Acetic Acid; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 44483-44488 [05-15148]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 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 the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 3, 2005.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2))
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 18, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is corrected by
making the following correcting
amendment:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
PO 00000
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44483
Subpart MM—Oregon
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(143)(i)(A) to read
as follows:
I
§ 52.1970
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(143) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The following sections of the
Oregon Administrative Rules 340: 232–
0010 and 232–0030, as effective
December 26, 2001.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–15338 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0154; FRL–7717–2]
Acetic Acid; 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 acetic acid
when used as a preservative for postharvest stored grains and hay intended
for animal feed. Eastman Chemical
Company 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 acetic acid for this use.
DATES: This regulation is effective
August 3, 2005. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0154. 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
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
44484
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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:
Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9525; e-mail address:
Benmhend.driss@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. 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 Access Electronic Copies
of this Document and Other Related
Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET
(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/. To access the
OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines
referenced in this document, go directly
to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/
opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of June 11,
2003 (68 FR 34955) (FRL–7308–7), 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 (PP 3F6516)
by Eastman Chemical Company, P.O.
Box 511, Kingsport, TN 37662. The
petition requested that 40 CFR part 180
be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of acetic acid.
This notice included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner,
Eastman Chemical Company. There
were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
Acetic acid was previously registered
by EPA and was exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance when used as
a hay and grain preservative under 40
CFR 180.1029. However, the registration
was canceled and the tolerance was
revoked due to failure by the registrant
to respond to a January 1987 generic
Data Call-In, and also for failure to
submit the required annual pesticide
registration maintenance fees (58 FR
47214, September 8, 1993).
The petition requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of acetic acid
when used as a preservative for postharvest stored grains and hay intended
for animal feed.
Section 408(c)(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 exemption is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to
section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or
maintaining in effect an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance, EPA
must take into account the factors set
forth in section 408(b)(2)(C), which
require 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. . . .’’ Additionally, section
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that
the Agency consider ‘‘available
information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide’s
residues’’ and ‘‘other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine 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. 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.
Acetic acid is a naturally occurring
substance found in all plants, animals,
and humans. An intermediate produced
in aerobic metabolism of foods during
digestion (FDA, 1977), acetic acid has a
long history of safe use as a food
additive, and when diluted, is most
commonly used and referred to as
vinegar. It is a natural component of
apple cider vinegar and other fruit and
distilled vinegars, at a concentration
ranging from 4-8%. This rule supports
the use of acetic acid as the active
ingredient in pesticide products that
will be used as a preservative for postharvest stored grains and hay intended
for animal feed. The application rate
will be based on the moisture content of
the commodity, but concentrations of
acetic acid as applied will be between
1% on hay and about 1.5% on grain.
Any resulting residues of acetic acid
will be less than those that result from
the use of vinegar in or on foods.
In support of this tolerance
exemption, data waivers were requested
for the required mammalian toxicity
studies, including acute toxicity and
other toxicological studies used to
determine risk to human health, based
on the lack of toxicity associated with
acetic acid in commonly consumed food
and information available from the
public literature. Additionally, acetic
acid is considered GRAS (Generally
Recognized As Safe) by the Food and
Drug Administration when applied
directly to foods (21 CFR 184.1005).
Data waivers were sought and granted
for the following toxicity studies based
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
on information from the open scientific
literature:
• Acute Oral Toxicity (OPPTS
870.1100)
• Acute Dermal Toxicity (OPPTS
870.1200)
• Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OPPTS
870.1300)
• Primary Eye Irritation (OPPTS
870.2400)
• Primary Dermal Irritation (OPPTS
870.2500)
Acetic acid is a commonly known
food material that has been tested and
written about for years. As a result, a lot
of toxicity studies about aa are found in
the public literature. As demonstrated
in the public literature supplied by the
applicant, acetic acid has a low pH (pH
2.4) and low corrosivity. Indeed, the
effects on targeted microbial pest
species are due to the low pH. Similarly,
primary eye irritation and primary
dermal irritation testing was not deemed
necessary due to the low pH and low
corrosivity of the active ingredient. As
a result, the Agency concluded that
additional acute oral, acute dermal, and
acute inhalation toxicity testings are not
necessary.
1. Hypersensitivity (OPPTS 870.2600).
The potential for repeated contact of the
product with human skin is a concern
only to applicators of the end-use
products. However, the risk to
applicators from exposure is mitigated
as they are required to wear protective
chemical-resistant gloves, aprons, and
footwear. There are no reports of dermal
sensitization to low concentrations of
acetic acid at concentrations such as
those found in vinegars. Accordingly, a
hypersensitivity study is not required
for registration of this product (per 40
CFR 158.690(c)(2)(iii)).
The registrant has reported no
hypersensitivity incidents to date
(OPPTS Guideline 885.3400).
Nonetheless, pursuant to FIFRA section
6(a)(2), the registrant is required to
report to the Agency any future
incidents of hypersensitivity associated
with acetic acid.
2. Genotoxicity (OPPTS 870.5100 and
870.5375). In lieu of guideline studies,
the registrant submitted a waiver
request with supporting studies/data/
information from the open technical
literature (Master Record Identification
Number (MRID) 457691–06)). Two nonguideline gene mutation studies in
bacteria (Ames test) were conducted as
part of a larger screening study of large
numbers of chemicals. Reviews of these
studies showed that this compound is
not anticipated to induce mutagenic
responses. Moreover, acetic acid is not
structurally related to any known
mutagens. As a result, the agency
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
approved the waiver request for
genotoxicity studies.
3. Immune response (OPPTS
870.7800). The registrant requested a
waiver for this study, and submitted
supporting studies/data/information
from the open technical literature.
EPA’s review concluded that acetic acid
is a common component of the diet in
humans and is a naturally-occurring
metabolite found in all plants and
animals (including humans). Acetic acid
is non-toxic at levels (4%-8%)
consumed by humans in or on foods.
With no known incidences of allergic
responses to acetic acid, there is
reasonable evidence that acetic acid
would not induce adverse immune
responses in humans, particularly at the
very low levels anticipated from the
proposed pesticidal uses. As a result,
the agency approved the waiver request
for the Immune Response study.
4. 90–Day feeding (OPPTS 870.3100).
Data waivers were sought and granted
for this study. The conditions of
potential exposure requiring this study
are not triggered. Acetic acid is a food
acid and is naturally occurring. Acetic
acid is absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract and through the
lungs and is readily, although not
completely, oxidized in the organism.
Acetic acid is proposed to be used as a
hay and grain preservative at low
concentrations and for animal food
only. When the product is applied
according to label directions, the treated
hay and grains will contain less than
2% of acetic acid. After consumption by
the animal, AA will then be rapidly
metabolized. Moreover, acetic acid is
consumed (by humans) at higher
concentrations found in commercially
available vinegar (4%-8%), without any
reported negative effects. Therefore,
there would be no expected subchronic
effects from the use of acetic acid in
products intended for hay and grain
treatment.
5. 90–Day dermal (OPPTS 870.3250).
A data waiver was sought and granted
for this study. The active ingredient
acetic acid is intended for use as a
preservative on stored grain and hay
used as animal feed. There will be no
intentional application to human skin
and there will be no prolonged human
dermal exposure. Acetic acid is not
expected to be metabolized differently
by the dermal route of exposure.
6. 90–Day inhalation (OPPTS
870.3465). A data waiver was sought
and granted for this study. Repeated
inhalation exposure to acetic acid is not
expected because application will occur
seasonally and the product is rapidly
diluted in the air. Furthermore, the
applicator/operator is separated from
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44485
the point of application by 15-20 feet
and is typically, but not always, within
an enclosed tractor cab.
7. Developmental toxicity (OPPTS
870.3550). In three developmental
toxicity studies (MRID 457691–07),
acetic acid was administered to
presumed pregnant rats, mice, and
rabbits by gavage at 0, 16, 74.3, 345, or
1,600 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/
day). Rats, mice, and rabbits were
sacrificed for examination on days 17,
20, and 29, respectively. No treatmentrelated maternal deaths occurred in any
species. Maternal body weights for rats
and rabbits were not affected by
treatment. For high-dose mice, body
weights were 90% of the control level
on day 11 and 88% of the controls on
days 15 and 17. Therefore, the maternal
toxicity lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) for acetic acid is 1,600
mg/kg/day for mice based on reduced
body weight; the LOAEL was not
identified for rats and rabbits. The
maternal toxicity no observed adverse
effect level (NOAEL) was 345 mg/kg/day
for mice and was ≥1,600 mg/kg/day for
rats and rabbits. For all three species,
the numbers of implantations,
resorptions, and live fetuses per litter
were similar between the treated and
control groups. No effects on numbers of
dead fetuses or fetal body weights were
observed in rats or rabbits. In mice, a
greater number of litters in the highdose group contained dead fetuses
compared with the controls (7/21 vs. 2/
22 respectively). Mean fetal body weight
from high-dose mice was 0.84 gram (g)
compared with 0.92 g for the controls.
No treatment-related external, visceral,
or skeletal malformations or variations
were observed in fetuses from rats,
mice, or rabbits. Therefore, the
developmental toxicity LOAEL for
acetic acid is 1,600 mg/kg/day for mice
based on an increased number of dead
fetuses/litter and decreased fetal body
weight; the LOAEL for rats and rabbits
was not identified. The developmental
toxicity NOAEL for acetic acid is 345
mg/kg/day for mice and ≥1,600 mg/kg/
day for rats and rabbits. It should be
noted that the highest dose tested in all
three species, 1,600 mg/kg/day, is
greater than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/
kg/day. As a result, developmental
toxicity is not expected from the use
sought for acetic acid as a post-harvest
grain and hay preservative.
Based on the data or data waivers
submitted in accordance with the Tier I
toxicology data requirements set forth in
40 CFR 158.690(c), the Tier II and Tier
III toxicology data requirements also set
forth therein were not triggered and,
therefore, not required in connection
with this action.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
44486
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
IV. 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 ground water or
surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor
uses).
Acetic acid is a common metabolite in
plants and animals. It is normally
produced in relatively large amounts
during the digestion and metabolism of
foods (FDA, 1977). It is not a known
mutagen, teratogen, nor oncogen;
neither is it chemically related to any
known class of mutagens, teratogens, or
oncogens. Moreover, the acetic acid
contained in this product is intended
solely for use as a post-harvest
preservative on hay and grain. After the
treated feed is ingested by animals,
acetic acid is readily metabolized into a
source of energy for the animal. As a
result, the possibility of human
exposure through consumption of meat
or milk from these animals, is not
expected.
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Food. When end-use products
containing the active ingredient acetic
acid are used in the manner intended
for stored hay and grains, residues of
acetic acid will not be present on the
feed commodities at levels greater than
2%. While human dietary exposure
from the use of this product is not
expected in connection with the
proposed uses, even if humans were to
consume acetic acid at these levels, the
dietary intake would be 2 to 3 times less
than when consuming vinegar in
vegetable salads and other commonly
consumed foods. Moreover, human
dietary exposure is also not anticipated
from the consumption of meat and milk
of animals that were fed treated grains
and hay (see Unit IV. above).
2. Drinking water exposure. When
used according to label directions, no
dietary exposure through drinking water
is expected from the use of acetic acid
to treat stored hay and grains. The
product is not intended for use in
drinking water, nor are the approved
uses likely to result in acetic acid
reaching surface or ground water that
might be used as drinking water.
Furthermore, in the unlikely event that
the use of acetic acid to treat stored hay
and grains does result in acetic acid
reaching water that ultimately is
consumed, it would not pose any health
risk due to its inherent low toxicity and
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
ability to be metabolized just like
vinegar.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Based on the proposed post-harvest
use on stored hay and grains that will
be used as feed only, the potential for
non-occupational, non-dietary
exposures to acetic acid residues by the
general population, including infants
and children, is unlikely. Moreover, in
the unlikely event of non-occupational,
non-dietary exposures to acetic acid
residues as a result of the proposed
post-harvest uses, no harm is expected
because of acetic acid’s low toxicity.
Based on available data, therefore, it is
highly unlikely that any adverse effects
will occur to humans via use of acetic
acid as a post-harvest preservative for
stored hay and grains.
V. 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.’’ These
considerations include the possible
cumulative effects of such residues on
infants and children. Acetic acid is used
in a manner similar to propionic acid as
a preservative of post-harvest hay and
grain. Under aerobic conditions,
propionic acid acts as a carbon source
for various microbes and is metabolized
to acetic acid. Propionic acid is also
used on other food commodities.
Certain uses of propionic acid are
exempt from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1023. Since
there will be no dietary or non-dietary,
non-occupational exposure to acetic
acid when the end-use product is used
according to label directions, no
cumulative or incremental effects to
humans are anticipated.
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S.
Population, Infants and Children
1. U.S. population. There is
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to residues of acetic acid due
to its use as a preservative for postharvest stored grains and hay intended
for animal feed. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information. The agency has
arrived at this conclusion based on the
function of acetic acid as a natural
component of metabolism in the human
body, the anticipated low acute
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exposure estimates from its pesticidal
use, the common use of acetic acid in
the human diet and its classification by
the FDA as GRAS as a direct food
additive.
2. Infants and children. FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold margin
of exposure (MOE) for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects
to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the
data base on toxicity and exposure,
unless EPA determines that a different
MOE will be safe for infants and
children. Margins of exposure, which
are often referred to as uncertainty
(safety) factors, are incorporated into
EPA risk assessments either directly, or
through the use of a MOE analysis or by
using uncertainty factors in calculating
a dose level that poses no appreciable
risk. In this instance, based on all
available information, the Agency
concludes that acetic acid is non-toxic
to mammals, including infants and
children. Because there are no threshold
effects of concern to infants, children
and adults when acetic acid is used as
labeled, the Agency concludes that the
additional MOE is not necessary to
protect infants and children and that not
adding any additional MOE will be safe
for infants and children.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
EPA is required under section 408(p)
of the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to
develop a screening program to
determine whether certain substances
(including all pesticide active and other
ingredients) ‘‘may have an effect in
humans that is similar to an effect
produced by a naturally-occurring
estrogen, or other such endocrine effects
as the Administrator may designate.’’
Acetic acid is not a known endocrine
disruptor nor is it related to any class of
known endocrine disruptors. Thus,
there is no impact via endocrine-related
effects on this Agency’s safety finding
set forth in this final rule for acetic acid.
B. Analytical Method
Through this action, the Agency
proposes to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for acetic
acid when used as a preservative on
post-harvest hay and grain intended for
use as animal feed. For the very same
reasons that support the granting of this
tolerance exemption, the Agency has
concluded that an analytical method is
not required for enforcement purposes
for these proposed uses of acetic acid.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no codex maximum residue
levels established for acetic acid.
VIII. 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
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 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–2005–0154 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 October 3, 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),
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 VIII.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–2005–0154 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).
IX. 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44487
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
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
44488
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
X. 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 theFederal 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:20 Aug 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
Dated: July 1, 2005.
James Jones,
Director, 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 180.1258 is added to subpart
D to read as follows:
I
§ 180.1258 Acetic acid; exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance is established for residues
of the biochemical pesticide acetic acid
when used as a preservative on postharvest agricultural commodities
intended for animal feed, including
alfalfa, barley grain, Bermuda grass,
bluegrass, brome grass, clover, corn
grain, cowpea hay, fescue, lespedeza,
lupines, oat grain, orchard grass, peanut
grass, Timothy, vetch, and wheat grain,
or commodities described as grain or
hay.
[FR Doc. 05–15148 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP–2005–0183; FRL–7725–6]
Alachlor, Carbaryl, Diazinon,
Disulfoton, Pirimiphos-methyl, and
Vinclozolin; Tolerance Revocations
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain
tolerances for residues of the herbicide
alachlor, insecticides carbaryl, diazinon,
disulfoton, and pirimiphos-methyl, and
the fungicide vinclozolin because these
specific tolerances are no longer needed
or are associated with food uses that are
no longer current or registered in the
United States. The regulatory actions in
this document contribute toward the
Agency’s tolerance reassessment
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section
408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law,
EPA is required by August 2006 to
reassess the tolerances in existence on
August 2, 1996. The regulatory actions
in this document pertain to the
revocation of 15 tolerances of which 9
count as tolerance reassessments toward
the August, 2006 review deadline.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This regulation is effective
August 3, 2005. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written
objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in
Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP–2005–
0183. 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:
Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001; telephone number: (703) 308–
8037; e-mail address:
nevola.joseph@epa.gov.
DATES:
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 code 111),
e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers;
farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS code
112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers,
dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers;
commercial applicators; farmers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture
workers; residential users.
E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM
03AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44483-44488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15148]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2005-0154; FRL-7717-2]
Acetic Acid; 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 acetic acid when used as a preservative
for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal feed.
Eastman Chemical Company 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 acetic acid for
this use.
DATES: This regulation is effective August 3, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0154. 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
[[Page 44484]]
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: Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-9525; e-mail address: Benmhend.driss@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. 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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?
In addition to using EDOCKET (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/.
To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document,
go directly to the guidelines at https://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm/.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of June 11, 2003 (68 FR 34955) (FRL-7308-
7), 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 (PP 3F6516) by Eastman Chemical Company, P.O. Box 511,
Kingsport, TN 37662. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of acetic acid. This notice included a summary
of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Eastman Chemical Company.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
Acetic acid was previously registered by EPA and was exempt from
the requirement of a tolerance when used as a hay and grain
preservative under 40 CFR 180.1029. However, the registration was
canceled and the tolerance was revoked due to failure by the registrant
to respond to a January 1987 generic Data Call-In, and also for failure
to submit the required annual pesticide registration maintenance fees
(58 FR 47214, September 8, 1993).
The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of acetic acid when used as a preservative for post-harvest
stored grains and hay intended for animal feed.
Section 408(c)(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 exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C), which require 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. . . .''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires that the
Agency consider ``available information concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine 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. 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.
Acetic acid is a naturally occurring substance found in all plants,
animals, and humans. An intermediate produced in aerobic metabolism of
foods during digestion (FDA, 1977), acetic acid has a long history of
safe use as a food additive, and when diluted, is most commonly used
and referred to as vinegar. It is a natural component of apple cider
vinegar and other fruit and distilled vinegars, at a concentration
ranging from 4-8%. This rule supports the use of acetic acid as the
active ingredient in pesticide products that will be used as a
preservative for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal
feed. The application rate will be based on the moisture content of the
commodity, but concentrations of acetic acid as applied will be between
1% on hay and about 1.5% on grain. Any resulting residues of acetic
acid will be less than those that result from the use of vinegar in or
on foods.
In support of this tolerance exemption, data waivers were requested
for the required mammalian toxicity studies, including acute toxicity
and other toxicological studies used to determine risk to human health,
based on the lack of toxicity associated with acetic acid in commonly
consumed food and information available from the public literature.
Additionally, acetic acid is considered GRAS (Generally Recognized As
Safe) by the Food and Drug Administration when applied directly to
foods (21 CFR 184.1005).
Data waivers were sought and granted for the following toxicity
studies based
[[Page 44485]]
on information from the open scientific literature:
Acute Oral Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1100)
Acute Dermal Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1200)
Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OPPTS 870.1300)
Primary Eye Irritation (OPPTS 870.2400)
Primary Dermal Irritation (OPPTS 870.2500)
Acetic acid is a commonly known food material that has been tested
and written about for years. As a result, a lot of toxicity studies
about aa are found in the public literature. As demonstrated in the
public literature supplied by the applicant, acetic acid has a low pH
(pH 2.4) and low corrosivity. Indeed, the effects on targeted microbial
pest species are due to the low pH. Similarly, primary eye irritation
and primary dermal irritation testing was not deemed necessary due to
the low pH and low corrosivity of the active ingredient. As a result,
the Agency concluded that additional acute oral, acute dermal, and
acute inhalation toxicity testings are not necessary.
1. Hypersensitivity (OPPTS 870.2600). The potential for repeated
contact of the product with human skin is a concern only to applicators
of the end-use products. However, the risk to applicators from exposure
is mitigated as they are required to wear protective chemical-resistant
gloves, aprons, and footwear. There are no reports of dermal
sensitization to low concentrations of acetic acid at concentrations
such as those found in vinegars. Accordingly, a hypersensitivity study
is not required for registration of this product (per 40 CFR
158.690(c)(2)(iii)).
The registrant has reported no hypersensitivity incidents to date
(OPPTS Guideline 885.3400). Nonetheless, pursuant to FIFRA section
6(a)(2), the registrant is required to report to the Agency any future
incidents of hypersensitivity associated with acetic acid.
2. Genotoxicity (OPPTS 870.5100 and 870.5375). In lieu of guideline
studies, the registrant submitted a waiver request with supporting
studies/data/information from the open technical literature (Master
Record Identification Number (MRID) 457691-06)). Two non-guideline gene
mutation studies in bacteria (Ames test) were conducted as part of a
larger screening study of large numbers of chemicals. Reviews of these
studies showed that this compound is not anticipated to induce
mutagenic responses. Moreover, acetic acid is not structurally related
to any known mutagens. As a result, the agency approved the waiver
request for genotoxicity studies.
3. Immune response (OPPTS 870.7800). The registrant requested a
waiver for this study, and submitted supporting studies/data/
information from the open technical literature. EPA's review concluded
that acetic acid is a common component of the diet in humans and is a
naturally-occurring metabolite found in all plants and animals
(including humans). Acetic acid is non-toxic at levels (4%-8%) consumed
by humans in or on foods. With no known incidences of allergic
responses to acetic acid, there is reasonable evidence that acetic acid
would not induce adverse immune responses in humans, particularly at
the very low levels anticipated from the proposed pesticidal uses. As a
result, the agency approved the waiver request for the Immune Response
study.
4. 90-Day feeding (OPPTS 870.3100). Data waivers were sought and
granted for this study. The conditions of potential exposure requiring
this study are not triggered. Acetic acid is a food acid and is
naturally occurring. Acetic acid is absorbed from the gastrointestinal
tract and through the lungs and is readily, although not completely,
oxidized in the organism. Acetic acid is proposed to be used as a hay
and grain preservative at low concentrations and for animal food only.
When the product is applied according to label directions, the treated
hay and grains will contain less than 2% of acetic acid. After
consumption by the animal, AA will then be rapidly metabolized.
Moreover, acetic acid is consumed (by humans) at higher concentrations
found in commercially available vinegar (4%-8%), without any reported
negative effects. Therefore, there would be no expected subchronic
effects from the use of acetic acid in products intended for hay and
grain treatment.
5. 90-Day dermal (OPPTS 870.3250). A data waiver was sought and
granted for this study. The active ingredient acetic acid is intended
for use as a preservative on stored grain and hay used as animal feed.
There will be no intentional application to human skin and there will
be no prolonged human dermal exposure. Acetic acid is not expected to
be metabolized differently by the dermal route of exposure.
6. 90-Day inhalation (OPPTS 870.3465). A data waiver was sought and
granted for this study. Repeated inhalation exposure to acetic acid is
not expected because application will occur seasonally and the product
is rapidly diluted in the air. Furthermore, the applicator/operator is
separated from the point of application by 15-20 feet and is typically,
but not always, within an enclosed tractor cab.
7. Developmental toxicity (OPPTS 870.3550). In three developmental
toxicity studies (MRID 457691-07), acetic acid was administered to
presumed pregnant rats, mice, and rabbits by gavage at 0, 16, 74.3,
345, or 1,600 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). Rats, mice, and
rabbits were sacrificed for examination on days 17, 20, and 29,
respectively. No treatment-related maternal deaths occurred in any
species. Maternal body weights for rats and rabbits were not affected
by treatment. For high-dose mice, body weights were 90% of the control
level on day 11 and 88% of the controls on days 15 and 17. Therefore,
the maternal toxicity lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for
acetic acid is 1,600 mg/kg/day for mice based on reduced body weight;
the LOAEL was not identified for rats and rabbits. The maternal
toxicity no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was 345 mg/kg/day for
mice and was >=1,600 mg/kg/day for rats and rabbits. For all three
species, the numbers of implantations, resorptions, and live fetuses
per litter were similar between the treated and control groups. No
effects on numbers of dead fetuses or fetal body weights were observed
in rats or rabbits. In mice, a greater number of litters in the high-
dose group contained dead fetuses compared with the controls (7/21 vs.
2/22 respectively). Mean fetal body weight from high-dose mice was 0.84
gram (g) compared with 0.92 g for the controls. No treatment-related
external, visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations were
observed in fetuses from rats, mice, or rabbits. Therefore, the
developmental toxicity LOAEL for acetic acid is 1,600 mg/kg/day for
mice based on an increased number of dead fetuses/litter and decreased
fetal body weight; the LOAEL for rats and rabbits was not identified.
The developmental toxicity NOAEL for acetic acid is 345 mg/kg/day for
mice and >=1,600 mg/kg/day for rats and rabbits. It should be noted
that the highest dose tested in all three species, 1,600 mg/kg/day, is
greater than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. As a result,
developmental toxicity is not expected from the use sought for acetic
acid as a post-harvest grain and hay preservative.
Based on the data or data waivers submitted in accordance with the
Tier I toxicology data requirements set forth in 40 CFR 158.690(c), the
Tier II and Tier III toxicology data requirements also set forth
therein were not triggered and, therefore, not required in connection
with this action.
[[Page 44486]]
IV. 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 ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
Acetic acid is a common metabolite in plants and animals. It is
normally produced in relatively large amounts during the digestion and
metabolism of foods (FDA, 1977). It is not a known mutagen, teratogen,
nor oncogen; neither is it chemically related to any known class of
mutagens, teratogens, or oncogens. Moreover, the acetic acid contained
in this product is intended solely for use as a post-harvest
preservative on hay and grain. After the treated feed is ingested by
animals, acetic acid is readily metabolized into a source of energy for
the animal. As a result, the possibility of human exposure through
consumption of meat or milk from these animals, is not expected.
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Food. When end-use products containing the active ingredient
acetic acid are used in the manner intended for stored hay and grains,
residues of acetic acid will not be present on the feed commodities at
levels greater than 2%. While human dietary exposure from the use of
this product is not expected in connection with the proposed uses, even
if humans were to consume acetic acid at these levels, the dietary
intake would be 2 to 3 times less than when consuming vinegar in
vegetable salads and other commonly consumed foods. Moreover, human
dietary exposure is also not anticipated from the consumption of meat
and milk of animals that were fed treated grains and hay (see Unit IV.
above).
2. Drinking water exposure. When used according to label
directions, no dietary exposure through drinking water is expected from
the use of acetic acid to treat stored hay and grains. The product is
not intended for use in drinking water, nor are the approved uses
likely to result in acetic acid reaching surface or ground water that
might be used as drinking water. Furthermore, in the unlikely event
that the use of acetic acid to treat stored hay and grains does result
in acetic acid reaching water that ultimately is consumed, it would not
pose any health risk due to its inherent low toxicity and ability to be
metabolized just like vinegar.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Based on the proposed post-harvest use on stored hay and grains
that will be used as feed only, the potential for non-occupational,
non-dietary exposures to acetic acid residues by the general
population, including infants and children, is unlikely. Moreover, in
the unlikely event of non-occupational, non-dietary exposures to acetic
acid residues as a result of the proposed post-harvest uses, no harm is
expected because of acetic acid's low toxicity. Based on available
data, therefore, it is highly unlikely that any adverse effects will
occur to humans via use of acetic acid as a post-harvest preservative
for stored hay and grains.
V. 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.'' These considerations
include the possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and
children. Acetic acid is used in a manner similar to propionic acid as
a preservative of post-harvest hay and grain. Under aerobic conditions,
propionic acid acts as a carbon source for various microbes and is
metabolized to acetic acid. Propionic acid is also used on other food
commodities. Certain uses of propionic acid are exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1023. Since there will be
no dietary or non-dietary, non-occupational exposure to acetic acid
when the end-use product is used according to label directions, no
cumulative or incremental effects to humans are anticipated.
VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
1. U.S. population. There is reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of acetic acid due to its use as a
preservative for post-harvest stored grains and hay intended for animal
feed. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information. The agency has
arrived at this conclusion based on the function of acetic acid as a
natural component of metabolism in the human body, the anticipated low
acute exposure estimates from its pesticidal use, the common use of
acetic acid in the human diet and its classification by the FDA as GRAS
as a direct food additive.
2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that
EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (MOE) for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base
on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different MOE
will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure, which are
often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors, are incorporated
into EPA risk assessments either directly, or through the use of a MOE
analysis or by using uncertainty factors in calculating a dose level
that poses no appreciable risk. In this instance, based on all
available information, the Agency concludes that acetic acid is non-
toxic to mammals, including infants and children. Because there are no
threshold effects of concern to infants, children and adults when
acetic acid is used as labeled, the Agency concludes that the
additional MOE is not necessary to protect infants and children and
that not adding any additional MOE will be safe for infants and
children.
VII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
EPA is required under section 408(p) of the FFDCA, as amended by
FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain
substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) ``may
have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a
naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the
Administrator may designate.'' Acetic acid is not a known endocrine
disruptor nor is it related to any class of known endocrine disruptors.
Thus, there is no impact via endocrine-related effects on this Agency's
safety finding set forth in this final rule for acetic acid.
B. Analytical Method
Through this action, the Agency proposes to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for acetic acid when used as a
preservative on post-harvest hay and grain intended for use as animal
feed. For the very same reasons that support the granting of this
tolerance exemption, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method
is not required for enforcement purposes for these proposed uses of
acetic acid.
[[Page 44487]]
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no codex maximum residue levels established for acetic
acid.
VIII. 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 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 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-2005-0154 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 October
3, 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 14\th\ 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 VIII.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-2005-0154 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).
IX. 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
[[Page 44488]]
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 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.
X. 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 theFederal 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: July 1, 2005.
James Jones,
Director, 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 180.1258 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1258 Acetic acid; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the biochemical pesticide acetic acid when used as a
preservative on post-harvest agricultural commodities intended for
animal feed, including alfalfa, barley grain, Bermuda grass, bluegrass,
brome grass, clover, corn grain, cowpea hay, fescue, lespedeza,
lupines, oat grain, orchard grass, peanut grass, Timothy, vetch, and
wheat grain, or commodities described as grain or hay.
[FR Doc. 05-15148 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S