```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33458-33465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13233]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411; FRL-9910-52]

Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends a tolerance for residues of 
spirodiclofen in or on citrus, oil. Bayer CropScience requested this 
tolerance amendment under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective June 11, 2014. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 11, 2014, 
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@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. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's 
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government 
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must 
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before 
August 11, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and 
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without 
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 4, 2010 (75 FR 5790) (FRL-8807-
5), 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 
9E7632) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.608 be amended by 
establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide spirodiclofen, 
(3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-
dimethylbutanoate), in or on bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 4.0 parts per 
million (ppm). The petition additionally requested to revise the 
tolerance expression under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as 
follows: ``(a)(1). Tolerances are established for residues of the 
insecticide spirodiclofen, including its metabolites and degradates. 
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by 
measuring only spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate)''; and ``(a)(2). 
Tolerances are established for residues of the insecticide 
spirodiclofen, including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance 
with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring 
only the sum of spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate) and its metabolite, 
3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5]dec-3-en-2-one, 
calculated

[[Page 33459]]

as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirodiclofen.'' That notice 
referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by 
Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, 
http://www.regulations.gov.
    In the Federal Register of March 29, 2011 (76 FR 17374) (FRL-8867-
4), 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 
0E7820) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. 
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.608 be amended by establishing 
tolerances for residues of the insecticide spirodiclofen, (3-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-
dimethylbutanoate), in or on sugar apple, cherimoya, atemoya, custard 
apple, ilama, soursop, biriba, guava, feijoa, jaboticaba, wax jambu, 
starfruit, passionfruit, persimmon and acerola at 0.45 ppm; and lychee, 
longan, Spanish lime, rambutan and pulasan at 3.5 ppm. That notice 
referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by 
Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, 
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Finally, in the Federal Register of July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43115) 
(FRL-9392-9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide 
petition (PP 3F8152) by Bayer CropScience, 2 TW Alexander Dr., Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.608 be 
amended by amending the established tolerance for residues of the 
insecticide spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate, in or on citrus, oil 
from 20 ppm to 35 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the 
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is 
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no 
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    IR-4 has since withdrawn PPs 9E7632 and 0E7820 due to 
unresolved labeling issues regarding pollinators. However, the EPA has 
determined that the proposed changes to the tolerance expression under 
the notice for PP 9E7632 are appropriate. Additionally, EPA is 
relying upon the risk assessments supporting those actions in order to 
amend the citrus, oil tolerance, since the higher citrus, oil level was 
considered in these assessments. Therefore, risk estimates 
characterized in the underlying assessments for those actions are 
considered overestimations of risk, because the uses associated with 
PPs 9E7632 and 0E7820 have since been withdrawn; however, 
those assessments will support the amended citrus, oil tolerance.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    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. . . 
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors 
specified in FFDCA 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 for spirodiclofen including 
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. 
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with spirodiclofen 
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.
    Spirodiclofen has a low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and 
inhalation routes. It is not an eye or dermal irritant; however, it is 
a potential skin sensitizer. Following repeated exposures, the primary 
target organs identified are the adrenal glands in both sexes and 
testes in males. Increased cytoplasmic vacuolation in the Zona 
fasciculate of the adrenal cortex was observed in several subchronic 
and chronic studies in rats, mice and dogs of both sexes. Female rats 
and dogs appeared to be the more sensitive to adrenal effects, with the 
dog as the most sensitive species. The effects on the adrenal glands 
generally coincided with increased adrenal weight. Other organs with 
histopathology findings reported in male dogs included the testes 
(vacuolation and hypertrophy/activation of Leydig cells), epididymis 
(degeneration and/or immaturity of germinal epithelium, oligo- and 
aspermia), prostate (immaturity signs), and thymus (atrophy). Increased 
liver weights were also reported in male dogs along with decreases in 
prostate weights.
    The effects reported in chronic dog studies were similar to 
subchronic studies and occurred at lower administered oral doses of 
spirodiclofen. As with subchronic studies, histopathology of the 
adrenal gland revealed an increased incidence of cortical vacuolation 
in the Zona fasciculata of both sexes. In the testes, increased 
incidences of Leydig cell vacuolation, slight Leydig cell hypertrophy, 
and tubular degeneration were observed in males. Other effects reported 
in chronic studies included decreases in cholesterol and triglycerides, 
decreased body weights and body-weight gains, increased APh levels and 
increased vacuolated jejunum enterocytes in rats, and increased 
incidences of Leydig cell hyperplasia in rats and mice.
    There was no evidence of developmental toxicity in the rabbit 
developmental toxicity study. The rat developmental toxicity study 
resulted in developmental toxicity (an increased incidence of slight 
dilatation of the renal pelvis) at the highest dose tested; a dose 
which did not cause maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproductive 
toxicity study in rats, developmental effects were observed in 
F1 males (delayed sexual maturation, decreased testicular 
spermatid and epididymal sperm counts/oligospermia; and atrophy of the 
testes, epididymides, prostate, and seminal vesicles) and F1 
females (increased severity of ovarian luteal cell vacuolation/
degeneration), but at a higher dose than the systemic effects seen for 
parents and offspring.
    There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute and subchronic 
neurotoxicity studies for spirodiclofen. In a developmental 
neurotoxicity (DNT) study, a decrease in retention was observed in the 
memory phase of the water maze for postnatal day 60 female offspring at 
all doses. In this DNT study, the morphometric measurements were not 
performed at the low- and mid-dose; therefore,

[[Page 33460]]

another DNT study was conducted using identical experimental conditions 
as the previous study. The results of the second DNT study demonstrated 
no treatment-related neurotoxicity, but the two DNT studies for 
spirodiclofen suggest increased susceptibility of offspring. An 
acceptable immunotoxicity study, which was reviewed by the EPA after 
the risk assessment was finalized, showed no treatment related systemic 
or immunotoxic related effects up to the highest dose tested.
    Chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies showed an increased 
incidence of uterine adenocarcinoma in female rats, Leydig cell adenoma 
in male rats, and liver tumors in mice. The EPA has classified 
spirodiclofen as ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' by the oral 
route based on evidence of Leydig cell adenomas in male rat testes, 
uterine adenomas and/or adenocarcinoma in female rats, and liver tumors 
in mice. Results of genotoxicity testing were negative.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by spirodiclofen as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the document, 
``Spirodiclofen. Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses in/on 
Sugar Apple, Cherimoya, Atemoya, Custard Apple, Ilama, Soursop, Biriba, 
Lychee, Longan, Spanish Lime, Rambutan, Pulasan, Guava, Feijoa, 
Jaboticaba, Wax Jambu, Starfruit, Passionfruit, Persimmon, and 
Acerola.'' At pages 28-30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0411.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA 
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of 
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the 
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for 
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed 
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to 
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) 
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified 
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with 
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a 
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe 
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes 
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the 
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of 
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the 
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for spirodiclofen used for 
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Spirodiclofen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations,      An appropriate endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified.
 including infants and children).             Therefore, an acute dietary assessment was not performed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 1.38 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.014  Chronic Oral Toxicity Study in
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Dogs
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.014 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 4.7 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 increased relative adrenal
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        weights in both sexes, increased
                                                                               relative testis weights in males
                                                                               and histopathology findings in
                                                                               adrenal glands of both sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   Classification: ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans''; Q1* (mg/kg/day)-1 =
                                                                    1.49 x 10-2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to spirodiclofen, EPA considered exposure under the 
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spirodiclofen 
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.608. EPA assessed dietary exposures from 
spirodiclofen in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and 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. No such effects were 
identified in the toxicological studies for spirodiclofen; therefore, a 
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide 
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue 
levels in food, EPA utilized average field trial residues; 
experimentally determined processing factors for citrus fruit, pome 
fruit and grape; and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM (ver 
7.81)) default processing factors for the remaining processed 
commodities. The assessment also utilized percent crop treated for new 
uses (PCTn) on hops and blueberry, and percent crop treated (PCT) 
estimates for several other registered commodities.
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure 
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on 
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data. 
If quantitative cancer risk assessment is appropriate, Cancer risk may 
be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient 
information on the carcinogenic mode

[[Page 33461]]

of action is available, a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a 
cancer RfD is calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If 
carcinogenic mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of 
action data determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear 
cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized 
in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that spirodiclofen should be 
classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' and a linear 
approach has been used to quantify cancer risk. Cancer risk was 
quantified using the same food residue estimates as discussed in Unit 
III.C.1.ii.
    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 residue levels of pesticide residues in 
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been 
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) 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. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins 
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under 
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later 
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    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:
     Condition a: 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 the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate 
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: 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 PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require 
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almond, 
5%; apple, 5%; apricot, 5%; cherry, 2%; grapefruit, 50%; grape, raisin, 
10%; grape, table, 30%; grape, wine, 5%; hazelnuts, 2%; lemon, 1%; 
nectarine, 10%; orange, 10%; peach, 5%; pear, 10%; pecan, 2%; 
pistachio, 1%; plum/prune, 5%; and walnut, 5%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National 
Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market 
surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop 
combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for 
chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing 
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey 
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to 
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is 
less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% 
is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary 
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum 
value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and 
private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the 
nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for new uses as follows: Blueberry, 
2%; and hops, 92%.
    In the Federal Register of May 7, 2008 (73 FR 25533) (FRL-8362-2), 
the Agency estimated the PCT for the proposed use of spirodiclofen on 
hops to be 92%. Since spirodiclofen has only been registered on hops 
since 2008, EPA relied on the previously estimated PCT for hops.
    The EPA estimate of the percent PCT for these new uses of 
spirodiclofen represents the upper bound of use expected during the 
pesticide's initial five years of registration; that is, the PCT for 
spirodiclofen is a threshold of use that EPA is reasonably certain will 
not be exceeded for this registered use site. The PCT recommended for 
use in the chronic dietary assessment is calculated as the average PCT 
of the miticide with the highest usage (i.e., the miticides with the 
greatest PCT) on that crop over the three most recent years of 
available data. The PCT recommended for use in the chronic dietary 
assessment is 2% for blueberries and 92% for hops. Comparisons are only 
made among pesticides of the same pesticide type (i.e., the miticide 
with the highest usage on the use crop is selected for comparison with 
a new miticide). The highest miticide PCT included in the estimation 
may not be the same for each year since different miticides may have 
the highest usage in different years.
    Typically, EPA uses USDA/NASS surveys as the source data because 
they are publicly available and directly report values for PCT. When a 
specific use crop is not reported by USDA/NASS, EPA uses proprietary 
data and calculates the PCT based on reported data on acres treated and 
acres grown. If no proprietary data are available, EPA may extrapolate 
PCT for new uses from other crops if the production area and pest 
spectrum are substantially similar.
    A retrospective analysis to validate this approach shows few cases 
where the PCT for the highest miticides were exceeded (EPA, 2006). 
Further review of these cases identified factors contributing to the 
exceptionally high use of a new pesticide. To evaluate whether the PCT 
for spirodiclofen could be exceeded, EPA considered whether or not 
there may be unusually high pest pressure, as indicated in emergency 
exemption requests for spirodiclofen, the pest spectrum of the new 
pesticide in comparison with the highest miticides, whether or not the 
highest miticides are well-established for that use and whether or not 
pest resistance issues with past miticides provide spirodiclofen with 
significant market potential. Given currently available information, 
the Agency concludes that it is unlikely that actual PCT for 
spirodiclofen will exceed the estimated PCT for new uses during the 
next five years.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit 
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates 
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are 
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that 
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an 
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, 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 this 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 reliable information on the regional consumption of 
food to which spirodiclofen may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. EPA concluded that the 
residues of concern in drinking water for purposes of risk assessment 
are spirodiclofen and its three metabolites

[[Page 33462]]

(BAJ 2510, BAJ 2740-dihydroxy, and BAJ 2740-ketohydroxy). Therefore, 
the Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary 
exposure analysis and risk assessment for spirodiclofen and its 
metabolites in drinking water. These simulation models take into 
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport 
characteristics of spirodiclofen and its metabolites. Further 
information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide 
exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling 
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of 
spirodiclofen and its metabolites for chronic exposures for non-cancer 
assessments are estimated to be 4.99 parts per billion (ppb) for 
surface water and 0.44 ppb for ground water. The EDWCs for chronic 
exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.67 ppb for 
surface water and 0.44 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly 
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 4.99 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water. For cancer dietary risk 
assessment, the water concentration of value 1.67 ppb was used to 
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    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). Spirodiclofen is not 
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in 
residential exposure.
    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.'' EPA has not found 
spirodiclofen to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other 
substances, and spirodiclofen does not appear to produce a toxic 
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this 
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that spirodiclofen does 
not have 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 EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA 
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) 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 database on toxicity 
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This 
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In 
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, 
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data 
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The spirodiclofen toxicity 
database is adequate to evaluate the potential increased susceptibility 
of infants and children, and includes developmental toxicity studies in 
rat and rabbit, a 2-generation toxicity study in rat, and two rat DNT 
studies. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility in the rabbit 
developmental toxicity study or in the 2-generation rat reproductive 
toxicity study following in utero/pre- and postnatal exposures of 
spirodiclofen. However, evidence for quantitative susceptibility was 
observed in a rat developmental toxicity study, where an increased 
incidence of slight dilatation of the renal pelvis was observed at the 
highest dose tested (1,000 mg/kg/day) in the absence of maternal 
toxicity. Additionally, two rat DNT studies are available. The first 
study demonstrated increased quantitative susceptibility of offspring 
based on the observed decreased retention in the memory phase of the 
water maze for postnatal day 60 female offspring at all doses and 
changes in brain morphometric parameters at the highest dose tested of 
135.9 mg/kg/day (including caudate putamen, parietal cortex, 
hippocampal gyrus, and dentate gyrus); there was no maternal toxicity 
noted at any dose. EPA requested information concerning the brain 
morphometric parameters in the low- and mid doses with the petitioner 
indicating that the brain tissues were not appropriately preserved and 
analysis was therefore not possible. As a result, a second rat DNT 
study was submitted which also indicated increased susceptibility in 
offspring based on decreased pre-weaning body weight and body weight 
gain in males and females and decreased post-weaning body weights in 
males. The second rat DNT demonstrated no treatment-related 
neurotoxicity in the offspring.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following 
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for spirodiclofen is complete. Changes to 
40 CFR Part 158 require immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Guideline 
870.7800) for pesticide registration. At the time of the last completed 
risk assessment for spirodiclofen, which was finalized on November 11, 
2011, an immunotoxicity study was a data gap in the toxicity database. 
However, since the time of the risk assessment, EPA has received and 
reviewed an acceptable immunotoxicity study for spirodiclofen. Upon 
review of the study, the Agency has determined that there is no 
treatment related systemic or immunotoxic related effects. Therefore, 
the immunotoxicity study does not impact the findings of the 2011 risk 
assessment. Additionally, EPA has determined a subchronic inhalation 
toxicity study is not required for spirodiclofen at this time. This 
approach considered all of the available hazard and exposure 
information for spirodiclofen, including: (1) Its low acute inhalation 
toxicity; (2) the lowest short- and intermediate-term MOEs calculated 
using an oral POD are 6,200 and 1,000 respectively; and (3) its 
physical and chemical properties, including its low volatility. 
Therefore, an additional UF is not needed to account for the lack of 
this study.
    ii. Two DNT studies have been submitted and reviewed by the EPA. 
The Agency has determined that there is no concern for the increased 
quantitative susceptibility seen in the first DNT study because the 
results were not reproduced in the second DNT study conducted using 
identical doses and experimental conditions. The second DNT provided no 
evidence of neurotoxicity, and concern for the increased quantitative 
susceptibility (slight changes in body weights) noted in this study is 
low because there is a well-established NOAEL, only marginal 
developmental toxicity was noted, and all developmental/functional 
parameters were comparable to controls. In addition, doses selected for 
risk assessment of spirodiclofen are much lower than the dose where the 
effects in

[[Page 33463]]

the second DNT were noted. Finally, there was no evidence of 
neurotoxicity or neuropathology in the acute and subchronic 
neurotoxicity studies. Therefore, there is no need for an additional UF 
to account for neurotoxicity. Additional information about the two DNT 
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the Federal 
Register of May 7, 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/May/Day-07/p9826.htm).
    iii. Quantitative susceptibility was noted in the developmental 
toxicity study in rats. However, EPA determined that the degree of 
concern is low for the noted effects because the increased incidence of 
slight renal pelvic dilation was observed only at the highest dose 
tested, in the absence of statistical significance and dose response. 
Additionally, renal pelvic dilation was considered to be a 
developmental delay and not a severe effect for developmental toxicity. 
The low background incidences in this study may also be idiosyncratic 
to this strain (Wistar) of rats since renal pelvic dilations are 
commonly seen at higher incidences in other strains (Sprague-Dawley or 
Fisher) of rats. Furthermore, there is a well-established NOAEL at 
which all developmental/functional parameters were comparable to 
controls, and lower doses are being used for the risk assessment of 
spirodiclofen. As noted above, concern is low for the increased 
quantitative susceptibility noted in offspring in the DNT studies. 
There was no evidence of increased susceptibility in the developmental 
toxicity study in rabbits or the 2-generation reproduction study in 
rats. Therefore, there are no residual concerns regarding developmental 
effects in the young.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessments were 
refined, utilizing average field trial residues; experimentally 
determined processing factors for citrus fruit, pome fruit, and grape; 
and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors for the remaining 
processed commodities. The assessment also included PCTn estimates for 
hops and blueberry and PCT data for several additional registered 
commodities. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the 
ground water and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to 
spirodiclofen and its metabolites in drinking water. These assessments 
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by spirodiclofen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide 
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the 
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA 
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the 
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term 
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, 
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an 
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure 
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, 
spirodiclofen is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to 
spirodiclofen from food and water will utilize 3.2% of the cPAD for 
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest 
exposure. There are no residential uses for spirodiclofen.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term 
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term 
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water 
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and 
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, spirodiclofen 
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or 
intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term 
risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential 
exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there are no short- or 
intermediate-term residential exposures and chronic dietary exposure 
has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD 
(which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- and 
intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or 
intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic 
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term 
risk for spirodiclofen.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Using the exposure 
assumptions described in Unit III.C.1.iii., EPA has concluded the 
cancer risk from food and water for all existing and proposed 
spirodiclofen uses will result in a lifetime cancer risk of 3 x 
10-6. EPA generally considers cancer risks in the range of 
10-6 or less to be negligible. The precision which can be 
assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the 
nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale; for example, 
risks falling between 3 x 10-7 and 3 x 10-6 are 
expressed as risks in the range of 10-6. Considering the 
precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the 
conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding 
procedure described above in this unit, cancer risk should generally 
not be assumed to exceed the benchmark level of concern of the range of 
10-6 until the calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 x 
10-6. This is particularly the case where some conservatism 
is maintained in the exposure assessment.
    For the following reasons, EPA concludes that there are 
conservatisms in the spirodiclofen exposure assessment. Based on a 
critical commodity analysis conducted in DEEM-Food Commodity Intake 
Database (DEEM-FCID)TM, the major contributors to the cancer 
risk were hops (44% of the total exposure) and water (21% of the total 
exposure). EPA notes the following conservative assumptions, which were 
incorporated into the cancer analysis for hops and water:
    i. Hops. DEEM-FCIDTM assumes that 100% of the residues 
in hops are transferred to beer during the brewing process (no residues 
remain in/on the spent hops). Since spirodiclofen has low water 
solubility, this is a conservative assumption. Additionally, the 
assessment assumed a PCT estimate of 92% for hops; PCT estimates for 
new uses are designed to provide a conservative estimate of the actual 
PCT estimates; and
    ii. Drinking water. The water residue estimate assumed 87% of the 
basin is cropped with 100% of the crops treated at the maximum labeled 
rate.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that the cancer risk estimate provided in 
this assessment is conservative and actual cancer risk will be lower 
than the estimate provided in this document.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
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 spirodiclofen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a liquid chromatography/mass 
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/

[[Page 33464]]

MS/MS) method, is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry 
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 
20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: 
residuemethods@epa.gov.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. 
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent 
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA 
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA 
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food 
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety 
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United 
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from 
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain 
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for spirodiclofen in or on 
citrus oil.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance for residues of spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-
dimethylbutanoate, in or on citrus, oil is amended from 20 ppm to 35 
ppm. Additionally, the tolerance expression is amended for 
spirodiclofen in order to clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA 
section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of 
spirodiclofen not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with 
the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only 
spirodiclofen.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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). Because this final rule has 
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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.), 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).
    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.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, 
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any 
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
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 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action 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: June 2, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.608 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); and
0
b. Revising the commodity ``Citrus, oil'' in the table in paragraph 
(a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.608  Spirodiclofen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of 
spirodiclofen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the 
commodities listed below. Compliance with the following tolerance 
levels is to be determined by measuring only spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-
dimethylbutanoate).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Citrus, oil...............................  35
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Tolerances are established for residues of spirodiclofen, 
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities 
listed below. Compliance with the following tolerance levels is to be 
determined by measuring only spirodiclofen (3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-
oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate) and its 
metabolite 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-1-oxaspiro[4,5] dec-3-en-2-
one, calculated

[[Page 33465]]

as the stoichiometric equivalent of spirodiclofen.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-13233 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```