolites, DCSA and DCGA, are substantially similar and that neither DCSA nor DCGA present any new or unusual toxicity concerns3

beyond what has already been considered for parent dicamba. T herefore, existing dicamba toxicity endpoints are sufficient to assess potential health risks from exposure to DCSA and DCGA metabolites. 8. Endocrine disruption

. Dicamba does not belong to a class of chemicals known for having adverse effects on the endocrine system. No effects indicative of endocrine disruption have been observed in the various short- and long-term studies conducted with various mammalian species. C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Existing tolerances for dicamba residues in meat and milk are adequate to support the proposed tolerances of dicamba in teff forage, grain, straw and hay. In addition, the proposed new use that supports the teff forage, grain, straw and h ay tolerances does not result in an increase in estimated drinking water exposure beyond what has already been evaluated by EPA. Consequently, no incremental dietary (food plus water) exposure to dicamba is anticipated from the proposed tolerances, and the most recent EPA dietary exposure assessment supporting dicamba tolerances for sweet corn commodities (Federal Register: April 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 64, p. 17914 - 18; Petition No. 0E6209; Decision: 304187) is adequate to support the proposed tolerances on teff, forage, grain, straw and hay . i. Food. In support of the proposed tolerances for sweet corn commodities, a highly conservative acute dietary assessment was conducted for all dicamba food exposures assuming 100% of crop and livestock food commodities contain tolerance level residues. Acute d ietary (food plus water) exposure (95 th percentile) was conservatively estimated to be 0.044 mg/kg bw/day for the general population and 0.109 mg/kg bw/day for the most highly exposed subpopulation of infants < 1year old. A Tier I chronic dietary assessment was also conducted and chronic dietary exposure was conservatively estimated to be 0.012 mg/kg bw/day for the general population and 0.030 mg/kg bw/day for the most highly exposed subpopulation of children aged 1 - 2 years old . ii. Drinking water. EPA estimated concentrations of dicamba and DCSA in groundwater and surface water using the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SC I - GROW) models. Combined estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of dicamba and DCSA for acute exposures are estimated to be 367 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water. The combined EECs for chronic exposures are es timated to be 13.8 ppb for surface water and 0.016 ppb for ground water . Estimates of exposure from drinking water were combined with the food exposures reported above. 2. Non

- dietary exposure

. Dicamba is currently registered for use on residential sites, including home lawns and golf courses. Residential handlers are likely to be4

exposed to dicamba residues via dermal and inhalation routes during handling, mixing, loading and applying activities . Post application exposure to dicamba also exists for adults and children who reenter a treated area. EPA assessed non - dietary exposure (residential handler and residential post application) to dicamba in support of the proposed tolerances for sweet co rn commodities (Federal Register: April 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 64, p. 17914 - 18; Petition No. 0E6209; Decision: 304187) . Non - dietary exposure to dicamba did not exceed the Agency’s level of concern . D. Cumulative Effects EPA has not made a common mec hanism of toxicity finding for dicamba . E. Safety Determination 1. U.S. population. The proposed dicamba tolerances for teff forage, grain, straw and hay do not pose any incremental dietary exposure to the general US population beyond that which has been previously considered by EPA as part of previous regulatory actions. A conservative dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) was conducted for dicamba in support of the proposed tolerances for sweet corn commodities (Federal Register: April 2, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 64, pages 17914 - 18; Petition No. 0E6209 ; Decision No. 304187). Dietary exposure from all registered uses of dicamba combined utilized only 4.4% aPAD and 2.6% cPAD for the general US population. Considering the completeness of the overall toxicity database supporting this petition, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure arising from current and proposed dicamba uses including all anticipated dietary and non - occupational exposures. 2. Infants and children

. The proposed dicamba tolerances for teff forage, grain, straw and hay do not pose any incremental dietary exposure to infants and children beyond that which has been previously considered by EPA. A conservative dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered dicamba uses contributes only 11% aPAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup of infants less than one year old for acute exposure, and 6.7% cPAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup of children 1 -2 years old for chronic exposure. Considering the completeness of the overall toxicity database supporting this petition, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure arising from current and proposed dicamba uses inclu ding all anticipated dietary and non - occupational exposures. F. International Tolerances There currently are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for residues of dicamba on teff forage, grain, straw or hay.