Alkoxylated Ether Amines; Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance Exemption for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food, 41726-41730 [05-13978]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41726-41730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13978]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-2005-0182; FRL-7722-2]


Alkoxylated Ether Amines; Notice of Filing of a Pesticide 
Petition to Establish a Tolerance Exemption for a Certain Pesticide 
Chemical in or on Food

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide 
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a 
certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-
2005-0182, must be received on or before August 19, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as 
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rame Cromwell, Registration Division 
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 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 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. 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 Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0182. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing 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.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket ID number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards 
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket 
materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whther submitted electronically or in paper, will 
be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket 
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains 
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, 
will be available in the public docket.

[[Page 41727]]

    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of 
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the 
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the 
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider 
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is 
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit 
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information 
protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, 
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in 
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the 
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter 
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact 
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's 
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included 
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, 
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at https://www.epa.gov/
edocket/, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number 
OPP-2005-0182. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, 
Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0182. In contrast to EPA's 
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous 
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket 
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail 
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses 
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as 
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and 
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records 
Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0182.
    3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public 
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide 
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID 
Number OPP-2005-0182. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You 
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part 
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this 
notice.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page 
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal 
Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the 
establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain 
pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. 
EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information 
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, 
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at 
this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. 
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, 
Food additives, Pesticides

[[Page 41728]]

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


    Dated: July 11, 2005.
Lois A. Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition

    The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below 
as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was 
prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. 
The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the 
analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement 
of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such 
method is needed.

Tomah\3\ Products, Inc.

PP 5E6952

    EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 5E6952) from Tomah\3\ 
Products, Inc., 337 Vincent Street (P.O. Box 388), Milton, Wisconsin 
53563-0388 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from 
the requirement of a tolerance for the use of any member of the class 
of alkoxylated surfactant inert ingredients described as 1-propanamine, 
N,N-polyoxaalkyl-, [3-(X-alky)oxy]polyoxaalkyl (derivs.); polyalkoxy, 
[alpha], [alpha]'-(imino)bis[[omega]-hydroxy-, N-[3-[(X-
alkyl)oxy]polyoxaalkyl]propyl (derivs.); polyalkoxy, [alpha]-[3-N,N-
bis(polyoxaalkyl)]amino]propyl]-[omega]-hydroxy-monoalkyl ethers; or 
polyalkoxy, [alpha]-[3-[bis(hydroxyalkyl)amino]propyl]-[omega]-hydroxy-
, ether with [alpha]-hydro-[omega]-hydroxypolyalkoxy (1:2), monoalkyl 
ethers containing 0 to 20 internal repeating alkoxy units (methoxy-, 
ethoxy-, propoxy-, or acetoxy-); 1 to 14 terminal repeating alkoxy 
units (ethoxy-or propoxy-); and 6 to 22 carbons in an n-alkyloxy-, 
isoalkyloxy- or branched alkyloxy- chain, in or on the all raw 
agricultural commodities and food. EPA has determined that the petition 
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in 
section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated 
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data 
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before 
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

    1. Plant metabolism. Any residues are expected to be parent 
alkoxylated amines as described above.
    2. Analytical method. Since this petition is for an exemption from 
the requirement of a tolerance, an analytical method is not required.
    3. Magnitude of residues. This application is designed to follow 
EPA's new methodology for the evaluation of low toxicity substances 
used in pesticide products. To develop exposure estimates, residue data 
for pesticide active ingredients were used as described below as 
surrogate data for the class of inert ingredients. Several 
complementary approaches were used.
    Tier 1 Screening Level scenarios (i.e., bounding extreme worst-
case) included the following exposure assumptions. Actual crop-specific 
residue data for active ingredients, including secondary residues were 
used as surrogates for the surfactants without adjustment for the 
percentage of inert in the formulation. Data were used for all 
herbicides used at >5,000,000 pounds/year (lbs/yr) and all fungicides 
and insecticides used at >1,000,000 lbs/yr, including all active 
ingredients used in significant amount on the top 25 crops consumed by 
children; Both acute and chronic exposure levels were determined; The 
assessment assumed that 100% of all crops are treated with pesticides 
containing the surfactants.
    More sophisticated Tier 2 worst-case scenarios included the 
following exposure assumptions. For chronic exposure, actual crop-
specific residue data are used as surrogates for the surfactants, with 
adjustment for percentage of the inert in the formulation using an 
upper-bound value of 17.1%; Frequency of detection of pesticides was 
used as a method of ranking all pesticides monitored in the U.S. for 
residues. The top 30 pesticides were found to account for 99.9% of the 
total dietary intake of pesticide residues and were selected as the 
surrogates to use in estimating exposure. Exposure levels were 
determined using actual residue and frequency data for the 30 most 
frequently detected residues.
    For acute exposures, EPA's Cumulative OP Acute Dietary Exposure 
Distribution estimated for Children (1 to 2 years) in Florida (EPA, 
2002) was used as a surrogate. No adjustment was made to convert the 
active ingredient exposure for actual percentage of inert ingredient 
used in the formulation. The methamidophos-equivalent exposure 
estimates were used directly to approximate the magnitude of potential 
acute dietary exposures to the alkoxylated surfactants. Exposure 
estimates were made for the 90th%, 95th% and 99.9th% consumption.

B. Toxicological Profile

    1. Acute toxicity. Only a small amount of primary data are 
available on the acute toxicity of substances within the proposed class 
of alkoxylated surfactants. These data have been supplemented in the 
assessment described below by using publicly available data on the 
toxicology of alkyl amines and related derivatives.
    i. Acute dermal toxicity and eye irritation. Virtually all of the 
amines when administered directly or in concentrated solution are 
primary skin and eye irritants. Animals exposed to concentrated vapors 
exhibit signs and symptoms of mucous membrane and respiratory tract 
irritation. Direct skin contact with liquid amines can produce severe 
burns and necrosis. Little toxicity information is available on amines 
containing eight or more carbons. But it is clear that these amines, 
either as the neat liquid, or in concentrated solution, would be strong 
local irritants for eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. The lowered vapor 
pressure for the higher alkyl amines would tend to reduce the hazard 
from vapor exposure.
    ii. Acute oral toxicity. Estimated lethal dose (LD)50 
for alkoxylated compounds - 300 - 500 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). The 
LD50s for the shorter chain primary amines (C2-
C8) are in the 300-500 mg/kg range. Secondary amines are 
slightly more toxic than the corresponding primary amines. As the 
chains increase in length beyond C12-C16 there is 
an observable reduction in toxicity. For example, the acute oral 
LD50 for octadecylamine (C18H39N) in mice and rats is 
approximately 2-3 grams (g)/kg compared to the 300-500 mg/kg range for 
the shorter chain amines. The addition of an alcohol group to the 
molecule reduces the toxicity significantly. The alkanolamines and the 
alkylalkanolamines are typically 3-5 times less toxic than their amine 
congeners. For this reason it is expected that the addition of 
propoxylate or ethoxylate groups will not confer additional toxicity 
beyond that of the amine itself, and is likely to tower toxicity 
substantially.
    iii. Alkyl amines vs alkanolamines. The acute toxicity of the 
alkylamines are reduced from 4 to 20-fold by the introduction of 
hydroxyl groups into the molecule. The toxicity of the alkyl amines is 
reduced approximately 5-fold as the molecular weight increases from 
C2 to C16 and higher.
    2. Genotoxicity. There is no indication that any alkyl amine is 
mutagenic. Zeiger, et al. (Zeiger, E., Anderson B, Haworth S, Lawlor T, 
Mortelmans K and

[[Page 41729]]

W Speck (1987) ``Salmonella Mutagenicity tests: III. Results from the 
testing of 255 chemicals.'' Environ Mutagenesis, (1987) 3: Suppl (9)1-
110.) reported on the Salmonella Mutagenicity of 255 chemicals 
including 25 alkyl amines. Twenty three of the alkyl amines tested 
negative in the Ames test both with and without activation and only two 
substituted amines were weakly positive (N-hydroxyethylethylenediamine 
and monoisopropanolamine).
    3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Genamin TA (CAS 
 61790-33-8), a mixture consisting primarily of 
C16-C18 primary amines was given to both male and 
female rats 14 days prior to mating continually for 54 days thereafter. 
(Bussi R (2000) ``Genamin TA 100: Reproduction/Development toxicity 
Screening Test in rats by oral route.'' APAG, Instituto di Recerche 
Biomediche, 'Santoine Marxer' S.p.a.). The author noted that the no 
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for parental toxicity and for 
effects on offspring was 12.5 mg/kg. The reported NOAEL for fertility 
was 50 mg/kg.
    4. Subchronic toxicity. N-methyl-N-octadecyl-1-octadecanamine was 
administered to rats for 90-days at doses of 1,500, 5,000, and 15,000 
ppm in the diet. Doses were reduced after week 4 to 1,500, 4,000 and 
10,000 ppm. The presence of histiocytosis in all groups precluded the 
establishment of a NOAEL in this dose range. The lowest observed 
adverse effect level (LOAEL) was 1,500 ppm or 75 mg/kg bw/day. (Procter 
and Gamble EPA submission, No. 88-9200007039, microfiche No. 
OTS537649). Subchronic studies have also been conducted on a few 
alkanolamines. Ethomeen T/12 (CAS  61791-44-4) Ethanol,2,2-
iminobis-, N-tallow alkyl derivatives at doses of 15, 50, 150, and 450 
mg/kg were fed to rats in their diet for 90-days. Ethomeen T/12 is a 
mixture of polyoxyethylene tallow amines. Gross macroscopic effects 
were seen and body weight (bw) gain was reduced only at the 450 mg/kg 
level. Microscopic findings were seen in the intestine and regional 
mesenteric nodes levels of 150 mg/kg and greater. The NOAEL was 50 mg/
kg and the LOAEL was 150 mg/kg. A similar study was conducted in dogs 
at doses of 13, 40, and 120 mg/kg. Vomiting occurred at doses of 40 mg 
and higher. No gross pathologic variations or lesions were observed in 
any dose group. Histological evaluation revealed an increase in the 
incidence of foamy macrophages in the small intestine and regional 
lymph nodes in the 40 mg/kg and 120 mg/kg dose groups. The NOAEL was 13 
mg/kg/day and the LOAEL 50 mg/kg/day (Goater T.O., Griffiths D., 
McElliogott T.F., and AAB Swan, A.A.B, (1970), ``Summary of toxicology 
data- acute oral toxicity and short-term feeding studies on 
polyoxythylene tallow amines in rats and dogs,'' Food and cosmetics 
Toxicol. 8:249-252.).
    5. Chronic toxicity. Octadecylamine (CH3(CH2)17 NH2) has been 
administered to rats in a two-year rat feeding study. (Deichmann, W.B., 
Radomski, J.I., MacDonald, W.E., Kascht, R.L., and Erdman, R.l., 
(1958), A.M.A. Arch. Ind. Health, 18:483). The NOAEL was 500 ppm in the 
diet and 3,000 ppm was a LOAEL. Rats fed 3,000 ppm showed some weight 
loss, anorexia, and some histological changes in the gastrointestinal 
tract, mesenteric nodes, and liver. This NOAEL gives an allowable daily 
intake (ADI) of 0.25 mg/kg bw/day using a 100-fold safety factor. (500 
ppm in old rats corresponds to 25 mg/kg bw/day). An earlier one year 
oral study in dogs by Deichmann (Deichmann, W.B., et.al., (1957), Arch. 
Ind. Health, 18:483-487), reported a slight weight decrement at the 
highest of three doses (0.6, 3.0, and 15 mg/kg bw/day). The NOAEL from 
this study was 3.0 mg/kg bw/day. A corresponding ADI would be 0.03 mg/
kg bw/day, or about 8-fold lower than the study in rats.
    Most of the amine repeat-dose toxicology studies yield NOAELs in 
the 3 - 50 mg/kg bw/day range. The lowest repeated dose NOAEL in these 
reports is 3.0 mg/kg bw/day (both rabbit developmental study with 
olelyamine and 1-yr chronic dog study with octadecyl amine). The 
application of these data for alkoxylated amines depends on the 
toxicity of other members of this surfactant family having the same or 
lesser order of toxicity as the long chain fatty amines.
    The alkoxylateds in this submission differ from the simpler alkyl 
amines in two ways; first they are alkoxylated, which introduces polar 
ether linkages, second they additionally have two charged carboxyl 
groups on the end of the molecule. Both of these charges make the 
molecule more polar, and can decrease the systemic toxicity of the 
substance. The increased polarity can make the substances easier to 
eliminate in the urine. The increased number of ether linkages can make 
the substance harder to absorb. For these reasons, we believe that the 
NOAELS of the ether amines establish an upper bound to the toxicity of 
the alkoxylateds at approximately 10 mg/kg bw/day; the alkoxylateds 
themselves should be considerably less toxic. Given that there are no 
repeat-dose toxicity data in animals available on the alkoxylateds, we 
have endeavored, via a weight-of-evidence approach, to demonstrate that 
as the alkyl amine core of the molecule is modified by the introduction 
of polar constituents, the toxicity is decreased. Thus the toxicity of 
the alkoxylateds will be below that of the amines. In the discussion 
below, we show how the introduction of polar groups reduces the 
toxicity of several related classes of substances and how an average 
numerical bound might be placed on this effect.
    With reference to the report of the American Chemistry Council's 
report of the Fatty Nitrogen Derivatives Panel Amines Task Group (Fatty 
Nitrogen Derivatives Panel Amines Task Group, 2002, Fatty Nitrogen 
Derived (FND) Amines Category High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals 
Challenge, American Chemistry Council, Washington, D.C.), if alkyl 
(C10 - C16) dimethyl amine oxide is compared to 
the corresponding or similar alkyl amine it is seen that the toxicity 
drops by approximately 10-fold. The NOAEL for alkyl (C10 - 
C16) dimethyl amine oxide in a chronic rat study is 42.3 mg/
kg bw/day. The NOAEL in a 90-day rat study was the same. The urine was 
the primary pathway for elimination and excretion was largely complete 
in 24 hours (U. S. EPA. 1999. The Use of Structure-activity 
Relationships (SAR) in the High Production Volume Chemicals Challenge 
Program. https://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/sarfinl1.htm.). In contrast the 
maternal toxicity NOAEL for Cis- 9-octadecenylamine was 10 mg/kg bw/day 
in rats and 3 mg/kg bw/day in rabbits. The NOAEL for octadecylamine in 
a 1-year oral gavage study in rats was 3 mg/kg bw/day. It is seen that 
the conversion of the amine to the amine oxide tends to reduce the 
repeat-dose toxicity by approximately 3 to 10-fold. In a similar manner 
the acute toxicity of the alkylamines are reduced from 4 to 20-fold by 
the introduction of hydroxyl groups into the molecule, and the toxicity 
of the alkyl amines is reduced approximately 5-fold as the molecular 
weight increases from C2 to C16 and higher.
    6. Animal metabolism. The aliphatic amines are well absorbed from 
the gut and respiratory tract. They are either excreted intact or in 
the form of metabolites, depending on the course of metabolism, which 
depends on their structure. Monamine oxidases are mitichondrial enzymes 
that catalyze the oxidation of many primary amines to the corresponding 
aldehyde and ammonia. The aldehydes are further oxidized to the 
corresponding carboxylic acid and the ammonia to urea. In addition 
microsomal enzymes can metabolize amines not readily

[[Page 41730]]

transformed by monoamine oxidases, through a variety of pathways. These 
include: deamination, methylation , N-dealkylation, N-oxidation, N-
acetylation, cyclization, N-hydroxylation, and nitrosation.
    7. Metabolite toxicology. Secondary amines are prone to react with 
nitrite, depending on the pH of the media, to form nitrosamines, some 
of which are potent animal carcinogens. Some studies have suggested the 
possibility of in vivo formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines within 
the acidic environment of the stomach following ingestion of secondary 
amines. The major human intake of nitrates ([ap]50 mg/day) comes from 
vegetables, water supplies, or additives in the meat and fish curing 
process (Ellen et al. 1990. Food Additives Contaminants 7(2) :207-221). 
Nitrates are converted to nitrites in the upper part of the 
gastrointestinal tract by nitroreductase bacteria normally present in 
the lower bowel.
    Amines or amine precursors are present in vegetables, wine, 
spirits, beer, tea, fish, food flavoring agents, and some drugs. As 
indicated above, at least 10 mg of amine nitrogen is excreted per day; 
the intake of amines or their precursors is therefore probably in the 
100 mg/day range. Thus there exists the required elements for the in 
vivo formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines from amine ingestion. 
Despite this theoretical possibility, epidemiologic studies have not 
provided evidence for a causal association between nitrite exposure and 
human cancer. Nor has a causal link been shown between N-nitroso 
compounds preformed in the diet or endogenously synthesized and the 
incidence of human cancer (Gangilli., S.D., 1999, ``Nitrate, nitrite 
and N-nitroso compounds'', In Ballintine, B., Marrs, T., and Turner, 
P., General and Applied Toxicology, Stockton Press, New York, p. 2111, 
2143). It has been demonstrated in animals that nitrosation of 
diethylamine and dimethyamine in vivo is a very slow process. When 
these substances were fed to rats together with nitrite for over two 
years no tumors typical of treatment of rats with nitrosodiethylamine 
were observed Druckery et al, 1963 Cited by Benya et al., Patty's, 4th 
Ed. Vol II, Part B , page 1097). In any event, the addition to the diet 
of nanogram levels of amines from the proposed used of amine based 
surfactants is insignificant compared to normal endogenous levels and 
to those naturally occurring in food.
    8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence to suggest that the 
alkyl amines have an effect on any endocrine system. In developmental 
and two-generation reproduction toxicity tests systemic toxicity was 
noted but no developmental or reproductive effects were found.

C. Aggregate Exposure

    1. Dietary exposure. Exposure through both food and drinking water 
were estimated using data and methods more commonly applied to 
pesticide active ingredients. The methods for estimating dietary 
exposure are discussed above under residues. Drinking water exposures 
were estimated using EPA's combined Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure 
Assessment Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and the 1 ha pond scenario.
    i. Food. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2, acute and chronic dietary 
assessments were constructed in several different ways and in general 
margin of exposures (MOEs) >100 were found. Tier 1 acute assessments 
did yield MOEs <100, but the Tier 2 analysis gave an MOE = 1,500 for 
the lowest Tier 1 scenario.
    ii. Drinking water. Using the average peak value from PRZM/EXAMS 
modeling for acute exposure, the average 60-day concentration for 
chronic exposure and the standard estimates of water consumption, acute 
and chronic margins of exposure for drinking water all MOEs were 
greater than 460. In using the model, maximum application rates and 
number of applications were assumed and the alkoxylated surfactants 
were assumed not to degrade in water or the environment. The modeling 
provides an extreme worst-case estimate of exposure in that the peak 
values simulated accumulation (i.e., no degradation) of the surfactants 
in water during a 30 years period of application.
    2. Non-dietary exposure. For non-dietary exposure and risk analysis 
outdoor lawn care with broadcast application via hose-end sprayer was 
selected as the worst case. Dermal absorption was assumed to be 10%. 
Applicators were assumed to have dermal and inhalation exposures, while 
re-entry exposures were dermal and oral, the oral via hand-to-mouth 
activities by children. MOE's >100 were estimated by Tier 1 analyses, 
indicating reasonable certainty of no harm for the worst-case bounding 
scenario evaluated.

D. Cumulative Effects

    Other alkoxylated amine compounds may be used in pesticide 
formulations. However, the assessment of this class of compounds 
assumes 100% of the pesticide products applied to crops will use one 
member of this class of alkoxylated amines. Therefore, the cumulative 
risk for this class of compound is covered by the assessments in this 
submission.

E. Safety Determination

    1. U.S. population. As a general rule in any pesticide assessments, 
exposures of children are the highest of any subpopulation. This 
pattern was found to hold true for the alkoxylated surfactants and lead 
to simplifications in the assessment procedure. When exposures to 
children were found to be acceptable, e.g., acute and chronic Tier 2 
estimated dietary exposures to children yielded large MOEs, separate 
estimates for other subpopulations were not deemed necessary. In the 
risk assessment we ultimately have adopted the dietary exposures for 
children for all subpopulations. Exposures for females 13-49 were 
calculated in certain instances and found to be comparable to each 
other and less than for children. Hence, exposure estimates for the 
latter were not formally completed. Rather the exposure numbers for 
females were assumed for the full U.S. population.
    2. Infants and children. Except when using acute Tier 1 dietary 
exposure estimates and the most conservative toxicity endpoint, 3 mg/
kg-bw/day, all MOEs were found to be comfortably greater than 100. 
Given the worst-case conservatism built into all the analyses, the 
results support a conclusion that Tomah\3\'s alkoxylated surfactants 
may be used safely in pesticide formulations without concerns for 
dietary and non-occupational exposures.

[FR Doc. 05-13978 Filed 7-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S