N,N,N′,N′′,-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance, 37564-37571 [E9-17945]
Download as PDF
37564
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable geographic or nonattainment area
State submittal
date
EPA approval
date
(25) Letter Pertaining to NOX Rules
and Analysis Which Certifies the
Material Was Adopted by the
State on October 17, 1990.
(26) SO2 Plan .................................
Statewide ......................................
11/8/90
2/13/91, 56 FR
5757.
Clinton ..........................................
3/13/91
(27) Letter Withdrawing Variance
Provisions.
(28) Letter Concerning Open Burning Exemptions.
(29) Compliance Sampling Manual
Polk County ..................................
10/23/91
Statewide ......................................
10/3/91
Statewide ......................................
1/5/93
(30) Small Business Assistance
Plan.
(31) Voluntary Operating Permit
Program.
Statewide ......................................
12/22/92
Statewide ......................................
(32) SO2 Plan .................................
Muscatine .....................................
(33) SO2 Maintenance Plan ............
Muscatine .....................................
12/8/94
2/16/96
2/27/96
6/19/96
5/21/97
4/25/97
11/1/91, 56 FR
56158.
11/29/91, 56 FR
60924.
1/22/92, 57 FR
2472.
5/12/93, 58 FR
27939.
9/27/93, 58 FR
50266.
4/30/96, 61 FR
18958.
(34) SO2 Control Plan .....................
Cedar Rapids ...............................
9/11/98
(35) PM10 Control Plan ...................
Buffalo, Iowa ................................
10/1/98
(36) CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP—
Interstate Transport.
(37) SO2 Maintenance Plan for the
Second 10-year Period.
(38) CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)—
Ozone Infrastructure SIP.
Statewide ......................................
11/22/06
Muscatine .....................................
4/5/07
Statewide ......................................
6/15/07
[FR Doc. E9–17929 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0130; FRL–8429–3]
N,N,N′,N′′,-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of N,N,N′,N′′,tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
ethylenediamine (NTHE) when used as
an inert ingredient for pre-harvest uses
under 40 CFR 180.920 at a maximum of
20% by weight in pesticide
formulations. The Joint Inerts Task
Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team
Number 15 (CST 15), submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Correction notice published 1/26/
93.
12/1/97, 62 FR
63454.
3/19/98, 63 FR
13343.
3/11/99, 64 FR
12090.
3/18/99, 64 FR
13346.
3/8/07, 72 FR
10380.
8/1/07; 72 FR
41900.
3/04/08; 73 FR
11554.
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of NTHE.
DATES: This regulation is effective July
29, 2009. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 28, 2009, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0130. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(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 in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
PO 00000
Explanation
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8811; e-mail address:
leifer.kerry@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 those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies
of this Document?
In addition to accessing electronically
available documents at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
cite 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.gov/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0130 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
as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before September 28, 2009.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2009–0130, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
II. Background
In the Federal Register of April 15,
2009 (74 FR 17487) (FRL–8409-7), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9E7531) by JITF,
CST 15, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th
St., NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC
20005. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.920 be amended by
establishing exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the inert ingredient NTHE. That
notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by JITF, CST 15, the
petitioner, which is available to the
public in the docket, https://
www.regulations.gov.
The Agency received only one
comment in response to the notice of
filing. One comment was received from
a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that
leaves a residue on food. The Agency
understands the commenter’s concerns
and recognizes that some individuals
believe that no residue of pesticides
should be allowed. However, under the
existing legal framework provided by
FFDCA section 408, EPA is authorized
to establish pesticide tolerances or
exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets
the safety standard imposed by that
statute.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the exemption requested by
limiting NTHE to a maximum of 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations. This
limitation is based on the Agency’s risk
assessment which can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in
document, N,N,N′,N′′,-Tetrakis-(2Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine
(NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient).
Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used
as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37565
Formulations in docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0130.
This petition was submitted in
response to a final rule published in the
Federal Register issue of August 9,
2006, (71 FR 45415) (FRL–8084–1) in
which the Agency revoked, under
FFDCA section 408(e)(1), the existing
exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of certain inert
ingredients because of insufficient data
to make the determination of safety
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2).
The expiration date for the tolerance
exemptions subject to revocation was
August 9, 2008, which was later
extended to August 9, 2009 by a final
rule published in the Federal Register
of August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312) (FRL–
8372–7) to allow for data to be
submitted to support the establishment
of tolerance exemptions for these inert
ingredients prior to the effective date of
the tolerance exemption revocation.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients
that are not active ingredients as defined
in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are
not limited to, the following types of
ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own):
Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as
polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and
diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose;
wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol
dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not
intended to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be
chemically active. Generally, EPA has
exempted inert ingredients from the
requirement of a tolerance based on the
low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
37566
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue....’’
EPA performs a number of analyses to
determine the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide residues. First,
EPA determines the toxicity of
pesticides. Second, EPA examines
exposure to the pesticide through food,
drinking water, and through other
exposures that occur as a result of
pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of NTHE provided
that the concentration of NTHE inerts is
limited to no more than 20% by weight
in pesticide formulations. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing tolerances
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability as well as
the relationship of the results of the
studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
The existing toxicology database for
NTHE consists of one OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
(combined repeated dose toxicity study
with the reproduction/developmental
screening study in rats), a 90–day
toxicity study in rats, and several
studies in the scientific literature on
acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
The available toxicity data indicates
that NTHE has low acute oral toxicity.
NTHE was not mutagenic in an Ames
Test. In the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 rat reproductive/
developmental toxicity screening study,
there was no evidence of increased
susceptibility. Parental toxicity
manifested as microscopic brain lesions
at 1,000 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/
kg/day) (the highest dose tested). No
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
developmental or reproductive effects
were observed at doses of 100, 300, and
1,000 mg/kg/day. There is no evidence
of increased susceptibility to the
offspring of rats following prenatal and
postnatal exposure in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study.
There were no offspring effects at any
dose level up to the limit dose (1,000
mg/kg/day). In addition, in a 90–day
dietary study in rats (1956), where the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) was set at 600–900 mg/kg/day
(1% in diet), based on body-weight gain
effects at 3% and 5% in the diet and a
slightly greater incidence of borderline
abnormalities of the liver of
questionable significance, there are no
other repeat dose toxicity data available.
The NOAEL from the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study
(300 mg/kg/day) is protective of any
potential liver toxicity.
However, there is suggestive evidence
of adverse neurotoxic effects in the
adult animal in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 study at the limit
dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. These effects
manifested as different sized vacuoles in
the choroid plexus epithelial cells (some
were signet-ring shaped) of the lateral
ventricles of the brain in all high-dose
parental male and female rats. None of
the low- or mid-dose or control animals
showed a similar change.
Pharmacokinetics in rats indicate that,
following oral dosing, NTHE is poorly
absorbed and rapidly excreted in the
urine, mainly unchanged (92%–96%).
None of the hypothetical metabolites,
such as keto- or N-dealkylated
derivatives, were observed. The
calculated bioavailability factor
(F=0.018) revealed that less than 2% of
the orally administered dose of NTHE is
absorbed through the stomach and
intestine. The half-life for elimination is
82 minutes (in non-diabetic rats) as a
first order process.
There are no chronic toxicity studies
available for NTHE. The Agency used a
qualitative structure activity
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK 11,
to determine if there were structural
alerts suggestive of carcinogenicity. No
structural alerts were identified. In
addition, there was little concern about
any of the postulated metabolites having
greater toxicity than the parent
compounds.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by NTHE, as well as, the
NOAEL and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in document
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
N,N,N′,N′′,-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15
Inert Ingredient). Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support Proposed
Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert
Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations at
pp. 7–11 and 31–34 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0130.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold
below which there is no appreciable
risk, a toxicological point of departure
(POD) is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as
the highest dose at which no adverse
effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the
toxicology study identified as
appropriate for use in risk assessment.
However, if a NOAEL cannot be
determined, the lowest dose at which
adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose
(BMD) approach is sometimes used for
risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety
factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD to take into account
uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal
data to humans and in the variations in
sensitivity among members of the
human population as well as other
unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute
and chronic dietary risks by comparing
aggregate food and water exposure to
the pesticide to the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The
aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing food, water, and residential
exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by
the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded. This latter value is referred to
as the level of concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency
assumes that any amount of exposure
will lead to some degree of risk. Thus,
the Agency estimates risk in terms of the
probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect greater than that expected
in a lifetime. For more information on
the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment
process, see https://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for NTHE used for human
health risk assessment is shown in
Table 1 of this unit.
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
37567
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR USE IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
POD and Uncertainty/Safety
Factors
Exposure/Scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC
for Risk Assessment
Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute dietary
(all populations)
No appropriate endpoint was identified for acute dietary assessment. The brain lesions observed
following repeat dosing at the limit dose would not be expected to occur following a single exposure.
Chronic dietary
(all populations)
NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 10X
Chronic RfD = 3
mg/kg/day
cPAD = 3 mg/kg/
day
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
reproduction/developmental screen in
rats
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day, based on microscopic lesions (vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial cells of the lateral ventricles) of the brain in all high-dose animals (both sexes).
Short-Term (1–30 days) Incidental Oral and
Inhalation
NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 10X
Inhalation hazard assumed to
be equivalent to oral hazard
Residential LOC
for MOE =
1,000
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
reproduction/developmental screen in
rats
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day, based on microscopic lesions (vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial cells of the lateral ventricles) of the brain in all high-dose animals (both sexes).
Intermediate- and Long-Term (1–6 months
and >6 months) Incidental Oral and Inhalation
Oral NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
FQPA SF = 10X
Inhalation hazard assumed to
be equivalent to oral hazard
Residential LOC
for MOE =
1,000
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
reproduction/developmental screen in
rats
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day, based on microscopic lesions (vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial cells of the lateral ventricles) of the brain in all high-dose animals (both sexes).
Cancer
(oral, dermal, inhalation)
Classification: No animal toxicity data available for an assessment. Based on SAR analysis,
NTHE is not expected to be carcinogenic.
Point of departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effectlevel. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH =
potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose (a=acute, c=chronic).
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. SAR
= structure activity relationship.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
Limited information is available on
the metabolism and environmental
degradation of this compound. The
Agency has considered the chemical
structure, the submitted
physicochemical data, as well as SAR
information, to determine the residues
of concern for this inert ingredient.
A rat metabolism study showed little
absorption, with most of the parent
compound excreted unchanged in the
urine. Although data on plant
metabolism and environmental
degradation are not available, any
postulated metabolites as a result of dealkylation are likely to be highly water
soluble (like the parent) and are not
likely to be more toxic than the parent
compound. Therefore, a risk assessment
based on the toxicity data for the parent
compound is not likely to underestimate
risk.
Available data indicate that oral
absorption of NTHE is low, and dermal
absorption is expected to be very low.
Low dermal absorption is expected
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
based on its physicochemical
properties. Therefore, it is concluded
that quantification of dermal risk is not
necessary for NTHE.
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NTHE, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from NTHE in food as
follows:
i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects
attributable to a single exposure of
NTHE was seen in the toxicity
databases; therefore, an acute exposure
assessment for NTHE is not necessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting
the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food
consumption information from the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) 1994–1996 and 1998
Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, no residue data
were submitted for NTHE. In the
absence of specific residue data, EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
has developed an approach which uses
surrogate information to derive upper
bound exposure estimates for the
subject inert ingredient. Upper bound
exposure estimates are based on the
highest tolerance for a given commodity
from a list of high-use insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides. A complete
description of the general approach
taken to assess inert ingredient risks in
the absence of residue data is contained
in the memorandum entitled Alkyl
Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4):
Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and
Risk Assessments for the Inerts
(D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–
0738.
In the dietary exposure assessment,
the Agency assumed that the residue
level of the inert ingredient would be no
higher than the highest tolerance for a
given commodity. Implicit in this
assumption is that there would be
similar rates of degradation (if any)
between the active and inert ingredient
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
37568
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to
these highest of tolerances would be no
higher than the concentration of the
active ingredient.
The Agency believes the assumptions
used to estimate dietary exposures lead
to an extremely conservative assessment
of dietary risk due to a series of
compounded conservatisms. First,
assuming that the level of residue for an
inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will
overstate exposure. The concentrations
of active ingredient in agricultural
products is generally at least 50% of the
product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have
a single inert ingredient; rather there is
generally a combination of different
inert ingredients used which
additionally reduces the concentration
of any single inert ingredient in the
pesticide product in relation to that of
the active ingredient. In the case of
NTHE, EPA made a specific adjustment
to the dietary exposure assessment to
account for the use limitations of the
amount of NTHE that may be in
formulations (no more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations) and
assumed that NTHE is present at the
maximum limitation rather than at
equal quantities with the active
ingredient. This remains a very
conservative assumption because
surfactants are generally used at levels
far below this percentage.
Second, the conservatism of this
methodology is compounded by EPA’s
decision to assume that, for each
commodity, the active ingredient which
will serve as a guide to the potential
level of inert ingredient residues is the
active ingredient with the highest
tolerance level. This assumption
overstates residue values because it
would be highly unlikely, given the
high number of inert ingredients, that a
single inert ingredient or class of
ingredients would be present at the
level of the active ingredient in the
highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding
conservatism is EPA’s assumption that
all foods contain the inert ingredient at
the highest tolerance level. In other
words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods
are treated with the inert ingredient at
the rate and manner necessary to
produce the highest residue legally
possible for an active ingredient. In
summary, EPA chose a very
conservative method for estimating
what level of inert residue could be on
food, then used this methodology to
choose the highest possible residue that
could be found on food and assumed
that all food contained this residue. No
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
consideration was given to potential
degradation between harvest and
consumption even though monitoring
data shows that tolerance level residues
are typically one to two orders of
magnitude higher than actual residues
in food when distributed in commerce.
Accordingly, although sufficient
information to quantify actual residue
levels in food is not available, the
compounding of these conservative
assumptions will lead to a significant
exaggeration of actual exposures. EPA
does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence
of residue data.
iii. Cancer. The Agency used a
qualitative SAR database, DEREK11, to
determine if there were structural alerts
suggestive of carcinogenicity. No
structural alerts for carcinogenicity were
identified. NTHE is not expected to be
carcinogenic. Therefore a cancer dietary
exposure assessment is not necessary to
assess cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent
crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did
not use anticipated residue and/or PCT
information in the dietary assessment
for NTHE. Tolerance level residues and/
or 100 PCT were assumed for all food
commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. The Agency used screening level
water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment
for NTHE in drinking water. These
simulation models take into account
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of NTHE.
Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in the
pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/
models/water/index.htm.
A screening level drinking water
analysis, based on the Pesticide Root
Zone Model /Exposure Analysis
Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) was
performed to calculate the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs)
of NTHE. Modeling runs on four
surrogate inert ingredients using a range
of physical chemical properties that
would bracket those of NTHE were
conducted. Modeled acute drinking
water values ranged from 0.001 part per
billion (ppb) to 41 ppb. Modeled
chronic drinking water values ranged
from 0.0002 ppb to 19 ppb. Further
details of this drinking water analysis
can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
N,N,N′,N′′,-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15
Inert Ingredient). Human Health Risk
Assessment to Support Proposed
Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations at
pp. 11–12 and 36–38 in docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0130.
For the purpose of the screening level
dietary risk assessment to support this
request for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for NTHE, a
conservative drinking water
concentration value of 100 ppb based on
screening level modeling was used to
assess the contribution to drinking
water for the chronic dietary risk
assessments for parent compound.
These values were directly entered into
the dietary exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., for lawn and garden pest control,
indoor pest control, termiticides, and
flea and tick control on pets). NTHE
may be used as inert ingredients in
pesticide products that are registered for
specific uses that may result in outdoor
residential exposures.
A screening level residential exposure
and risk assessment was completed for
products containing NTHE as an inert
ingredient. In this assessment,
representative scenarios, based on enduse product application methods and
labeled application rates, were selected.
The Agency did not identify any
products intended for use on pets or
home cleaning products that contain
NTHE. For each of the use scenarios, the
Agency assessed residential handler
(applicator) inhalation exposure for
outdoor scenarios with high exposure
potential (i.e., exposure scenarios with
high end unit exposure values) to serve
as a screening assessment for all
potential residential pesticides
containing. Similarly, residential post
application oral exposure assessments
were also performed utilizing high end
outdoor exposure scenarios. Further
details of this residential exposure and
risk analysis can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the
memorandum entitled JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and
Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix
for the Human Health Risk Assessments
to Support Proposed Exemption from
the Requirement of a Tolerance When
Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide
Formulations (D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/
LaMay) in docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0710.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and NTHE does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that NTHE does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s website at https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of
FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of
safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA SF. In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of
10X, or uses a different additional SF
when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
The existing toxicology database for
NTHE consists of one OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
combined repeated dose toxicity study
with the reproduction/developmental
screening study in rats, and several
studies in the scientific literature on
acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
In the case of NTHE, there was no
increased susceptibility to the offspring
of rats following pre and postnatal (PND
0–4) exposure in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study
(gavage dosing of males for 28 days,
females for 46 days). There were no
offspring effects at any dose level up to
the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) where
maternal/paternal toxicity was
manifested as microscopic lesions in the
brain at 1,000 mg/kg/day. Although the
parental NOAEL selected as the POD for
the chronic dietary, incidental oral, and
inhalation risk assessments is protective
of the adult animal, the particular
findings in the parental animals lead to
uncertainties for the offspring. There is
a concern for neurodevelopment since
this is not addressed in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
reproduction/developmental screening
study.
3. Conclusion. Despite the fact that no
quantitative or qualitative increased
susceptibility to offspring was seen in
the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline
870.3650 combined repeated dose
toxicity study and the conservative
exposure assessment, EPA has
determined that the FQPA SF cannot be
reduced. A 10X FQPA SF is retained for
the following reason:
In the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline
870.3650 study in rats there is some
evidence of neurotoxicity in the adult
animals in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/
developmental study, which occurred
only at the highest-dose tested of 1,000
mg/kg/day. The vacuoles in the choroid
plexus epithelial cells of the lateral
ventricles of the brain were of different
size, and some of the epithelial cells
were signet-ring shaped. None of the
other dose groups (100 and 300 mg/kg/
day) showed a similar change. These
results indicate a potential concern for
effects on neurodevelopment at high
doses following repeat exposure. Given
that neither neurotoxicity nor standard
developmental toxicity studies are
available on NTHE, retention of the
FQPA SF is appropriate.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic pesticide exposures are safe by
comparing aggregate exposure estimates
to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD represent the highest-safe
exposures, taking into account all
appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the
aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by
all applicable UFs. For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to
ensure that the MOE called for by the
product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded.
1. Acute risk.There was no hazard
attributable to a single exposure seen in
the toxicity database for NTHE.
Therefore, NTHE is not expected to pose
an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate
risk assessment takes into account
exposure estimates from chronic dietary
consumption of food and drinking
water. Using the exposure assumptions
discussed in this unit for chronic
exposure and the use limitations of not
more than 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations, the chronic dietary
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37569
exposure from food and water to NTHE
is 26% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population and 84% of the cPAD for
children 1–2 years old, the most highly
exposed population subgroup.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term
aggregate exposure takes into account
short-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background
exposure level).
NTHE is used as an inert ingredient
in pesticide products that are currently
registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure and the
Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to
NTHE. Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit, EPA has
concluded that the combined short-term
aggregated food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of
4,800 and 5,000 for adult males and
females, respectively. Adult residential
exposure includes high-end inhalation
handler exposure from outdoor uses.
EPA has concluded the combined shortterm aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 1,100 for children.
Children’s residential exposure includes
incidental oral exposure from treated
turf. As the LOC is for MOEs that are
lower than 1,000, these MOEs are not of
concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
NTHE is currently registered for uses
that could result in intermediate-term
residential exposure and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic exposure through food
and water with intermediate-term
residential exposures to NTHE. Using
the exposure assumptions described in
this unit, EPA has concluded that the
combined intermediate-term aggregated
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of
4,800 and 5,100, for adult males and
females, respectively. EPA has
concluded the combined intermediateterm aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 1,200 for children.
Children’s residential exposure includes
incidental oral exposure from treated
turf. As the LOC is for MOEs that are
lower than 1,000, these MOEs are not of
concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S.
population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for
carcinogenicity relating to NTHE.
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
37570
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
6. Determination of safety. Based on
these risk assessments, EPA concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to residues of
NTHE.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the
Agency is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.
B. International Residue Limits
The Agency is not aware of any
country requiring a tolerance for NTHE
nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue
Levels been established for any food
crops at this time.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established
for residues.of N,N,N′,N′′,-tetrakis-(2hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine when
used as an inert ingredient for preharvest uses under 40 CFR 180.920 at a
maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances
under section 408(d) of 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 final rule
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., 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).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this final rule. In addition, this final
rule does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate
as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
Inert Ingredients
N,N,N′,N′′,-tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
(CAS Reg. No. 102–60–3).
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
VIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 21, 2009.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
■
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In §180.920, the table is amended
by adding alphabetically the following
inert ingredient to read as follows:
■
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
*
*
*
Limits
*
ethylenediamine
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
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).
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
Concentration in formulated end-use
products not to exceed 20% by weight
in pesticide formulations.
*
*
*
*
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
*
*
Uses
Stabilizer for formulation
29JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–17945 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0131; FRL–8424–6]
Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylate Phosphate
and Sulfate Derivatives; Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of alkyl alcohol
alkoxylate phosphate derivatives when
used as inert ingredients in growing
crops under 40 CFR 180.920 and for
residues of alkyl alcohol alkoxylate
sulfate derivatives when used as inert
ingredients in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops, raw
agricultural commodities after harvest,
and animals under 40 CFR 180.910 and
40 CFR 180.930. The Joint Inerts Task
Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team
Number 2 (CST 2) submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of alkyl
alcohol alkoxylate phosphate and
sulfate derivatives.
DATES: This regulation is effective July
29, 2009. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 28, 2009, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0131. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(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 in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:13 Jul 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–8811; e-mail address:
leifer.kerry @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 those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide 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?
In addition to accessing electronically
available documents at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet
under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may
also access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
cite at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.
To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document,
go directly to the guidelines at https://
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37571
www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing
Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2009–0131 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
as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before September 28, 2009.
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket that is described in
ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy,
identified by docket ID number EPA–
HQ–OPP–2009–0131, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
II. Background
In the Federal Register of April 15,
2009 (74 FR 17487) (FRL–8409–7), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section
408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9E7533) by JITF,
CST 2, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th
St., NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC
20005, The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.910, 40 CFR 180.920, and 40
CFR 180.930 be amended by
establishing exemptions from the
E:\FR\FM\29JYR1.SGM
29JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37564-37571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130; FRL-8429-3]
N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine; 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 N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
ethylenediamine (NTHE) when used as an inert ingredient for pre-harvest
uses under 40 CFR 180.920 at a maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations. The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team
Number 15 (CST 15), submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of NTHE.
DATES: This regulation is effective July 29, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 28, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 in the electronic
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 308-8811; e-mail address: leifer.kerry@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 those
engaged in the following activities:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
[[Page 37565]]
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?
In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
https://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
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.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130 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 as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before September 28, 2009.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Background
In the Federal Register of April 15, 2009 (74 FR 17487) (FRL-8409-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7531) by JITF, CST 15, c/o CropLife America, 1156 15\th\ St., NW.,
Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.920 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the inert ingredient NTHE. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by JITF, CST 15, the
petitioner, which is available to the public in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
The Agency received only one comment in response to the notice of
filing. One comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by FFDCA section
408, EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions
where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated
that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute.
Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the exemption requested by limiting NTHE to a maximum of 20%
by weight in pesticide formulations. This limitation is based on the
Agency's risk assessment which can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in document, N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient). Human Health
Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130.
This petition was submitted in response to a final rule published
in the Federal Register issue of August 9, 2006, (71 FR 45415) (FRL-
8084-1) in which the Agency revoked, under FFDCA section 408(e)(1), the
existing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
certain inert ingredients because of insufficient data to make the
determination of safety required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2). The
expiration date for the tolerance exemptions subject to revocation was
August 9, 2008, which was later extended to August 9, 2009 by a final
rule published in the Federal Register of August 4, 2008 (73 FR 45312)
(FRL-8372-7) to allow for data to be submitted to support the
establishment of tolerance exemptions for these inert ingredients prior
to the effective date of the tolerance exemption revocation.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
[[Page 37566]]
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of NTHE provided that
the concentration of NTHE inerts is limited to no more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
The existing toxicology database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 (combined repeated dose toxicity study
with the reproduction/developmental screening study in rats), a 90-day
toxicity study in rats, and several studies in the scientific
literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
The available toxicity data indicates that NTHE has low acute oral
toxicity. NTHE was not mutagenic in an Ames Test. In the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 rat reproductive/developmental toxicity
screening study, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility.
Parental toxicity manifested as microscopic brain lesions at 1,000
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) (the highest dose tested). No
developmental or reproductive effects were observed at doses of 100,
300, and 1,000 mg/kg/day. There is no evidence of increased
susceptibility to the offspring of rats following prenatal and
postnatal exposure in the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study.
There were no offspring effects at any dose level up to the limit dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day). In addition, in a 90-day dietary study in rats
(1956), where the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) was set at
600-900 mg/kg/day (1% in diet), based on body-weight gain effects at 3%
and 5% in the diet and a slightly greater incidence of borderline
abnormalities of the liver of questionable significance, there are no
other repeat dose toxicity data available. The NOAEL from the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (300 mg/kg/day) is protective of
any potential liver toxicity.
However, there is suggestive evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects
in the adult animal in the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study at
the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. These effects manifested as
different sized vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells (some
were signet-ring shaped) of the lateral ventricles of the brain in all
high-dose parental male and female rats. None of the low- or mid-dose
or control animals showed a similar change.
Pharmacokinetics in rats indicate that, following oral dosing, NTHE
is poorly absorbed and rapidly excreted in the urine, mainly unchanged
(92%-96%). None of the hypothetical metabolites, such as keto- or N-
dealkylated derivatives, were observed. The calculated bioavailability
factor (F=0.018) revealed that less than 2% of the orally administered
dose of NTHE is absorbed through the stomach and intestine. The half-
life for elimination is 82 minutes (in non-diabetic rats) as a first
order process.
There are no chronic toxicity studies available for NTHE. The
Agency used a qualitative structure activity relationship (SAR)
database, DEREK 11, to determine if there were structural alerts
suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural alerts were identified. In
addition, there was little concern about any of the postulated
metabolites having greater toxicity than the parent compounds.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NTHE, as well as, the NOAEL and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in document N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-
(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine (NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert
Ingredient). Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption
from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in
Pesticide Formulations at pp. 7-11 and 31-34 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0130.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for NTHE used for human
health risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.
[[Page 37567]]
Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POD and Uncertainty/ RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk Study and Toxicological
Exposure/Scenario Safety Factors Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary No appropriate endpoint was identified for acute dietary assessment. The
(all populations).................... brain lesions observed following repeat dosing at the limit dose would
not be expected to occur following a single exposure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 3 mg/kg/ OPPTS Harmonized
(all populations).................... UFA = 10X.............. day Guideline 870.3650
UFH = 10X.............. cPAD = 3 mg/kg/day..... reproduction/
FQPA SF = 10X.......... developmental screen
in rats
LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
day, based on
microscopic lesions
(vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial
cells of the lateral
ventricles) of the
brain in all high-dose
animals (both sexes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Term (1-30 days) Incidental NOAEL= 300 mg/kg/day Residential LOC for MOE OPPTS Harmonized
Oral and Inhalation UFA = 10X.............. = 1,000 Guideline 870.3650
UFH = 10X.............. reproduction/
FQPA SF = 10X.......... developmental screen
Inhalation hazard in rats
assumed to be LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
equivalent to oral day, based on
hazard. microscopic lesions
(vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial
cells of the lateral
ventricles) of the
brain in all high-dose
animals (both sexes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate- and Long-Term (1-6 Oral NOAEL = 300 mg/kg/ Residential LOC for MOE OPPTS Harmonized
months and >6 months) Incidental day = 1,000 Guideline 870.3650
Oral and Inhalation UFA = 10X.............. reproduction/
UFH = 10X.............. developmental screen
FQPA SF = 10X.......... in rats
Inhalation hazard LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/
assumed to be day, based on
equivalent to oral microscopic lesions
hazard. (vacuoles in choroid
plexus epithelial
cells of the lateral
ventricles) of the
brain in all high-dose
animals (both sexes).
--------------------------------------
(oral, dermal,
inhalation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose
(a=acute, c=chronic). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE =
margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. SAR = structure activity relationship.
C. Exposure Assessment
Limited information is available on the metabolism and
environmental degradation of this compound. The Agency has considered
the chemical structure, the submitted physicochemical data, as well as
SAR information, to determine the residues of concern for this inert
ingredient.
A rat metabolism study showed little absorption, with most of the
parent compound excreted unchanged in the urine. Although data on plant
metabolism and environmental degradation are not available, any
postulated metabolites as a result of de-alkylation are likely to be
highly water soluble (like the parent) and are not likely to be more
toxic than the parent compound. Therefore, a risk assessment based on
the toxicity data for the parent compound is not likely to
underestimate risk.
Available data indicate that oral absorption of NTHE is low, and
dermal absorption is expected to be very low. Low dermal absorption is
expected based on its physicochemical properties. Therefore, it is
concluded that quantification of dermal risk is not necessary for NTHE.
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NTHE, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from NTHE in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of NTHE was seen in the toxicity databases; therefore, an
acute exposure assessment for NTHE is not necessary.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for NTHE. In the absence
of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses
surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the
subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on
the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the
general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence
of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts
(D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient
[[Page 37568]]
and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading
to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the
concentration of the active ingredient.
The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient;
rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients
used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert
ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active
ingredient. In the case of NTHE, EPA made a specific adjustment to the
dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of the
amount of NTHE that may be in formulations (no more than 20% by weight
in pesticide formulations) and assumed that NTHE is present at the
maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with the active
ingredient. This remains a very conservative assumption because
surfactants are generally used at levels far below this percentage.
Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert
ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest
residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA
chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when
distributed in commerce.
Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
iii. Cancer. The Agency used a qualitative SAR database, DEREK11,
to determine if there were structural alerts suggestive of
carcinogenicity. No structural alerts for carcinogenicity were
identified. NTHE is not expected to be carcinogenic. Therefore a cancer
dietary exposure assessment is not necessary to assess cancer risk.
iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for NTHE. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for NTHE in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of NTHE. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in the pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
A screening level drinking water analysis, based on the Pesticide
Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) was
performed to calculate the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of NTHE. Modeling runs on four surrogate inert ingredients
using a range of physical chemical properties that would bracket those
of NTHE were conducted. Modeled acute drinking water values ranged from
0.001 part per billion (ppb) to 41 ppb. Modeled chronic drinking water
values ranged from 0.0002 ppb to 19 ppb. Further details of this
drinking water analysis can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in
the document N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine
(NTHE - JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient). Human Health Risk Assessment to
Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When
Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations at pp. 11-12 and
36-38 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130.
For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to
support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for NTHE, a conservative drinking water concentration value
of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). NTHE may be used as
inert ingredients in pesticide products that are registered for
specific uses that may result in outdoor residential exposures.
A screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was
completed for products containing NTHE as an inert ingredient. In this
assessment, representative scenarios, based on end-use product
application methods and labeled application rates, were selected. The
Agency did not identify any products intended for use on pets or home
cleaning products that contain NTHE. For each of the use scenarios, the
Agency assessed residential handler (applicator) inhalation exposure
for outdoor scenarios with high exposure potential (i.e., exposure
scenarios with high end unit exposure values) to serve as a screening
assessment for all potential residential pesticides containing.
Similarly, residential post application oral exposure assessments were
also performed utilizing high end outdoor exposure scenarios. Further
details of this residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations
(D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0710.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
[[Page 37569]]
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any
other substances, and NTHE does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NTHE does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional SF when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The existing toxicology
database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/
developmental screening study in rats, and several studies in the
scientific literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
In the case of NTHE, there was no increased susceptibility to the
offspring of rats following pre and postnatal (PND 0-4) exposure in the
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (gavage dosing of males for
28 days, females for 46 days). There were no offspring effects at any
dose level up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) where maternal/
paternal toxicity was manifested as microscopic lesions in the brain at
1,000 mg/kg/day. Although the parental NOAEL selected as the POD for
the chronic dietary, incidental oral, and inhalation risk assessments
is protective of the adult animal, the particular findings in the
parental animals lead to uncertainties for the offspring. There is a
concern for neurodevelopment since this is not addressed in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproduction/developmental screening
study.
3. Conclusion. Despite the fact that no quantitative or qualitative
increased susceptibility to offspring was seen in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 combined repeated dose toxicity study and the
conservative exposure assessment, EPA has determined that the FQPA SF
cannot be reduced. A 10X FQPA SF is retained for the following reason:
In the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study in rats there is
some evidence of neurotoxicity in the adult animals in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/developmental study, which
occurred only at the highest-dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The
vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells of the lateral
ventricles of the brain were of different size, and some of the
epithelial cells were signet-ring shaped. None of the other dose groups
(100 and 300 mg/kg/day) showed a similar change. These results indicate
a potential concern for effects on neurodevelopment at high doses
following repeat exposure. Given that neither neurotoxicity nor
standard developmental toxicity studies are available on NTHE,
retention of the FQPA SF is appropriate.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest-safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk.There was no hazard attributable to a single exposure
seen in the toxicity database for NTHE. Therefore, NTHE is not expected
to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for chronic exposure and the use limitations of not more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations, the chronic dietary exposure from
food and water to NTHE is 26% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and
84% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
NTHE is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to NTHE. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the combined
short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 4,800 and 5,000 for adult males and females,
respectively. Adult residential exposure includes high-end inhalation
handler exposure from outdoor uses. EPA has concluded the combined
short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in
an aggregate MOE of 1,100 for children. Children's residential exposure
includes incidental oral exposure from treated turf. As the LOC is for
MOEs that are lower than 1,000, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
NTHE is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to NTHE. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the
combined intermediate-term aggregated exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 4,800 and 5,100, for adult males and females, respectively. EPA
has concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 1,200 for
children. Children's residential exposure includes incidental oral
exposure from treated turf. As the LOC is for MOEs that are lower than
1,000, these MOEs are not of concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to NTHE.
[[Page 37570]]
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to residues of NTHE.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes
since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.
B. International Residue Limits
The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
NTHE nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any
food crops at this time.
VI. Conclusion
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues.of N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-hydroxypropyl)
ethylenediamine when used as an inert ingredient for pre-harvest uses
under 40 CFR 180.920 at a maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 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).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
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).
VIII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 21, 2009.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredient to read as follows:
Sec. 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2- Concentration in Stabilizer for
hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine formulated end- formulation
(CAS Reg. No. 102-60-3). use products not
to exceed 20% by
weight in
pesticide
formulations.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37571]]
[FR Doc. E9-17945 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S