### U N I TED STAT ES ENV I RONM ENT A L PRO TE C TI O N AGE N CY WAS HIN GT ON , D .C. 20460 OFF ICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVEN T ION 

### MEM ORAN D UM D ate: O c to b e r 29, 2015 

### SU B JECT : 

### M etira m : H E D Re s pon s e to Co mments on th e R eg i s tration R ev ie w Preliminar y W o rk Plan PC Code: 0 14601 ; 014504 ; 600016 D P Ba r code: 04 2 9578 Dec is i o n No.:5 1 0059 Rc!! istra ti o n No.: NA P etition No.: NA Ree ul a to r v Actio n : Reg is trati o n Rev ie w R isk Asses s ment T y pe : NA Case No.: NA TXR No.: NA MR rD No.: NA


### FR O M:

T HRO UG H : CAS No.: 9006

-42

- 2; 96 -45- 7 40 CF R : § 18 0.2 1 7
Danette Dre w ,**Ch mis** **~** /**~** P e t e S avo i a,**Ch mi** **~** 

### f<L-**~ ~~**  Ri s k A ssess m e nt Bra nch 

### V N II H ea lth Effec ts Di v i s ion ( 75 09 P )
Micha e l M e t zge r , Branch C hi e f

# ~ 

# 0 /J

# ~ Ri s k Assess m e nt Branch es 

### V N II 

# vG J f H ea lth E ffec t s Di v i s io n (7509 P )


### T O: Brittan y Pruitt , C hemical R e vi e w Manager Ri s k Man age m e nt and Impl e m e ntation Branch 3 Pes ticid e R e - Eva lu a tion Di v i s io n ( 7508P )

B ASF Co rp o rati o n ha s s ubmitt e d comm e nt s o n the Metiram Pre liminary Work Pl a n 

### for R eg i s tr a ti o n R ev i ew ( D oc ke t No
. E PA-HQ- O PP- 2 015-0 29 0 ) (A u g u s t , 24 , 20 1 5 le tt e r)
. The H ea lth Effec t' s Di v i s io n ( H E D ) h as c o n s id e re d th e fo ll o win g B ASF comme nt p e rt a ining to th e H ED d oc um e nt titl e d 

### Me tiram : Human H ea lth Ri s k Assessm e nt Sco ping D oc um e nt in Supp o rt of R eg is tra ti on R ev iew ( 6 12 120 1 5, 0425218) and provides the fo ll owing respons e :

P age 1 of 2

### !.: Market Ba s ket Survey Ju s tification In res ponse to th e Age n cy's r eq u es t for just ification that th e 

### 19 89- 1 990 e th y lene-bisdithiocarbamate (E BD C) Market Basket (MB) survey remains rele va nt for refining metiram a nd othe r E BD C dietary asse ssmen t s, B ASF m a intain s that it i s still a viab le and usab le stat i stical s urv ey . How ever, s pecific information h as not been provided d e m o n s tratin g the re levancy of th e o lde r MB s urvey for use in curre nt asse ss m e nts. BASF h as asked fo r more detail o n th e typ es of in for mation that would be n eeded. To allow for th e co ntinued u se of the MB s ur vey, specific data mu s t be sub mitted th at illustrate th at the survey resu l ts (E BD C re sidue on food) remain representative of present EBDC usag e. This wou ld include pro v iding comparisons (ac ross tim e) of typ ical rates , E BDC usage totals, app li cat io n tec h niques/ t imin g, percent crop treated data , commerc ial pr ac ti ces ( h a ndlin g , storage and tran s port a ti o n) , and th e capab il ities of ana lyt ica l m eth o d s to detect re sid u es . T he data s hould a dequ ate ly d e mon strate that expec ted EBDC residue levels in food toda y wo uld n ot be app rec iably different th a n res idues fo und in the o ld e r MB s ur vey. I n th e eve nt that th e continu e d u se of th e MB s urv ey cam1 ot be justified, th e Agency w ill r ely on res idue data from avai la ble contro ll ed s tudi es ( field tri a l & proc ess in g s tudie s), w hi c h w ill like ly result in sig nificantl y greater ri sk est imates, until a ne w survey can be provided
.

Pa ge 2 of 2