Dimethyl Ether; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 28436-28443 [05-9475]
Download as PDF
28436
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY SOURCE—SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
*
Board Order Kosmos Cement Company.
*
State
effective
date
Permit number
*
*
*
*
NOX RACT Plan 05/03/04 ......................................................................
*
*
*
EPA
approval
date
*
05/03/04
*
Explanation
*
05/18/05
[Insert
first
page
number
of publication]
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of regulatory SIP
provision
*
Louisville 1-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plan.
*
*
*
*
*
Jefferson County and portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties .............
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–9905 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[OPP –2005–0109; FRL–7711–4]
Dimethyl Ether; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of dimethyl ether
or methane, oxybis- as an inert
ingredient (propellant) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops
or to raw agricultural commodities
(RAC) after harvest. The DuPont
Company, DuPont Fluoroproducts
submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),
requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:11 May 17, 2005
State
submittal
date/effective date
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
Jkt 205001
*
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
*
11/1/03
*
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of dimethyl ether.
DATES: This regulation is effective May
18, 2005. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit XIV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0109. All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
Sfmt 4700
EPA
approval
date
Explanation
*
05/18/05
[Insert
first
page
number
of publication]
*
*
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–6304; e-mail address:
boyle.kathryn@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. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Electronic Documents
and Other Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET at
(https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may
access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A
frequently updated electronic version of
40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of September
27, 2000 (65 FR 58078) (FRL–6742–4),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide tolerance petition (6E4785) by
the DuPont Company, DuPont
Fluoroproducts, Chestnut Run Plaza,
P.O. Box 80711, Wilmington, DE,
19880–0711. This notice included a
summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner.
The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.1001(c) now redesignated as 40 CFR
180.910 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of dimethyl ether
(DME), also known as methane, oxybis,
(CAS Reg. No. 115–10–6) as an inert
ingredient (propellant) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops
or to RAC after harvest. There were no
comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement for 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 the 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 the FFDCA requires EPA
to give special consideration to
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
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. . . .’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. First,
EPA determines the toxicity of
pesticides. Second, EPA examines
exposure to the pesticide through food,
drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients
that are not active ingredients as defined
in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are
not limited to, the following types of
ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own):
Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as
polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and
diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose;
wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol
dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not
intended to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be
chemically active. Generally, EPA has
exempted inert ingredients from the
requirement of a tolerance based on the
low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Physical/Chemical Properties
The vapor pressure of DME is 4,450
mm Hg @ 25°C. DME exists as a gas at
room temperature, thus allowing it to
spread and disperse rapidly. DME is
soluble in water (7% by weight). The
flash point of DME is -41°C or -42°C
with flammable limits in air of 3.4% by
volume in air (lower limit) and 18.0%
(upper limit). DME is slightly heavier
than air with a density of 1.92 grams/
Liter @ 1 atmosphere and 25°C.
DME toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
A. Review and Evaluation of Five
Inhalation Toxicity Studies
The Agency reviewed and evaluated
the following five inhalation toxicity
studies conducted using DME.
TABLE 1.—DIMETHYL ETHER
INHALATION TOXICITY STUDIES
Study Type
(Species)
Results
Acute Inhalation (rat)
Doses were 8.4, 12.1, 15.2,
16.9, or 20.5% equivalent to 84,000, 121,000,
152,000, 169,000, or
205,000 part per million
(ppm); or 158, 228, 286,
318, or 386 mg/L.
LC50 = 309 mg/L (Toxicity
Category IV) (95% confidence limits of 268 382 mg/L)
Whole-body inhalation exposure. Clinical signs
during exposure included
ataxia, anesthesia, coma,
head bobbing, paw waving, and heavy or short
jerky respirations.
2-Week Inhalation (rat)
Doses were 0, 1, or 5% (v/
v) equivalent to 0, 18.8,
or 94.1 mg/L
NOAEL = Not determined
LOAEL = 1% or 18.8 mg/L
Whole-body inhalation exposure. LOAEL based on
red nasal and ocular discharge, sluggish behavior, salivation, lung noise,
wet perineal area, decreased cumulative body
weight gains, and decreased thymus and liver
weights. Moderate sluggishness occurred briefly
at 1% and was very
common at 5%.
13 Week Inhalation (rat
and hamster)
Doses were 1, 1,000,
5,000, 10,000, or 20,000
ppm equivalent to 0, 1.9,
9.4, 18.8, or 37.7 mg/L.
NOAEL = 37.7 mg/L
LOAEL = Not Observed
Whole body inhalation exposure in both species.
There were no treatmentrelated effects.
V. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D)
of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this
action and considered its validity,
completeness and reliability, and the
relationship of this information 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
nature of the toxic effects identified in
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28437
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
28438
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—DIMETHYL ETHER INHALA- observations in these studies may not
have been conducted in a manner
TION TOXICITY STUDIES—Continued
Study Type
(Species)
Results
Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity
(rat)
Doses were 0, 0.2, 1.0, or
2.5% equivalent to 0,
2,000, 10,000, or 25,000
ppm; or 0, 3.7, 18.6, and
46.4 mg/L
NOAEL = 3.7 mg/L
LOAEL = 1% or 18.6 mg/L
Whole body inhalation exposure. LOAEL based on
decreased survival towards the end of the
study and liver angictasis
in males. The Office of
Pesticide Program Cancer Peer Review Committee concluded that
DME should be classified
as Group D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) since chronic testing was performed
in only one species.
Cardiac sensitization
(dog)
Doses were 10, 20, (16.7),
or 30 (33.3%) (v/v)
equivalent to 100,000,
200,000, or 300,000
ppm. The dogs received
an intravenous injection
of epinephrine prior to
exposure to the DME
and a second (challenge)
injection after breathing
the test compound for
five minutes.
NOAEL = 10%
LOAEL = 16.7%
Capable of sensitizing the
mammalian heart to epinephrine (development of
a cardiac arrhythmia
after a challenge injection of epinephrine).
B. Mutagenicity Study
Dimethyl ether did not induce a
genotoxic response in the five S.
typhimurium strains tested with or
without S9-activation.
C. Developmental Toxicity
There are two inhalation
developmental toxicity rat studies, both
conducted in 1981. One study was
conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats at
concentrations of 0, 0.125, 0.5, and
2.0% and a second study was conducted
in Wistar rats at concentrations of 0, 2.0
and 2.8%.
In the study conducted using
Sprague-Dawley rats, at 2.0%, decreased
response to tapping on the glass wall of
the inhalation chamber was identified
by the study authors. This cage-side
type evaluation was not wellcharacterized in the report. The
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
consistent with determining a true no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
for neurotoxic effect in dams. The
NOAEL for maternal toxicity is 0.5%.
The developmental toxicity findings
are remarkedly similar across both
studies. The fetal observations were
referred to by different names in the two
laboratories. But, both laboratories were
referring to skeletal variations.
Combining the results of both studies,
there is an unequivocal, statistically
significant dose-related response for
both fetuses and litters at 0.5, 2.0, and
2.8%. The NOAEL for this finding is
0.125%.
The results of the two studies also
indicated delays in ossification. The
incidence is statistically significant at
2.0% in the first study and at 2.8% in
the second study. Non-statistically
significant increases in this finding
occur at 0.5% in the first study and at
2.0% in the second study.
Taken together, the results of the two
developmental toxicity studies are:
• Developmental NOAEL = 0.125%
(v/v) equivalent to 2.4 mg/L or 1,250
ppm.
• Developmental LOAEL = 0.5% (v/v)
equivalent to 9 mg/L or 5,000 ppm
based on an increased incidence of ribs
with extra ossification center.
• Maternal NOAEL = 0.5% (v/v)
equivalent to 9 mg/L or 5,000 ppm.
• Maternal LOAEL = 2.0% (v/v)
equivalent to 37 mg/L or 20,000 ppm
based on decreased responsiveness.
The fact that the developmental
NOAEL is less than the maternal
NOAEL is a possible indication of
increased susceptibility. However, the
maternal effects were not always wellcharacterized.
D. Conclusions
Using the submitted studies and its
typical procedures, the Agency
classified DME as acute inhalation
toxicity Category IV, which is the
Agency’s category of lowest acute
toxicity. No treatment-related effects
were noted in a 13-week inhalation
study. In both the 2-week and the
chronic inhalation studies the LOAELs
were determined to be 1%. In a
developmental toxicity study, exposure
at levels of 0.5% (v/v) produced
developmental effects (skeletal
variations) but maternal toxicity, other
than decreased responsiveness, was not
noted. DME is not classifiable as to
human carcinogenicity. It produces
cardiac sensitization in dogs. For several
reasons, the Agency has concerns about
the doses at which the studies were
conducted. DME’s flammablity limits in
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
air are 3.4% by volume (lower limit)
and 18.0% (upper limit). Several of the
studies were conducted with one or
more dose levels greater than the lower
limit of flammability.
The Agency’s limit concentration for
inhalation studies is 2 mg/L, which was
greatly exceeded in all studies. The
limit concentration is a concept used in
animal toxicity testing to establish an
upper concentration level beyond which
testing is not encouraged:
Concentrations higher than the limit
concentration represent very unrealistic
scenarios. Testing above the limit
concentration may not provide the
appropriate information on adverse
effects which could then support a
NOAEL for use in risk assessment. It
must be possible to differentiate
between toxic effects due to the test
substance and toxic effects due to other
causes such as stress induced by
breathing difficulties.
VI. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure,
section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information
concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including
drinking water from groundwater or
surfacewater and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor
uses).
EPA establishes exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance only in those
cases where it can be demonstrated that
the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide chemical residues under
reasonably foreseeable circumstances
will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks
from aggregate exposure to pesticide
inert ingredients, the Agency considers
the toxicity of the inert in conjunction
with possible exposure to residues of
the inert ingredient through food,
drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings. If
EPA is able to determine that a finite
tolerance is not necessary to ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance may be established.
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Food. DME is a gas at room
temperature. Significant levels of
residues from such a volatile gas are
unlikely to be present in food or feed
items.
2. Drinking water exposure. Residues
of a volatile gas such as dimethyl ether
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
are not likely to be present in any
significant quantities in surface water.
The estimated half-life in a river is 2.1
hours and in a lake 2.7 days. DME is
therefore, not expected to be present in
drinking water.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Dimethyl ether is sponsored under the
High Production Volume Challenge
Program. This is indicative of over 1
million pounds of DME either produced
or imported per year.
Dimethyl ether is used as a propellant
in various personal care products such
as hairsprays, shaving creams, mousses,
deodorants, antiperspirants, baby care
products, medical/pharmaceutical
products and perfumes. Residential uses
could also include air fresheners,
disinfectants, furniture polishes,
adhesives, insulating foams, paints, and
insecticides.
In 1990, an article (MRID 45772201)
on simulated consumer exposures to
DME was published. The report’s
authors simulated and then measured
breathing zone concentrations of DME
for typical hair spray exposures, for both
domestic and salon conditions. To
assure accuracy, repeated measurements
were made, thus yielding the range of
reported results. Some of the results
were expressed as a time-weighted
28439
average concentration over 10 minutes
(TWA10). TWA10s are calculated by
averaging the peak concentration of
DME (at initial release) with the lower
concentrations that reflect the rapid
dispersal of DME throughout the room
over the 10 minute time-frame. Table 2
and Table 3 contain domestic simulated
exposures to DME. The difference in the
measurements is due solely to a closed
door (Table 2) and an open door (Table
3). Examination of the data in the tables,
indicates that the peak concentration of
DME declines substantially from the
initial (peak) spray, to the TWA10, to
the residual 20-minute concentration
whether the door is open or closed.
TABLE 2.—DOMESTIC DME CONCENTRATIONS FROM SIMULATED HAIRSPRAY USES IN A CLOSED ROOM (ALL VALUES
EXPRESSED IN PPM)
Peak concentration hairspray user)
Mean 1,310
Maximum 1,577
Minimum 1,043
Peak concentration (nearby child)
Mean 717
Maximum 762
Minimum 672
TWA10 (hairspray user)
Mean 114
Maximum 143
Minimum 82
TWA10 (nearby child)
Mean 89
Maximum 97
Minimum 86
Residual concentration in the breathing zone at 20 minute (hairspray user)
Mean 62
Maximum 78
Minimum 42
Residual concentration in the breathing zone at 20 minute (nearby child)
Mean 56
Maximum 63
Minimum 41
With the door closed there is an order
of magnitude reduction from peak
concentration to TWA10 concentration,
which is then reduced by half to a
residual 20 minute concentration.
TABLE 3.—DOMESTIC DME CONCENTRATIONS FROM SIMULATED HAIRSPRAY USES IN A ROOM WITH AN OPEN DOOR (ALL
VALUES EXPRESSED IN PPM)
Peak concentration (hairspray user)
Mean 693
Maximum 837
Minimum 549
Peak concentration (nearby child)
Mean 530
Maximum 954
Minimum 105
TWA10 (hairspray user)
Mean 84
Maximum 107
Minimum 67
TWA10 (nearby child)
Mean 68
Maximum 102
Minimum 38
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
28440
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3.—DOMESTIC DME CONCENTRATIONS FROM SIMULATED HAIRSPRAY USES IN A ROOM WITH AN OPEN DOOR (ALL
VALUES EXPRESSED IN PPM)—Continued
Residual concentration at 20 minutes (hairspray user)
Mean 23
Maximum 41
Minimum 8
Residual concentration at 20 minutes (nearby child)
Mean 24
Maximum 42
Minimum 7
With an open door, the dispersion of
the DME occurs so rapidly, that even the
peak concentration (Table 3) is less than
the peak concentration in Table 2 (door
closed). Having an open door and the
resultant more rapid dispersion means
that DME concentrations are 25% lower.
There is an additional factor that must
also be considered in understanding the
DME use pattern in the home. The
above estimates considered that the user
and the nearby child were perfectly still
and did not move for 20 minutes. This
is an unlikely possibility. It is more
likely that the user and the nearby child
would move away from the area where
the spray occurred within that 20
minute time-frame.
To examine use as an inert ingredient
in pesticide products, the Agency
examined a scenario likely to yield a
higher exposure: Foggers. Release of
DME occurs via activation of the fogger,
as the propellant releases and fills the
enclosed area. The average amount of
DME found in a pesticide fogger product
is 67.2 grams (g). If the 67.2 grams is
suddenly released into a 136 m3 area,
then the concentration in the room
equals 67.2 g DME/136m3 = 0.49 g/m3
or 490 mg/m3 at the time of release.
Label directions for foggers indicate
that no one is to be present during the
application of the pesticide product and
for a short period of time afterward. A
standardized time-frame for re-entry is 2
hours. The concentration of DME in the
room at the end of two hours can be
estimated using a decrease of
approximately 50% to account for the
dispersion of DME from the residence.
The 50% rate of decline was based on
a study (MRID 45772401) that used a
testing chamber with ‘‘ceilings’’ that
were 11 ft. high. The average measured
concentration of DME in the chamber
declined by approximately 50% over a
period of two hours. The 245 (50% of
490) mg/m3 used as the starting point in
Table 2 is an over-estimate since the
testing chambers are usually designed to
be airtight. DME would escape from a
house much faster through the cracks
and crevices around doors and
windows.
At the end of two hours, the
homeowner re-enters the house, not to
stay, but to open doors and windows for
venting. Rapid venting occurs
immediately as the doors and window
are opened. (Labels indicate that venting
should occur for at least 30 minutes.)
Assuming, (1) that the above 136m3 area
could have one door and three
windows, depending on the layout, and
(2) every 10 minutes the DME
concentration drops 10% due to
dispersal, 25% for a door and 10% for
a window, then a 65% reduction in
DME concentration occurs every 10
minutes. Each line in Table 4 represents
10 minutes. Therefore, the initial
concentration of 245 mg/m3 (Column 1)
reduces to 86 mg/m3 (Column 2). The
next 10 minute time-frame (Line 2)
begins with 86 mg/m3 in Column 1.
TABLE 4.—DME CONCENTRATION VS. TIME
Starting Concentration of DME (mg/m3)
Concentration Minutes Later (mg/m3)
Total Elapsed Time Since Re-entry
(minutes)
245
86
10
86
30
20
30
11
30
VII. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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
DME. Dimethyl ether does not appear to
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of
this action, therefore, EPA has not
assumed that DME 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 the policy statements released by
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism
determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances
found to have a common mechanism on
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/cumulative/.
VIII. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
Section 408 of the FFDCA provides
that EPA shall apply an additional
tenfold 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 that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children.
The toxicity database for DME is
adequate for the purpose of establishing
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
this tolerance exemption for use of DME
as an inert ingredient (propellant) in a
pesticide product. From that toxicity
database, the Agency could select a
toxicological endpoint to use in the
Agency’s risk assessment. In selecting
an endpoint, EPA matches, as best
possible, the time-frames of a potential
user’s exposure to the time-frames of the
toxicity study(ies). Selection of a
developmental NOAEL for use in
assessing short-term risk appears, at first
glance, to be a good match. However,
the test animals were confined in the
test chambers for 6 hours/day for either
10 or 11 consecutive days, receiving an
artificially maintained atmosphere to
breathe. The concentrations of DME
used in the toxicity studies considered
in this final rule are maintained by
enclosed test chambers and constant inflow of DME. Such concentrations
cannot be maintained in any building
such as greenhouses, apartments, singlefamily dwellings, or places of business,
since any released DME will disperse
from the structure via cracks and
crevices. Unless, the DME is continually
released in that environment, the DME
concentration is always decreasing.
Therefore, although these studies
provide some information concerning
potential toxicological hazards of DME,
they do not provide useful information
for quantitatively assessing the risks
from human exposure to DME given the
dissimilarity in duration between likely
human exposure and the exposure
patterns in the studies.
Further, for DME, in the
developmental toxicity study, the dose
levels used in these inhalation toxicity
studies routinely exceeded the limit
concentration. It is also noted that dose
concentrations in several of the toxicity
studies exceed the DME flammable
limits and routinely exceed the
industrial time-weighted 8-hour day
average acceptable exposure limit of
1,000 ppm recommended by DuPont
and the American Industrial Hygiene
Association. Effects appearing above the
limit concentration may not indicate the
toxicity of the chemical.
Given the extreme testing conditions
in these studies and the effects
observed, EPA believes it has adequate
data to evaluate the safety of DME.
Further, when the hazard testing data is
evaluated in light of exposure
information, EPA has determined that a
safety factor analysis is neither
appropriate or needed to assess the risk.
For the same reasons a tenfold safety
factor is unnecessary.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
IX. Determination of Safety for U.S.
Population, and Infants and Children
The NOAELs or LOAELs in any of the
toxicological studies for DME are
significantly higher than any
concentration that could be reasonably
expected in a home environment given
the volatility of DME. The confined,
artificially-maintained environment and
a 6 hour exposure used in the
toxicological studies are not readily
comparable to the highly dispersive
nature of DME and does not consider
the massive reductions in concentration
that occur in a 20 to 30 minute timeframe as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
DME is widely used in consumer
products that are not regulated by EPA.
Simulated consumer exposures for
domestic hairspray use are presented in
Tables 2 and 3. The magnitude of the
EPA-regulated exposures expected from
use in a pesticide product is not
dissimilar to those of other consumer
products. However, the possible number
of products containing DME are
dissimilar, as well as the use patterns.
There is a wide-variety of consumer use
patterns, including personal care
products, which during use are aimed
directly at the user, for example hair
spray. Types of pesticide products
containing DME are the spray can
(which during use is not directed at the
individual), and foggers (where the
individual is directed to not be present).
In most cases, the consumer use
patterns and the pesticide use patterns
are not likely to overlap. One is unlikely
to use a consumer product in a house
that is being fogged. One is unlikely to
spray paint and apply hairspray at the
same time. The activities would usually
be separated by time and occur in
different rooms.
The exposure estimates presented by
the Agency are considered to be overestimates. It is very likely the DME will
disperse more rapidly and/or an
individual would remove themselves
from the location of the peak
concentration.
Given the rapid dispersion of DME
from a home via cracks around doors
and windows, as well as via open doors
and windows, and the likelihood of an
exposed individual to move away from
the peak concentration area, exposures
to DME from use in a pesticide product,
or any other product such as hair spray,
are very small. Based on the available
information on these very small
exposures, the volatile nature of DME
and its rapid dispersion, the use of dose
levels in the toxicological studies which
are greater than the limit concentration,
toxicity studies that do not readily lend
themselves to selection of an
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
28441
appropriate dose and endpoint for such
a short duration, and effects that are
occurring only at levels greater than the
limit concentration, EPA finds that
exempting DME, also known as
methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. No. 115–
10–6) from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe for the general
population including infants and
children.
X. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
FQPA requires EPA to develop a
screening program to determine whether
certain substances, including all
pesticide chemicals (both inert and
active ingredients), ‘‘may have an effect
in humans that is similar to an effect
produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen, or such other endocrine effect
* * *’’ EPA has been working with
interested stakeholders to develop a
screening and testing program as well as
a priority setting scheme. As the Agency
proceeds with implementation of this
program, further testing of products
containing DME, also known as
methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. No. 115–
10–6) for endocrine effects may be
required.
B. Analytical Method(s)
An analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the
Agency is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.
C. Existing Tolerances
There is an existing exemption from
tolerance for DME when used as a
propellant (40 CFR 180.930) in pesticide
formulations applied to animals.
D. International Tolerances
The Agency is not aware of any
country requiring a tolerance for DME
nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue
Levels (MRL’s) been established for any
food crops at this time.
XI. Conclusion
Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance is
established for DME, also known as
methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. 115–10–6).
XII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as
amended by the FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this
regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA
procedural regulations which govern the
submission of objections and requests
for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178.
Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
28442
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
reflect the amendments made to the
FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue
to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the
necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA
provides essentially the same process
for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a regulation
for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance issued by EPA under new
section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was
provided in the old FFDCA sections 408
and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the
period for filing objections is now 60
days, rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an
Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions
provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
you must identify docket ID number
OPP–2005–0109 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk
on or before July 18, 2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection
must specify the specific provisions in
the regulation that you object to, and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of
the factual issues(s) on which a hearing
is requested, the requestor’s contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any
evidence relied upon by the objector (40
CFR 178.27). Information submitted in
connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of
the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. You may also deliver
your request to the Office of the Hearing
Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of
the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Office of the Hearing
Clerk is (202) 564–6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition
to filing an objection or hearing request
with the Hearing Clerk as described in
Unit XI.A., you should also send a copy
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:58 May 17, 2005
Jkt 205001
of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is
described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number
OPP–2005–0109, to: Public Information
and Records Integrity Branch,
Information Resources and Services
Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001. In person
or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in
ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via email to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use
an ASCII file format and avoid the use
of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic
objections and hearing requests will also
be accepted on disks in WordPerfect
6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not
include any CBI in your electronic copy.
You may also submit an electronic copy
of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a
Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted
if the Administrator determines that the
material submitted shows the following:
There is a genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility
that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established resolve
one or more of such issues in favor of
the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual
issues(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify
the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes an
exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of the
FFDCA 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 rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order
12866 due to its lack of significance,
this rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public
Law 104–4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency
action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
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), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are
established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of the FFDCA,
such as the exemption 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. In
addition, the Agency has determined
that this action will not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires
EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This final rule
directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’
as described in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive
Order 13175, requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
rule will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
XIV. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. 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 this final
rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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,
Inert ingredient
*
................................................
[FR Doc. 05–9475 Filed 5–17–05; 8:45 am]
hearings must be received on or before
July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit XIV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2002–
0292. All documents in the docket are
listed in the EDOCKET index at
https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm.
119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number
is (703) 305–5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rame Cromwell, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2004–0361; FRL–7711–7]
Red Cabbage Color; Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of red cabbage
color when used as an inert ingredient
(visual pH indicator) in pesticide
formulations applied in or on certain
various food commodities. Colarome
Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996,
requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of red cabbage color.
DATES: This regulation is effective May
18, 2005. Objections and requests for
16:58 May 17, 2005
Dated: April 27, 2005.
Betty Shackleford,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180 —[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.910 is amended by
adding alphabetically, the following
entry.
I
§ 180.910 Insert ingredients used preharvest and post-harvest; Exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.
*
*
*
*
*
Use
*
*
Dimethyl ether (methane, oxybis-) (CAS Reg.
No. 115–10–06)
*
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Limit
Jkt 205001
*
PO 00000
Frm 00029
*
*
Sfmt 4700
*
Propellant
*
Fmt 4700
28443
*
*
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9068; e-mail address:
cromwell.rame@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. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
32532)
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
insert appropriate cite to either another
E:\FR\FM\18MYR1.SGM
18MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28436-28443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9475]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[OPP -2005-0109; FRL-7711-4]
Dimethyl Ether; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of dimethyl ether or methane, oxybis- as an
inert ingredient (propellant) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities (RAC) after harvest.
The DuPont Company, DuPont Fluoroproducts submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of dimethyl
ether.
DATES: This regulation is effective May 18, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit XIV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0109. All documents in the docket
are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S.
Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-6304; e-mail address: boyle.kathryn@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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 111)
Animal production (NAICS 112)
Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of
[[Page 28437]]
entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been
provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action
might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Electronic Documents and Other Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET at (https://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you
may access this Federal Register document electronically through the
EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40
CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of September 27, 2000 (65 FR 58078) (FRL-
6742-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
tolerance petition (6E4785) by the DuPont Company, DuPont
Fluoroproducts, Chestnut Run Plaza, P.O. Box 80711, Wilmington, DE,
19880-0711. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by
the petitioner.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1001(c) now redesignated as
40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of dimethyl ether (DME), also
known as methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. No. 115-10-6) as an inert
ingredient (propellant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or to RAC after harvest. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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 the 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 the 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. . . .''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Physical/Chemical Properties
The vapor pressure of DME is 4,450 mm Hg @ 25[deg]C. DME exists as
a gas at room temperature, thus allowing it to spread and disperse
rapidly. DME is soluble in water (7% by weight). The flash point of DME
is -41[deg]C or -42[deg]C with flammable limits in air of 3.4% by
volume in air (lower limit) and 18.0% (upper limit). DME is slightly
heavier than air with a density of 1.92 grams/Liter @ 1 atmosphere and
25[deg]C.
V. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness and
reliability, and the relationship of this information 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 nature of the toxic
effects identified in DME toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
A. Review and Evaluation of Five Inhalation Toxicity Studies
The Agency reviewed and evaluated the following five inhalation
toxicity studies conducted using DME.
Table 1.--Dimethyl Ether Inhalation Toxicity Studies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study Type (Species) Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Inhalation (rat) Doses were 8.4, 12.1, 15.2,
16.9, or 20.5% equivalent to
84,000, 121,000, 152,000,
169,000, or 205,000 part per
million (ppm); or 158, 228,
286, 318, or 386 mg/L.
LC50 = 309 mg/L (Toxicity
Category IV) (95% confidence
limits of 268 - 382 mg/L)
Whole-body inhalation
exposure. Clinical signs
during exposure included
ataxia, anesthesia, coma,
head bobbing, paw waving,
and heavy or short jerky
respirations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Week Inhalation (rat) Doses were 0, 1, or 5% (v/v)
equivalent to 0, 18.8, or
94.1 mg/L
NOAEL = Not determined
LOAEL = 1% or 18.8 mg/L
Whole-body inhalation
exposure. LOAEL based on red
nasal and ocular discharge,
sluggish behavior,
salivation, lung noise, wet
perineal area, decreased
cumulative body weight
gains, and decreased thymus
and liver weights. Moderate
sluggishness occurred
briefly at 1% and was very
common at 5%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Week Inhalation (rat and hamster) Doses were 1, 1,000, 5,000,
10,000, or 20,000 ppm
equivalent to 0, 1.9, 9.4,
18.8, or 37.7 mg/L.
NOAEL = 37.7 mg/L
LOAEL = Not Observed
Whole body inhalation
exposure in both species.
There were no treatment-
related effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28438]]
Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity (rat) Doses were 0, 0.2, 1.0, or
2.5% equivalent to 0, 2,000,
10,000, or 25,000 ppm; or 0,
3.7, 18.6, and 46.4 mg/L
NOAEL = 3.7 mg/L
LOAEL = 1% or 18.6 mg/L
Whole body inhalation
exposure. LOAEL based on
decreased survival towards
the end of the study and
liver angictasis in males.
The Office of Pesticide
Program Cancer Peer Review
Committee concluded that DME
should be classified as
Group D (not classifiable as
to human carcinogenicity)
since chronic testing was
performed in only one
species.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardiac sensitization (dog) Doses were 10, 20, (16.7), or
30 (33.3%) (v/v) equivalent
to 100,000, 200,000, or
300,000 ppm. The dogs
received an intravenous
injection of epinephrine
prior to exposure to the DME
and a second (challenge)
injection after breathing
the test compound for five
minutes.
NOAEL = 10%
LOAEL = 16.7%
Capable of sensitizing the
mammalian heart to
epinephrine (development of
a cardiac arrhythmia after a
challenge injection of
epinephrine).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Mutagenicity Study
Dimethyl ether did not induce a genotoxic response in the five S.
typhimurium strains tested with or without S9-activation.
C. Developmental Toxicity
There are two inhalation developmental toxicity rat studies, both
conducted in 1981. One study was conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats at
concentrations of 0, 0.125, 0.5, and 2.0% and a second study was
conducted in Wistar rats at concentrations of 0, 2.0 and 2.8%.
In the study conducted using Sprague-Dawley rats, at 2.0%,
decreased response to tapping on the glass wall of the inhalation
chamber was identified by the study authors. This cage-side type
evaluation was not well-characterized in the report. The observations
in these studies may not have been conducted in a manner consistent
with determining a true no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for
neurotoxic effect in dams. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity is 0.5%.
The developmental toxicity findings are remarkedly similar across
both studies. The fetal observations were referred to by different
names in the two laboratories. But, both laboratories were referring to
skeletal variations. Combining the results of both studies, there is an
unequivocal, statistically significant dose-related response for both
fetuses and litters at 0.5, 2.0, and 2.8%. The NOAEL for this finding
is 0.125%.
The results of the two studies also indicated delays in
ossification. The incidence is statistically significant at 2.0% in the
first study and at 2.8% in the second study. Non-statistically
significant increases in this finding occur at 0.5% in the first study
and at 2.0% in the second study.
Taken together, the results of the two developmental toxicity
studies are:
Developmental NOAEL = 0.125% (v/v) equivalent to 2.4 mg/L
or 1,250 ppm.
Developmental LOAEL = 0.5% (v/v) equivalent to 9 mg/L or
5,000 ppm based on an increased incidence of ribs with extra
ossification center.
Maternal NOAEL = 0.5% (v/v) equivalent to 9 mg/L or 5,000
ppm.
Maternal LOAEL = 2.0% (v/v) equivalent to 37 mg/L or
20,000 ppm based on decreased responsiveness.
The fact that the developmental NOAEL is less than the maternal
NOAEL is a possible indication of increased susceptibility. However,
the maternal effects were not always well- characterized.
D. Conclusions
Using the submitted studies and its typical procedures, the Agency
classified DME as acute inhalation toxicity Category IV, which is the
Agency's category of lowest acute toxicity. No treatment-related
effects were noted in a 13-week inhalation study. In both the 2-week
and the chronic inhalation studies the LOAELs were determined to be 1%.
In a developmental toxicity study, exposure at levels of 0.5% (v/v)
produced developmental effects (skeletal variations) but maternal
toxicity, other than decreased responsiveness, was not noted. DME is
not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. It produces cardiac
sensitization in dogs. For several reasons, the Agency has concerns
about the doses at which the studies were conducted. DME's flammablity
limits in air are 3.4% by volume (lower limit) and 18.0% (upper limit).
Several of the studies were conducted with one or more dose levels
greater than the lower limit of flammability.
The Agency's limit concentration for inhalation studies is 2 mg/L,
which was greatly exceeded in all studies. The limit concentration is a
concept used in animal toxicity testing to establish an upper
concentration level beyond which testing is not encouraged:
Concentrations higher than the limit concentration represent very
unrealistic scenarios. Testing above the limit concentration may not
provide the appropriate information on adverse effects which could then
support a NOAEL for use in risk assessment. It must be possible to
differentiate between toxic effects due to the test substance and toxic
effects due to other causes such as stress induced by breathing
difficulties.
VI. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from groundwater or surfacewater and exposure
through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and
other indoor uses).
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Food. DME is a gas at room temperature. Significant levels of
residues from such a volatile gas are unlikely to be present in food or
feed items.
2. Drinking water exposure. Residues of a volatile gas such as
dimethyl ether
[[Page 28439]]
are not likely to be present in any significant quantities in surface
water. The estimated half-life in a river is 2.1 hours and in a lake
2.7 days. DME is therefore, not expected to be present in drinking
water.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Dimethyl ether is sponsored under the High Production Volume
Challenge Program. This is indicative of over 1 million pounds of DME
either produced or imported per year.
Dimethyl ether is used as a propellant in various personal care
products such as hairsprays, shaving creams, mousses, deodorants,
antiperspirants, baby care products, medical/pharmaceutical products
and perfumes. Residential uses could also include air fresheners,
disinfectants, furniture polishes, adhesives, insulating foams, paints,
and insecticides.
In 1990, an article (MRID 45772201) on simulated consumer exposures
to DME was published. The report's authors simulated and then measured
breathing zone concentrations of DME for typical hair spray exposures,
for both domestic and salon conditions. To assure accuracy, repeated
measurements were made, thus yielding the range of reported results.
Some of the results were expressed as a time-weighted average
concentration over 10 minutes (TWA10). TWA10s are calculated by
averaging the peak concentration of DME (at initial release) with the
lower concentrations that reflect the rapid dispersal of DME throughout
the room over the 10 minute time-frame. Table 2 and Table 3 contain
domestic simulated exposures to DME. The difference in the measurements
is due solely to a closed door (Table 2) and an open door (Table 3).
Examination of the data in the tables, indicates that the peak
concentration of DME declines substantially from the initial (peak)
spray, to the TWA10, to the residual 20-minute concentration whether
the door is open or closed.
Table 2.--Domestic DME Concentrations from Simulated Hairspray Uses in a Closed Room (all values expressed in
ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak concentration hairspray user) Mean 1,310
Maximum 1,577
Minimum 1,043
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak concentration (nearby child) Mean 717
Maximum 762
Minimum 672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWA10 (hairspray user) Mean 114
Maximum 143
Minimum 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWA10 (nearby child) Mean 89
Maximum 97
Minimum 86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual concentration in the breathing zone at 20 Mean 62
minute (hairspray user) Maximum 78
Minimum 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual concentration in the breathing zone at 20 Mean 56
minute (nearby child) Maximum 63
Minimum 41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the door closed there is an order of magnitude reduction from
peak concentration to TWA10 concentration, which is then reduced by
half to a residual 20 minute concentration.
Table 3.--Domestic DME Concentrations from Simulated Hairspray Uses in a Room with an Open Door (all values
expressed in ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak concentration (hairspray user) Mean 693
Maximum 837
Minimum 549
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak concentration (nearby child) Mean 530
Maximum 954
Minimum 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWA10 (hairspray user) Mean 84
Maximum 107
Minimum 67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWA10 (nearby child) Mean 68
Maximum 102
Minimum 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28440]]
Residual concentration at 20 minutes Mean 23
(hairspray user) Maximum 41
Minimum 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual concentration at 20 minutes Mean 24
(nearby child) Maximum 42
Minimum 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an open door, the dispersion of the DME occurs so rapidly,
that even the peak concentration (Table 3) is less than the peak
concentration in Table 2 (door closed). Having an open door and the
resultant more rapid dispersion means that DME concentrations are 25%
lower.
There is an additional factor that must also be considered in
understanding the DME use pattern in the home. The above estimates
considered that the user and the nearby child were perfectly still and
did not move for 20 minutes. This is an unlikely possibility. It is
more likely that the user and the nearby child would move away from the
area where the spray occurred within that 20 minute time-frame.
To examine use as an inert ingredient in pesticide products, the
Agency examined a scenario likely to yield a higher exposure: Foggers.
Release of DME occurs via activation of the fogger, as the propellant
releases and fills the enclosed area. The average amount of DME found
in a pesticide fogger product is 67.2 grams (g). If the 67.2 grams is
suddenly released into a 136 m3 area, then the concentration
in the room equals 67.2 g DME/136m3 = 0.49 g/m3
or 490 mg/m3 at the time of release.
Label directions for foggers indicate that no one is to be present
during the application of the pesticide product and for a short period
of time afterward. A standardized time-frame for re-entry is 2 hours.
The concentration of DME in the room at the end of two hours can be
estimated using a decrease of approximately 50% to account for the
dispersion of DME from the residence. The 50% rate of decline was based
on a study (MRID 45772401) that used a testing chamber with
``ceilings'' that were 11 ft. high. The average measured concentration
of DME in the chamber declined by approximately 50% over a period of
two hours. The 245 (50% of 490) mg/m3 used as the starting
point in Table 2 is an over-estimate since the testing chambers are
usually designed to be airtight. DME would escape from a house much
faster through the cracks and crevices around doors and windows.
At the end of two hours, the homeowner re-enters the house, not to
stay, but to open doors and windows for venting. Rapid venting occurs
immediately as the doors and window are opened. (Labels indicate that
venting should occur for at least 30 minutes.) Assuming, (1) that the
above 136m3 area could have one door and three windows,
depending on the layout, and (2) every 10 minutes the DME concentration
drops 10% due to dispersal, 25% for a door and 10% for a window, then a
65% reduction in DME concentration occurs every 10 minutes. Each line
in Table 4 represents 10 minutes. Therefore, the initial concentration
of 245 mg/m3 (Column 1) reduces to 86 mg/m3
(Column 2). The next 10 minute time-frame (Line 2) begins with 86 mg/
m3 in Column 1.
Table 4.--DME Concentration vs. Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration Minutes Later (mg/ Total Elapsed Time Since Re-entry
Starting Concentration of DME (mg/m3) m3) (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
245 86 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86 30 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 11 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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 DME. Dimethyl ether does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
DME 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 the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a
common mechanism on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative/.
VIII. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold 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 that a different margin of safety will be safe
for infants and children.
The toxicity database for DME is adequate for the purpose of
establishing
[[Page 28441]]
this tolerance exemption for use of DME as an inert ingredient
(propellant) in a pesticide product. From that toxicity database, the
Agency could select a toxicological endpoint to use in the Agency's
risk assessment. In selecting an endpoint, EPA matches, as best
possible, the time-frames of a potential user's exposure to the time-
frames of the toxicity study(ies). Selection of a developmental NOAEL
for use in assessing short-term risk appears, at first glance, to be a
good match. However, the test animals were confined in the test
chambers for 6 hours/day for either 10 or 11 consecutive days,
receiving an artificially maintained atmosphere to breathe. The
concentrations of DME used in the toxicity studies considered in this
final rule are maintained by enclosed test chambers and constant in-
flow of DME. Such concentrations cannot be maintained in any building
such as greenhouses, apartments, single-family dwellings, or places of
business, since any released DME will disperse from the structure via
cracks and crevices. Unless, the DME is continually released in that
environment, the DME concentration is always decreasing. Therefore,
although these studies provide some information concerning potential
toxicological hazards of DME, they do not provide useful information
for quantitatively assessing the risks from human exposure to DME given
the dissimilarity in duration between likely human exposure and the
exposure patterns in the studies.
Further, for DME, in the developmental toxicity study, the dose
levels used in these inhalation toxicity studies routinely exceeded the
limit concentration. It is also noted that dose concentrations in
several of the toxicity studies exceed the DME flammable limits and
routinely exceed the industrial time-weighted 8-hour day average
acceptable exposure limit of 1,000 ppm recommended by DuPont and the
American Industrial Hygiene Association. Effects appearing above the
limit concentration may not indicate the toxicity of the chemical.
Given the extreme testing conditions in these studies and the
effects observed, EPA believes it has adequate data to evaluate the
safety of DME. Further, when the hazard testing data is evaluated in
light of exposure information, EPA has determined that a safety factor
analysis is neither appropriate or needed to assess the risk. For the
same reasons a tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.
IX. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, and Infants and
Children
The NOAELs or LOAELs in any of the toxicological studies for DME
are significantly higher than any concentration that could be
reasonably expected in a home environment given the volatility of DME.
The confined, artificially-maintained environment and a 6 hour exposure
used in the toxicological studies are not readily comparable to the
highly dispersive nature of DME and does not consider the massive
reductions in concentration that occur in a 20 to 30 minute time-frame
as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
DME is widely used in consumer products that are not regulated by
EPA. Simulated consumer exposures for domestic hairspray use are
presented in Tables 2 and 3. The magnitude of the EPA-regulated
exposures expected from use in a pesticide product is not dissimilar to
those of other consumer products. However, the possible number of
products containing DME are dissimilar, as well as the use patterns.
There is a wide-variety of consumer use patterns, including personal
care products, which during use are aimed directly at the user, for
example hair spray. Types of pesticide products containing DME are the
spray can (which during use is not directed at the individual), and
foggers (where the individual is directed to not be present). In most
cases, the consumer use patterns and the pesticide use patterns are not
likely to overlap. One is unlikely to use a consumer product in a house
that is being fogged. One is unlikely to spray paint and apply
hairspray at the same time. The activities would usually be separated
by time and occur in different rooms.
The exposure estimates presented by the Agency are considered to be
over-estimates. It is very likely the DME will disperse more rapidly
and/or an individual would remove themselves from the location of the
peak concentration.
Given the rapid dispersion of DME from a home via cracks around
doors and windows, as well as via open doors and windows, and the
likelihood of an exposed individual to move away from the peak
concentration area, exposures to DME from use in a pesticide product,
or any other product such as hair spray, are very small. Based on the
available information on these very small exposures, the volatile
nature of DME and its rapid dispersion, the use of dose levels in the
toxicological studies which are greater than the limit concentration,
toxicity studies that do not readily lend themselves to selection of an
appropriate dose and endpoint for such a short duration, and effects
that are occurring only at levels greater than the limit concentration,
EPA finds that exempting DME, also known as methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg.
No. 115-10-6) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe for the
general population including infants and children.
X. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
FQPA requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine
whether certain substances, including all pesticide chemicals (both
inert and active ingredients), ``may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or
such other endocrine effect * * *'' EPA has been working with
interested stakeholders to develop a screening and testing program as
well as a priority setting scheme. As the Agency proceeds with
implementation of this program, further testing of products containing
DME, also known as methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. No. 115-10-6) for
endocrine effects may be required.
B. Analytical Method(s)
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.
C. Existing Tolerances
There is an existing exemption from tolerance for DME when used as
a propellant (40 CFR 180.930) in pesticide formulations applied to
animals.
D. International Tolerances
The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
DME nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRL's) been established
for any food crops at this time.
XI. Conclusion
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance is
established for DME, also known as methane, oxybis, (CAS Reg. 115-10-
6).
XII. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to
[[Page 28442]]
reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue
to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the
necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the
FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to ``object''
to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in
the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0109 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before July 18,
2005.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit XI.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2005-0109, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the
PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an electronic copy of
your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). 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., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). 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);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
[[Page 28443]]
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.
XIV. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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: April 27, 2005.
Betty Shackleford,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
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 180.910 is amended by adding alphabetically, the following
entry.
Sec. 180.910 Insert ingredients used pre-harvest and post-harvest;
Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredient Limit Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Dimethyl ether (methane, oxybis- ................... Propellant
) (CAS Reg. No. 115-10-06) ..................
...........
* * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-9475 Filed 5-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S