Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
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).
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
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-2012-0060 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 January 28, 2013. 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-2012-0060, by one of the following methods:
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the level for which the tolerance is being established for rice, grain. EPA has also established tolerances for residues of dinotefuran in eggs and poultry, meat byproducts. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.
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 denotefuran including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with denotefuran follows.
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.
Dinotefuran has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer, but causes a low level of skin irritation. The main target of toxicity is the nervous system but effects on the nervous system were only observed at high doses. Nervous system toxicity was manifested as clinical signs and
Dinotefuran was well tolerated at high doses following dietary administration for 90 days to mice, rats, and dogs. The most sensitive effects were decreases in body weight and/or body weight gain but even these effects occurred at or near the limit dose. Changes in spleen and thymus weights were seen in mice, rats and dogs following subchronic and chronic dietary exposures. However, these weight changes were not corroborated with alterations in hematology parameters, histopathological lesions in these organs, or toxicity to the hematopoietic system. Furthermore, the toxicology data base contains immunotoxicity studies in mice and rats and a developmental immunotoxicity study in rats. In the immunotoxicity studies there were no effect on T-cell dependent antibody response when tested up to the limit dose in male and female mice and in male and female rats. There were no changes in spleen and thymus weight and there were no histopathological lesions in these organs in those studies. In the developmental immunotoxicity study, there was no evidence of an effect on the functionality of the immune system in rats that were exposed to dinotefuran at the limit dose during the prenatal, postnatal, and post-weaning periods. Consequently, the thymus weight changes seen in dogs and the spleen weight changes seen in mice and rats were not considered to be toxicologically relevant.
No systemic or neurotoxicity was seen following repeated dermal applications at the limit dose to rats for 28 days. No systemic or portal of entry effects were seen following repeated inhalation exposure at the maximum obtainable concentrations to rats for 28 days.
In the prenatal studies, no maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose in rats. In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of neurotoxicity but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the reproduction study, parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity was seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body weight gain, transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was characterized as decreased forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F
There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female mice and in male and female rats fed diets containing dinotefuran at the limit dose for 78 weeks to mice and 104 weeks to rats. Dinotefuran was non-mutagenic in both
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
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dinotefuran used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. The dinotefuran hazard profile was updated in the most recent risk assessment completed on July 20, 2012, and nothing has changed since that update. For a more detailed discussion of the endpoint selection, refer to Appendix A.3 on pages 44-47 in the document titled “Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Subgroup 1C, Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Onion Subgroup 3-07B, Small Fruit Subgroup 13-07F, Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Peach, and Watercress, And a Tolerance on Imported Tea” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433.
Such effects were identified for dinotefuran. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for all current and proposed crops.
Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of dinotefuran for acute exposures are estimated to be 269 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 253-257 ppb, depending upon retention time from 10 to 30 days, for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 269 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water and for chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 257 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
Dinotefuran is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals, vegetable gardens, pet spot-ons, indoor aerosol sprays, crack and crevice sprays. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Each of these existing residential use patterns were reassessed in the latest human health risk assessment using the updated 2012 Residential Standard Operating Procedures and body weights. Refer to the document titled “Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Subgroup 1C, Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Onion Subgroup 3-07B, Small Fruit Subgroup 13-07F, Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Peach, and Watercress, And a Tolerance on Imported Tea” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433.
There are no non-dietary exposure scenarios associated with use on rice. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
EPA has not found dinotefuran to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and dinotefuran does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that dinotefuran 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
i. The toxicity database for dinotefuran is complete.
ii. The neurotoxic potential of dinotefuran has been adequately considered. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid and has a neurotoxic mode of pesticidal action. Consistent with the mode of action, changes in motor activity were seen in repeat-dose studies, including the subchronic neurotoxicity study. Additionally, decreased grip strength and brain weight was observed in the offspring of a multi-generation reproduction study albeit at doses close to the limit dose. For these reasons, a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was required. The DNT study did not show evidence of a unique sensitivity of the developing nervous system; no effects on neurobehavioral parameters were seen in the offspring at any dose, including the limit dose.
iii. There is no evidence that dinotefuran results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to dinotefuran in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children for incidental oral exposures. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by dinotefuran.
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.
Dinotefuran is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 790 for children for co-occurring post-application exposure resulting in the greatest exposure (i.e., from the potentially co-occurring use of the total release fogger product and the existing cat and dog spot-on uses. Because EPA's level of concern for dinotefuran is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
Adequate enforcement methodology a high performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS method for the determination of residues of dinotefuran, and the metabolites DN, and UF; an HPLC/ultraviolet (UV) detection method for the determination of residues of dinotefuran; and HPLC/MS and HPLC/MS/MS methods for the determination of DN and UF) is
The methods 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:
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 dinotefuran for any of the commodities in this rule.
Use of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development tolerance calculation procedures indicates that the tolerances for residues in or on rice grain should be established at 9.0 ppm, instead of 10.0 ppm proposed by the registrant. The appropriate residue definition is rice, grain.
EPA has also concluded that poultry tolerances in egg and poultry meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm are now needed as a result of the increased dietary burden resulting from addition of rice grain and bran to the diet.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dinotefuran, (
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
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
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
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).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
The added and revised text read as follows:
(a) * * * (1) * * *
(2) * * *