鎺ヤ笅鏉ワ紝鏂板煄鍖轰腑灞遍棬琛楅亾灏嗘寔缁緷鎵橀『鍩庡贩鍘嗗彶鏂囧寲璧勬簮锛屽紑灞曞唴瀹逛赴瀵岀殑闈為仐浼犳壙娲诲姩锛岃鏇村缇や紬浣撻獙鈥滈潪閬椾箣缇庘€濄€佸搧灏濃€滈潪閬椾箣鍛斥€濄€佷韩鍙椻€滈潪閬椾箣涔愨€濓紝涓嶆柇鎵╁ぇ浼犵粺鏂囧寲鐨勪紶鎾姏鍜屽奖鍝嶅姏锛屽姪鍔涙柊鍩庢枃鏃呬骇涓氶珮璐ㄩ噺鍙戝睍 瀵规锛屽緥甯堣〃绀猴紝鏀跺彇鈥滈鍏疯垂鈥濓紝娑堣垂鑰呭簲鐭ユ儏 鏄旀棩鐨勬潕瀹舵潙锛屽嚭鍚嶇殑鏄湇瑁呬骇涓氾紝濡備粖鐨勬潕瀹舵潙鍟嗗湀宸茬粡琚珮妤煎ぇ鍘﹀彇浠ｏ紝鐢佃剳鍩庛€佹暟鐮佸煄銆佺患鍚堝晢鍦猴紝鐗硅壊灏忓悆搴旀湁灏芥湁 浣滀负鏁欏笀锛屾垜浼氱敤濂藉綋鍓嶆姉鍑荤柅鎯呮秾鐜板嚭鐨勫厛杩涗汉鐗╁拰鍏堣繘浜嬭抗锛屽己鍖栧鐢熺埍鍥芥儏鎬€鍜屼娇鍛芥媴褰 3锛庤緭鍗庢煚妾寘瑁呯涓婂簲鐢ㄨ嫳鏂囨爣鍑烘按鏋滃悕绉般€佷骇鍦般€佹灉鍥拰鍖呰鍘傜殑鍚嶇О鎴栨敞鍐屽彿锛堣闄勶級

娲涘窛鑻规灉鐨勫搧鐗屼环鍊艰揪687.27浜垮厓锛屼綅灞呭叏鍥芥按鏋滅被浠峰€兼棣 涓轰簡鍏嬫湇澶忓姘旀俯楂樸€佺┖姘旀箍搴﹀ぇ銆佷笉閫傚疁鐢熶骇鐨勯棶棰橈紝妯婃辰瀹囧甫棰嗘敾鍏冲洟闃燂紝閫氳繃澶栧嚭鑰冨療銆佹煡鎵捐祫鏂欍€佸弽澶嶈瘯楠岋紝鏈€缁堝缓鎴愪簡閰嶅鏈変笓鐢ㄧ┖璋冦€侀櫎婀挎満绛夊悇绉嶈澶囩殑浣庢俯鎱㈠共鐑樺共杞﹂棿锛屽疄鐜颁簡涓€骞村洓瀛ｅ彲鐢熶骇锛岀‘淇濅簡甯傚満鎸佺画渚涚粰 璋簹鍒╁父骞村湪鍚堜綔绀惧姟宸ワ紝鑰屾潕鍛ㄥ钩鐢变簬韬綋鍘熷洜涓嶄究鍑洪棬锛岃阿鍑ら福灏辫浠栨妸闈㈢矇鎷垮洖瀹跺仛锛屼袱鍙ｅ瓙涓€涓湀鑳芥專4000澶氬厓 鈥濋檿閽㈤泦鍥㈡眽閽㈠叕鍙镐腑鍘氭澘鍘傚壇鍘傞暱鑻忎簯宄拌〃绀 閹忛噾閾滆殨鐨勫彂鐜帮紝璇存槑浜嗗綋鏃朵笣缁囦笟鍦ㄩ檿鍗楀湴鍖洪潪甯告櫘閬嶏紝鏄笣缁镐箣璺笂涓濈粐鍝佽锤鏄撶殑鐗╄瘉 闈㈤ 绮补妫€楠 娑傛笉娌硅剛鎴栫煶铚″ぇ绫虫楠岋紙缂栧埗璇存槑锛?娲涘屼环014骞?1鏈?9鏃ワ紝鍥藉鏍囧噯璁″垝銆婄伯娌规楠 娑傛笉娌硅剛鎴栫煶铚″ぇ绫虫楠屻€嬬敱SAC/TC 270锛堝叏鍥界伯娌规爣鍑嗗寲鎶€鏈鍛樹細锛夊綊鍙ｄ笂鎶ワ紝TC 270/SC1锛堝叏鍥界伯娌规爣鍑嗗寲鎶€鏈鍛樹細鍘熺伯鍙婂埗鍝佸垎浼氾級鎵ц锛屼富绠￠儴闂ㄤ负鍥藉绮鍜岀墿璧勫偍澶囧眬锛岃鍒掔紪鍙凤細20140347-T-449 濉戞枡澶ф鍖楄彍鍗楄繍鐣寗鐢熶骇鎶€鏈绋嬶紙寰佹眰鎰忚绋匡級

鏈哄姩杞︽楠屽彲鍦ㄦ楠屾湁鏁堟湡婊″墠3涓湀鍐呯敵璇峰姙鐞 缇や紬鏂囧寲鑹烘湳鍒涗綔鏄叕鍏辨枃鍖栨湇鍔′綋绯讳腑鐨勯噸瑕佸唴瀹癸紝鏄績杩涙枃鍖栫箒鑽ｅ彂灞曘€佹縺鍙戠兢浼楀垱鏂板垱閫犳椿鍔涚殑鏈夋晥鎵嬫锛屼篃鏄皢鏅€氱敓娲诲崌鍗庡埌鑹烘湳鍒涗綔鐨勪竴涓浆鍙樿繃绋 鐧藉叞鍦 SUMMARY:This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of propiconazole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).DATES:This regulation is effective August 12, 2019. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 11, 2019, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in40 CFR part 178(see also Unit I.C. of theSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).ADDRESSES:The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0127, is available athttp://www.regulations.govor 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Goodis, 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:[email protected]. Start Printed Page 39769 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. 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 updat d electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at40 CFR part 180through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site athttp://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 in40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0127 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 October 11, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in40 CFR 178.25(b).In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in40 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 to40 CFR part 2may 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-2018-0127, 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets/?contacts.html.Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available athttp://www.epa.gov/?dockets.II. Summary of Petitioned-for ToleranceIn theFederal Registerof July 24, 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL-9980-31), 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 8E8658) by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that40 CFR 180.434be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl] methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazol, and its metabolites determined as 2,4,-dichlorobenzoic acid (2,4-DCBA), expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of propiconazole, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Avocado at 0.2 parts per million (ppm);Brassica,leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress at 20 ppm; Celtuce at 5.0 ppm; Florence fennel at 5.0 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 5.0 ppm; Swiss chard at 5.0 ppm, Tomato subgroup 8-10A at 3.0 ppm and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.30 ppm. The petition also requested to remove the established tolerances for residues of propiconazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Beet, garden, roots at 0.30 ppm;Brassicaleafy greens, subgroup 5B at 20 ppm; Carrot, roots at 0.25 ppm; Leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 5.0 ppm; Pistachio at 0.1 ppm; Radish, roots at 0.04 ppm; and Tomato at 3.0 ppm. In addition, the petition requested to amend 180.434(b)Section 18 emergency exemptionby removing the established time-limited tolerance for residues of propiconazole and its metabolites in or on avocado at 10 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), the registrant, which is available in the docket,http://www.regulations.gov.There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is establishing, in accordance with section 408(d)(4)(a)(i), tolerances that vary in some respects from what the petitioner requested. These variations and the Agency's underlying rationale for those variations are explained in Unit IV.C.III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of SafetySection 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 propiconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propiconazole follows.A. Toxicological ProfileEPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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 primary target organ for propiconazole toxicity in animals is theStart Printed Page 39770liver. Increased liver weights were seen in mice after subchronic or chronic oral exposures to propiconazole. Liver lesions, including effects such as vacuolation of hepatocytes, ballooned liver cells, foci of enlarged hepatocytes, hypertrophy and necrosis, are characteristic of propiconazole toxicity in rats and mice. Decreased body weight gain was also seen in subchronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive studies in animal studies. Dogs appeared to be more sensitive to the localized toxicity of propiconazole as manifested by stomach irritations at 6 mg/kg/day and above.In rabbits, developmental toxicity occurred at a higher dose than the maternally toxic dose, while in rats, developmental toxicity occurred at lower doses than maternal toxic doses. Increased incidences of rudimentary ribs occurred in rat and rabbit fetuses. Increased cleft palate malformations were noted in two studies in rats. In one published study in rats, developmental effects (malformations of the lung and kidneys, incomplete ossification of the skull, caudal vertebrae and digits, extra rib (14th rib) and missing sternebrae) were reported at doses that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity occurred at a higher dose than the parental toxic dose suggesting lower susceptibility of the offspring to the toxic doses of propiconazole.The acute neurotoxicity study produced severe clinical signs of toxicity (decreased activity, cold, pale, decreased motor activity, etc.) in rats at the high dose of 300 mg/kg. Limited clinical signs (piloerection, diarrhea, tip toe gait) were observed in the mid-dose animals (100 mg/kg), while no treatment related signs were observed at 30 mg/kg. A subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats did not produce neurotoxic signs at the highest dose tested that was associated with decreased body weight.Propiconazole was negative for mutagenicity in thein vitroBALB/3T3 cell transformation assay, bacterial reverse mutation assay, Chinese hamster bone marrow chromosomal aberration assay, unscheduled DNA synthesis studies in human fibroblasts and primary rat hepatocytes, mitotic gene conversion assay and the dominant lethal assay in mice. It caused proliferative changes in the rat liver with or without pretreatment with an initiator, like phenobarbital, a known liver tumor promoter. Liver enzyme induction studies with propiconazole in mice demonstrated that propiconazole is a strong phenobarbital type inducer of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes. Hepatocellular proliferation studies in mice suggest that propiconazole induces cell proliferation followed by treatment-related hypertrophy in a manner similar to the known hypertrophic agent phenobarbital.Propiconazole was carcinogenic to CD-1 male mice, producing hepatocarcinomas in male mice at doses in excess of levels that induced liver toxicity, including the chronic RfD. At doses at or below the RfD, liver toxicity and carcinogenicity are not expected to occur; therefore, the Agency used the Reference Dose (RfD) approach for assessing cancer risk. Propiconazole was not carcinogenic to rats or to female mice.Propiconazole showed no significant toxicity in a battery of acute toxicity tests (Toxicity Category III or IV in all tests except eye irritation (II)). It is slightly irritating to the skin and is a dermal sensitizer.Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by propiconazole 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 athttp://www.regulations.govin the document titled Propiconazole Human Health Risk Assessment for the New Use of Propiconazole on Avocado, along with Conversion to Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress, Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B, Celtuce, Florence fennel, Swiss chard, and the expansion to Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at pages 15-20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0127.B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concernonce 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, seehttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.A summary of the toxicological endpoints for propiconazole used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.Table 1 Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Propiconazole for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Acute Neurotoxicity Study Rat. LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on clinical signs of toxicity (piloerection in one male, diarrhea in one female, tip toe gait in 3 females). Developmental Study Rat. LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of rudimentary ribs, un-ossified sternebrae, as well as increased incidence of shortened and absent renal papillae and increased cleft palate. 24-month carcinogenicity study on CD-1 mice. LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on non-neoplastic liver effects (increased liver weight in males and increase in liver lesions: Masses/raised areas/swellings/nodular areas mainly). Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) Children 2-Generation Reproduction Study Rats. Offspring LOAEL =192 mg/kg/day based on decreased offspring survival and body weights and an increased incidence of hepatic lesions (cellular swelling). Developmental Study Rat. Developmental LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of rudimentary ribs, un-ossified sternebrae, as well as increased incidence of shortened and absent renal papillae and increased cleft palate presumed to occur after single or multiple doses. Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) DAF = 40% Children 2-Generation Reproduction Study Rats. Offspring LOAEL =192 mg/kg/day based on decreased offspring survival and body weights and an increased incidence of hepatic lesions (cellular swelling). Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) DAF = 40% Adults Developmental Study Rat. Developmental LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of rudimentary ribs, un-ossified sternebrae, as well as increased incidence of shortened and absent renal papillae and increased cleft palate presumed to occur after single or multiple doses. Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) Adults including females 13+ Developmental Study Rat. Developmental LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of rudimentary ribs, un-ossified sternebrae, as well as increased incidence of shortened and absent renal papillae and increased cleft palate presumed to occur after single or multiple doses. Classification: Group C, possible human carcinogen, RfD approach for risk characterization. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA= extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH= potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). DAF = Dermal Absorption Factor.C. Exposure Assessment1.Dietary exposure from food and feed uses.In evaluating dietary exposure to propiconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing propiconazole tolerances in40 CFR 180.434. EPA assessed dietary exposures from propiconazole 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. Such effects were identified for propiconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Nationwide Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary analysis assumed 100 percent crops treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for all existing and proposed commodities.ii.Chronic exposure.In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary analysis assumed 100 PCT, average field trial residues or tolerance-level residues for all existing and proposed commodities.iii.Cancer.based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to propiconazole. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.,chronic exposure.iv.Anticipated residue 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.2.Dietary exposure from drinking water.The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for propiconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of propiconazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found athttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of propiconazole for acute exposures areStart Printed Page 39772estimated to be 35.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 37.9 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures for cancer assessments are estimated to be 18.6 ppb for surface water and 35.1 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 37.9 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 35.1 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). Although there are no residential use patterns associated with the proposed uses, propiconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential handler and post-application exposures: Turf, landscapes, ornamentals, and paint. EPA assessed several residential exposure scenarios and incorporated the following scenarios into the short-term aggregate assessment because they reflected the highest exposure patterns for those age groups: Post-application dermal exposure for adults from high-contact activities on treated turf; Post-application dermal exposure for children 11 to 16 years old from contact with treated turf during golfing; Post-application dermal exposure for children 6 to 11 years old from contact with treated gardens. Post-application combined dermal plus incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposure for children 1 to 2 years old from high-contact activities on treated turf.The following residential scenario was included in the intermediate-term aggregate assessment: Post-application combined dermal plus incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) exposure for children 1 to 2 years old from the registered wood treatment (antimicrobial use).Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found athttps://www.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.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. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to propiconazole and any other substances; the Agency's previous statements regarding the potential for a common mechanism among the conazoles noted that the underlying data available at the time were inconclusive. Although the conazole fungicides (triazoles) produce 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites do not contribute to the toxicity of the parent conazole fungicides (triazoles). The Agency has assessed the aggregate risks from the 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid) separately. The supporting risk assessment concludes that aggregate risks are below the Agency's level of concern and can be found athttp://www.regulations.govin the document titled Common Triazole metabolites: Updat d Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Difenoconazole and Mefentrifluconazole. in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0002. Propiconazole does not appear to produce any other toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that propiconazole 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 EPA's website athttp://www2.epa.gov/?pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/?cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children1.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 Safety Factor (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.In the developmental toxicity study in rats, fetal effects observed in this study at a dose lower than the maternal toxicity are quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses toin uteroexposure to propiconazole. Neither quantitative nor qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was observedin uteroor post-natal in either the rabbit developmental or 2-generation reproduction rat study. There is no evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities in the development of the fetal nervous system from the available toxicity studies conducted with propiconazole. In the rat acute neurotoxicity study, there was evidence of clinical toxicity at the high dose of 300 mg/kg, but no evidence of neuropathology from propiconazole administration.Although there was quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of the young following exposure to propiconazole in the developmental rat study, the Agency determined there is a low degree of concern for this finding and no residual uncertainties because the increased susceptibility was based on minimal toxicity at high doses of administration, clear NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all effects of concern, and a clear dose-response has been well defined.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 propiconazole is complete.ii. There is no indication that propiconazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. Other than the mild effects seen at 300 mg/kg in the acute neurotoxicity study, neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral effects were not seen in the propiconazole toxicity database. The liver, not the nervous system, is the primary target organ of propiconazole toxicity.iii. Although quantitative susceptibility was observed in the rat developmental study, a clear NOAEL is established for the developmental effects. There are no remainingStart Printed Page 39773uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity.iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, while the chronic used a combination of tolerance-level residues and reliable data on average field trial residues and 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to propiconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by propiconazole.E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of SafetyEPA 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.Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to propiconazole will occupy 85% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.2.Chronic risk.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to propiconazole from food and water will utilize 25% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of propiconazole is not expected.3.Short-term risk.Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).Propiconazole 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 propiconazole.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 120 for children 1 to 2 years and an MOE of 130 for adults from post-application activity on treated turf. Because EPA's level of concern for propiconazole is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.4.Intermediate-term risk.Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).Propiconazole is currently registered for wood treatment use that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to propiconazole.Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 470 for children 1 to 2 years old from post-application exposure from wood treatment (antimicrobial use). Because EPA's level of concern for propiconazole is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.5.Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population.based on the discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. As there is no chronic risk of concern, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure to propiconazole.6.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 propiconazole residues.IV. Other ConsiderationsA. Analytical Enforcement MethodologyAdequate enforcement methodology, high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) detector, Method AG-671A, 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:[email protected]. International Residue LimitsIn 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 MRLs for propiconazole for any of the commodities in this action.C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerancesbased on current policy to use consistent commodity terminology across tolerances, the tolerance Florence fennel is being established as Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk . Moreover, tolerances are being established without the requested trailing zeros in accordance with the Agency's current rounding class practice. Finally, EPA is not removing the tolerance for tomato or establishing a new tomato subgroup 8-10A tolerance because the request for that expansion was withdrawn by the petitioner and therefore, was not assessed.V. ConclusionTherefore, tolerances are established for residues of propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on Avocado at 0.2 ppm;Brassica,leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress at 20 ppm; Celtuce at 5 ppm; Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 5 ppm; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 5 ppm; Swiss chard at 5 ppm, and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.3 ppm.Additionally, the existing tolerances on the following commodities are removed as unnecessary due to the establishment of the above tolerances: Avocado (time-limited tolerance); Beet, garden, roots;Brassicaleafy greens, subgroup 5B; Carrot, roots; Leaf petiolesStart Printed Page 39774subgroup 4B; and Radish, roots. In addition, EPA is removing the tolerance for pistachio; that individual tolerance is unnecessary since pistachio is included in group 14-12, and the tolerance levels are the same.VI. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsThis action 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 action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject toExecutive Order 13211,entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) orExecutive Order 13045,entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action underExecutive Order 13771,entitled Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations underExecutive 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 tolerances 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. 601et seq.), do not apply.This action 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 thatExecutive Order 13132,entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) andExecutive Order 13175,entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501et 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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272note).VII. Congressional Review ActPursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801et 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 theFederal Register. This action is not a major rule as defined by5 U.S.C. 804(2).List of Subjects in40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection Administrative practice and procedure Agricultural commodities Pesticides and pests Reporting and recordkeeping requirementsMichael Goodis,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 180.434,a.Add alphabetically the entries Avocado Brassica,leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except watercress Celtuce Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B Swiss chard and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B to the table in paragraph (a)(1).b.Remove the entries Beet, garden, roots Brassicaleafy greens, subgroup 5B Carrot, roots Leaf petioles subgroup 4B Pistachio and Radish, roots from the table in paragraph (a)(1).c.Remove the entry Avocado from the table in paragraph (b).The additions read as follows: 180.434Propiconazole; tolerances for residues.(a) (1) [FR Doc.2019-17143Filed 8-9-19; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

鍦ㄨ繖鑺卞洟閿︾皣鐨勬皯闂存枃鍖栬壓鏈腑锛屾渶涓鸿€€鐪肩殑锛屽綋灞炲崕宸炵毊褰 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 sedaxane residues

鍦ㄦ彮鐗屼华寮忎笂锛岄檿鏂囨姇姒嗘灄鏂囨梾鍏徃钁ｄ簨闀挎潕鍐涙繁鏈夋劅瑙﹁閬擄紝鈥滅粡杩囦簲骞寸殑寤鸿鍜屼竴骞存湡鐨勮瘯杩愯惀锛屾垜浠粓浜庤繋鏉ヤ簡缁熶竾鍩庡浗瀹惰€冨彜閬楀潃鍏洯鐨勬寮忓紑鍥€ T/ZLX 085 闊彍璐ㄩ噺瀹夊叏绠℃帶鎶€鏈鑼冿紙寰佹眰鎰忚绋匡級 鍑哄敭鍐滆嵂鏃讹紝搴斿綋寮€鍏风浉搴旂殑閿€鍞嚟璇 澶氳弻鐏袋/p>

鍙備笌璇ヨ鍒掔殑鍐呭湴楂樼瓑闄㈡牎澧炶嚦138鎵€锛屽垎甯冧簬鍐呭湴21涓渷銆佺洿杈?.. 2023-11-18闃呰鍏ㄦ枃 >> 闄曡タ楂樻牎12涓绉戣幏璇 涓浗椤跺皷瀛︾ 鍏朵腑5涓叏鍥界涓€ 11鏈?鏃ワ紝楂樼瓑鏁欒偛璇勪环涓撲笟鏈烘瀯杞鍙戝竷鈥?023杞涓浗鏈€濂藉绉戞帓鍚嶁€ gov/?dockets/?contacts

鍐滀笟鐢ㄦ按鍗犳嵁浜嗘垜鍥芥€荤敤姘撮噺涓殑70%锛屽啘涓氱亴婧夋晥鐜囦綆涓嬪拰鐢ㄦ按娴垂鐨勯棶棰樻櫘閬嶅瓨鍦 鈥滄墍浠ユ垜浠湪褰撴椂宸茬粡瀹氫簡濠氳溅杞﹂槦鐨勬儏鍐典笅锛屾洿鎹簡澶磋溅锛岀敤鈥樺垢绂忓反澹€欎綔涓烘垜浠殑濠氳溅澶磋溅 鍏朵腑缇屾棌鍌╄壓缁濇妧琛ㄦ紨锛屽惛寮曚簡澶ч噺娓稿鍓嶆潵瑙傝祻 鈥濇▕鏋楃璇达紝涓€鏌遍潰涓€鑸敤1鏂?涓ら潰绮夛紝缂犵粫125娆″埌130娆★紝鏈€鍚庣殑鎴愬搧鎸傞潰鎬婚暱鑳芥媺浼稿埌670澶氱背 That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta, which is available in the docket,http://www 缁胯壊椋熷搧鐢熶骇鎿嶄綔瑙勭▼锛堣敩鑿滅被97椤?

鐜颁唬鐗╂祦浜т笟鍔犻€熻凯浠ｅ崌绾 8鏈?5鏃ワ紝婊¤浇1013.5鍚ㄥ竷鏂欍€佹棩鐢ㄥ鐢靛拰鏈烘璁惧鐨刋9041娆′腑娆х彮鍒椾粠瀹濋浮闃冲钩閾佽矾鐗╂祦鍩哄湴缂撶紦椹跺嚭锛屽紑寰€闇嶅皵鏋滄柉鍙ｅ哺

鏈枃浠惰瀹氫簡浼樿川搴撳皵鍕掗姊ㄧ豢鑹叉牻鍩圭殑浜у湴鐜銆佸洯鍦伴€夋嫨銆佸搧绉嶃€佹牻妞嶃€佸湡鑲ユ按绠＄悊銆佹湁瀹崇敓鐗╅槻娌诲拰閲囨敹銆佷骇鍝佽川閲忕瓑鎶€鏈姹侟/p>

鈥濊タ瀹変綑鐢熸槸浣犺壓鏈枃鍖栨椿鍔ㄧ瓥鍒掓湁闄愬叕鍙镐富鐞嗕汉鏉庤寽鍛婅瘔璁拌€咃紝鑷粠瑗垮畨鍏氦鎺ㄥ嚭鈥滃垢绂忓反澹€濆悗锛屼粬浠凡缁忔湁杩囨垚鍔熺殑鍚堜綔锛岃€屽湪鏃ュ父鐨勪笟鍔℃帹骞胯繃绋嬩腑锛岃椤圭洰涔熸垚涓鸿繎鏈熸柊浜烘瘮杈冨叧娉ㄧ殑鏂颁寒鐐 涓嶄竴浼氬効锛岄€犲瀷鍚勫紓銆佹牘鏍╁鐢熺殑鍓焊浣滃搧渚垮憟鐜板嚭鏉 鎹倝锛岀洰鍓嶅凡鏈夐€?涓囧競姘戠兢浼楁敞鍐屼娇鐢ㄢ€滆タ瀹夊洜浣犺€岀編鈥濆井淇″皬绋嬪簭锛屽湪绾夸笂姹囪仛璧锋枃鏄庘€滃０閲忓満鈥濓紝璁╄タ瀹夊洜姣忎竴涓钩鍑＄殑浣犳垜鏇寸編濂 缇庡浗鐜淇濇姢缃蹭慨璁笁姘敳鍩哄悺鍟讹紙Nitrapyrin锛夊湪绗?0 T/NAIA 0354

浣滀负涓浗浼佷笟鍏ㄧ悆鍖栧緛绋嬬殑娣卞害鍙備笌鑰咃紝鏄撶偣澶╀笅鏈嶅姟瓒呰繃5000瀹剁殑涓浗浼佷笟鎴愬姛鎷撳睍娴峰甯傚満锛屾帹鍔ㄤ簡璺ㄥ鐢靛晢銆佺Щ鍔ㄤ簰鑱旂綉銆佹柊鑳芥簮姹借溅銆佹枃鍖栨梾娓哥瓑涓浗浼樺娍浜т笟鐨勬柊鎶€鏈€佹柊浜у搧銆佹柊妯″紡鍚戞捣澶栨嫇灞 7鏈?8鏃ワ紝鏂囧寲鍜屾梾娓搁儴鍏竷浜嗗浗瀹剁骇鏂囧寲鐢熸€佷繚鎶ゅ尯鍚嶅崟锛岀緦鏃忔枃鍖栫敓鎬佷繚鎶ゅ尯锛堥檿瑗匡級浣嶅垪鍏朵腑 闄曡タ灏嗗€熷姪姝ゆ鈥滀腑鍗庣編椋熻崯路鐭ュ懗闄曡タ鈥濋楗秷璐瑰娲诲姩鐨勪妇鍔烇紝鎸佺画浼犳壙濂戒腑鍗庣編椋熴€侀檿瑗垮懗閬擄紝鍔涗簤璁╂湰鍦版秷璐硅€呭拰鏉ラ檿娓稿閮借兘鍝佸皾闄曡タ缇庨銆侀鐣ラ檿鑿滄枃鍖栥€佷箰浜秷璐圭鍒 鏋椾骇鍝佽涓氬崗浼氬拰鏋椾笟涓撲笟鍚堜綔缁忔祹缁勭粐锛屽簲褰撳姞寮鸿涓氳嚜寰嬬鐞嗗拰璇氫俊浣撶郴寤鸿锛屽缓绔嬪仴鍏ㄦ灄浜у搧璐ㄩ噺瀹夊叏绠＄悊鍒跺害鍜屾帶鍒朵綋绯伙紝鎻愪緵鏋椾骇鍝佺敓浜ф妧鏈拰璐ㄩ噺瀹夊叏绠＄悊鏈嶅姟

鏃犺鏄矙婕犵豢娲茬殑鈥滅瀵嗚姳鍥€濓紝杩樻槸楂樺師涓婄殑鈥滈粍閲戞捣娲嬧€濓紝璧忕鏃犵枒鏄綋涓嬩竴澶ф氮婕簨 宄颁細鏈熼棿锛?00澶氫欢鐢辨豹澶╃ǔ鍜屾豹娴风嚂甯﹂瀛︾敓浠簿闆曠粏鍒荤殑鐨奖浣滃搧锛岄€氳繃鐩存挱闀滃ご灞曠ず缁欏叏鍥戒箖鑷虫捣澶栫殑瑙備紬 ConclusionTherefore, tolerances are established for residues of sedaxane in or on vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0 绗叓鏉 鐢宠鐢熶骇銆佽繘鍙ｅ啘鑽櫥璁帮紝搴斿綋鎻愪緵鍐滆嵂鏍峰搧鍙婁笅鍒楄祫鏂欙細 (涓€)鍐滆嵂鐨勪骇鍝佸寲瀛﹁祫鏂欙紱 (浜?鍐滆嵂姣掔悊瀛︺€佽嵂鏁堣瘯楠屾姤鍛婏紱 (涓?鐜褰卞搷璇勪环銆佹畫鐣欒瘯楠屾姤鍛婏紱 (鍥?鏍囩銆佹爣鍑嗙瓑鍏朵粬璧勬枡 涓滃北鐧芥矙鏋囨澐锛堝緛姹傛剰瑙佺锛夋湰鏂囦欢瑙勫畾浜嗕笢灞辩櫧娌欐瀲鏉风殑鑷劧鐜銆佺妞嶆妧鏈姹傘€佷骇鍝佽姹傘€佽瘯楠屾柟娉曘€佹娴嬭鍒欏拰閲囨敹鍌ㄨ繍

宕栧涓婃畫鐣欑殑鏈ㄥ埗浜戞 涓夊崈骞寸殑灞呬綇鍘嗗彶鍙や汉鏄綍鏃跺紑鍑跨殑杩欎簺宕栧眳锛熷姝ゅ法澶х殑宸ョ▼閲忔槸鎬庝箞瀹屾垚鐨勶紵浣曚竴骞冲憡璇夎鑰咃紝鏃倯鍘垮彜绉扳€滀笁姘村幙鈥 鎴戞槸鍗庡幙鐨奖鎴忚〃婕旇€呬腑鏈€骞磋交鐨勪竴杈堬紝浠婂勾涔熷凡缁?0宀佷簡 鏂板啝鑲虹値鐤儏鍙戠敓浠ユ潵锛屽浗瀹跺崼鐢熷仴搴峰娲惧嚭澶氭壒鐢辫憲鍚嶄腑鍖讳笓瀹剁粍鎴愮殑涓尰娌荤枟鍥藉闃燂紝涓撻棬灏嗘煇浜涚梾鍖哄叏閮ㄤ氦缁欎腑鍖绘不鐤楅槦鎺ョ 鈥滆繎涓€鍛ㄧ珯鐐规淳浠堕噺杈冧笂鍛ㄥ鍔犱簡9000浠讹紝鏄笂涓€鍛ㄧ殑3鍒?鍊 鏈枃浠堕€傜敤浜庤タ瀹夊湴鍖烘棩鍏夋俯瀹よ崏鑾撲績鎴愭牻鍩 鏈爣鍑嗛€傜敤浜庡嚭鍙ｉ矞鐣寗涓埄浣涚背(鍖呮嫭鍏朵唬璋骇鐗?娈嬬暀閲忕殑妫€楠 钄彍鑴嗙墖

鍦ㄤ环鏍间笂锛屽洜涓哄悇椤规垚鏈笅娴紝鏁翠綋鍥㈣垂鏈?5%宸﹀彸鐨勯檷骞 鎸囧皷涓婄殑缁濇椿姹変腑钘ょ紪銆佽瑾変负鈥滅珛浣撴按澧ㄧ敾鈥濈殑鍩庡浐鏋惰姳銆佺簿缇庣粴涓界殑缇岀唬鈥︹€︽眽涓競鍗氱墿棣嗗彜姹夊彴棣嗗尯閲屽睍绀虹潃鍏锋湁姹変腑鐗硅壊鐨勯潪閬椾骇鍝侊紝寮曞緱鏃犳暟娓稿椹昏冻鍥磋锛岀悍绾锋劅鍙光€滄兂灏嗗畠浠甫鍥炲鈥 鏆戝亣鏈熼棿锛岀Е濮嬬殗甯濋櫟鍗氱墿闄㈠崟鏃ユ帴寰呮父瀹㈡暟閲忚揪鍒?涓囦綑浜烘 鈥滃奖鑰佷簡锛岀埛鐖风殑鐖风埛灏辩埍鍞憋紱鎴忔枃鑰佷簡锛屽瓩濂崇殑瀛欏コ杩樻病蹇 鏁欏姟澶勯拡瀵瑰叏鏂版暀瀛﹀舰鍔匡紝缁勭粐鍏ㄤ綋鏁欏笀寮€灞曠綉缁滆绋嬪缓璁撅紝绔敖鍏ㄥ姏涓烘暀瀛︽湇鍔 SN/T 0887 鏈爣鍑嗚 SN/T 0978-2011 杩涘嚭鍙ｆ柊椴滆敩鑿滄楠岃绋 浠ｆ浛 鏈爣鍑嗘潵鑷綉鍙嬪垎浜紝鍙綔涓洪鍝佹妧鏈悓琛岀殑浜ゆ祦瀛︿範涔嬬敤锛岃鍦ㄤ笅杞藉悗24灏忔椂鍐呭垹闄わ紝鍕夸綔浠栫敤

涓€鏃堕棿锛屼紬澶氬浗闄呯煡鍚嶅搧鐗岀殑鍚堜綔閭€绾︺€佹捣澶栬妭搴嗗睍浼氱殑鍙傚睍閭€璇风悍鑷虫矒鏉ワ紝鎱曞悕鍓嶆潵瀛︿範鐨奖闆曞埢鎶€鑹哄拰琛ㄦ紨鎶€娉曠殑澶栧浗鍙嬩汉缁滅粠涓嶇粷 浠?021骞?鏈?0鏃ュ紑涓氳嚦浠婏紝鍏辨湁瓒呰繃20涓囨秷璐硅€呭湪杩欓噷鐨?3涓綋楠屽尯浜茶韩浣撻獙浜嗘疆鐢垫柊鍝佺殑榄呭姏 EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sedaxane follows In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WEIA 2003-2008 閰告灒 绮瀹夊叏 绗叚鏉＄渷浜烘皯鏀垮簻鏋椾笟涓荤閮ㄩ棬璐熻矗鍏ㄧ渷鏋椾骇鍝佽川閲忓畨鍏ㄧ洃鐫ｇ鐞嗗伐浣滐紝鍏蜂綋宸ヤ綔鐢卞叾鎵€灞炵殑鏋椾笟浜т笟绠＄悊鏈烘瀯鎵挎媴