Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance, 38026-38033 [2011-16188]
Download as PDF
38026
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
DELEGATION STATUS FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR SHASTA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, SISKIYOU COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND TEHAMA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT—Continued
Air Pollution Control Agency
Subpart
BBB ...
CCC ..
DDD ..
EEE ...
FFF ...
GGG
GGGa
HHH ..
III .......
JJJ ....
KKK ...
LLL ....
MMM
NNN ..
OOO
PPP ...
QQQ
RRR ..
SSS ...
TTT ...
UUU ..
VVV ...
WWW
AAAA
CCCC
EEEE
GGGG
IIII ......
JJJJ ...
KKKK
*
*
Shasta
County
AQMD
Siskiyou
County
APCD
South Coast
AQMD
Tehama
County
APCD
Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry .................................................................
(Reserved) ........................................................................................................
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry.
(Reserved) ........................................................................................................
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing ...........................................
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries ..........................................
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After November 7, 2006.
Synthetic Fiber Production Facilities ................................................................
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Air Oxidation Unit Processes.
Petroleum Dry Cleaners ...................................................................................
Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants .....
Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions .........................................
(Reserved) ........................................................................................................
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions From Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation Operations.
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants ............................................................
Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants ............................................
VOC Emissions From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems ...................
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes.
Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities .....................................................................
Industrial Surface Coating: Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business
Machines.
Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries ......................................................
Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities ....................................
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ........................................................................
Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units for Which Construction is Commenced After August 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is Commended After June 6, 2001.
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction Is Commenced After November 30, 1999 or for Which Modification or Reconstruction Is Commenced on or After June 1, 2001.
Other Solid Waste Incineration Units for Which Construction is Commenced
After December 9, 2004, or for Which Modification or Reconstruction is
Commenced on or After June 16, 2006.
(Reserved) ........................................................................................................
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines .......................
Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines ..................................
Stationary Combustion Turbines ......................................................................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0474; FRL–8876–5]
Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether;
Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether (CAS Reg. No.
112–34–5) when used as a pesticide
inert ingredient as a solvent, stabilizer
and/or antifreeze within pesticide
formulations/products without
limitation under 40 CFR 180.920.
Huntsman, Dow AgroSciences L.L.C.,
Nufarm Americas Inc., BASF, Stepan
Company, Loveland Products Inc., and
Rhodia Inc. submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2011–16462 Filed 6–28–11; 8:45 am]
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for residues of diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether.
DATES: This regulation is effective June
29, 2011. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
August 29, 2011, 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–2008–0474. 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,
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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: Lisa
Austin, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7894; e-mail address:
Austin.Lisa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• 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 provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the
harmonized test guidelines referenced
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
in this document electronically, please
go to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and
select ‘‘Test Methods and Guidelines.’’
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2008–0474 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before August 29, 2011. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
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. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0474, 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. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of July 9, 2008
(73 FR 39291) (FRL–8371–2), EPA
issued a notice pursuant to section 408
of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing
the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8E7355) by Huntsman, 10003 Woodloch
Forest Drive, The Woodlands, TX
77380; Dow AgroSciences L.L.C., 9330
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
38027
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana
46268; Nufarm Americas Inc., 150
Harvester Drive Suite 220, Burr Ridge,
Illinois 60527; BASF, 26 Davis Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709;
Stepan Company, 22 W. Frontage Road,
Northfield, IL 60093; Loveland Products
Inc., PO Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632;
and Rhodia Inc., CN 1500, Cranbury,
New Jersey 08512. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be
amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether (CAS Reg. No. 112–34–5)
when used as an inert ingredient
solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze
without limitation in pesticide
formulations applied to pre-harvest
crops. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by
Huntsman, Dow AgroSciences L.L.C.,
Nufarm Americas Inc., BASF, Stepan
Company, Loveland Products Inc., and
Rhodia Inc., which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov. The
Agency received one comment in
response to the notice of filing.
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(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 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
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
38028
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue * * *.’’
EPA establishes exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance only in those
cases where it can be clearly
demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide
chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no
appreciable risks to human health. In
order to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the
toxicity of the inert in conjunction with
possible exposure to residues of the
inert ingredient through food, drinking
water, and through other exposures that
occur as a result of pesticide use in
residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not
necessary to ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be
established.
Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A)
of FFDCA, and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether including exposure
resulting from the exemption
established by this action. EPA’s
assessment of exposures and risks
associated with diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as
well as the relationship of the results of
the studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by diethylene glycol mono butyl ether
as well as the no-observed-adverseeffect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL)
from the toxicity studies are discussed
in this unit.
Diethylene glycol mono butyl ether
(DEGBE) has low acute toxicity via the
oral and dermal routes. It is a slightly
irritating to the skin and moderately
irritating to the eyes. It is a skin not a
sensitizer.
Oral subchronic studies with DEGBE
were available in the rat. In a study in
F344 rats, toxicity was mainly
manifested as an increase in creatinine
levels at >51 mg/kg/day. Confidence in
this study is low because of the high
unexplained mortality. Also, in other
studies in rats, toxicity was observed at
doses >210 mg/kg/day. These effects
included increased absolute relative
liver weight; and hepatic cytochrome
P450’s and UGT levels; decreased total
protein, cholesterol, and aspartate
aminotransferase, very slight hepatocyte
hypertrophy and increased individual
hepatocyte degeneration in females
only, decreased RBC count; hemoglobin
(Hgb); and hematocrit (Hct) and
increased absolute and relative kidney
weights with an equivocal increase in
minor histopathologic changes typical
of early spontaneous nephropathy. In a
well conducted 90-day toxicity study in
rats via drinking water, rats were
exposed to DEGBE at 0, 50, 250, or 1000
mg/kg/day. The NOAEL in this study
was 250 mg/kg/day based on kidney,
liver and blood effects seen at the
LOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day. In this
study, no adverse treatment-related
effects were observed on functional
observational battery (FOB) parameters.
Liver toxicity (including liver enzymes),
kidney toxicity and blood parameters
were affected at the limit dose of 1000
mg/kg/day.
There was one developmental toxicity
study in Wistar rats conducted via the
oral route of exposure. In this study,
there were no maternal or
developmental effects at doses up to 633
mg/kg/day. In a developmental toxicity
study in mice via gavage, DEGBE did
not produce any malformations at doses
up to 2050 mg/kg/day. The maternal
and developmental NOAEL in mice was
500 mg/kg/day. A developmental study
in rabbits via the dermal route of
exposure was available for review. In
this study, maternal and developmental
toxicity was not observed at doses up to
1000 mg/kg/day.
There were 2 oral reproduction
toxicity studies in rats available for
review. In both studies rats were
exposed to DEGBE via gavage at doses
of 0, 250, 500 or 1000 mg/kg/day. In one
study fetal susceptibility was not
observed. Maternal (mortality) and
offspring (reduced mean pup weight)
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
toxicity occurred at the same dose (1000
mg/kg/day). The maternal and
developmental NOAELs in this study
were 500 mg/kg/day. In a second study
quantitative fetal susceptibility was
observed. Parental toxicity was not
observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/
day. Offspring toxicity (decreased
bodyweight) was observed at 1000 mg/
kg/day. The offspring NOAEL was 500
mg/kg/day. Reproductive toxicity was
not observed in either study. A
reproductive toxicity study in rats with
exposure via the dermal route was also
available for review. Parental, offspring
and reproduction toxicity was not
observed at doses up to 2000 mg/kg/day.
Dermal toxicity studies with DEGBE
were available in the rat and rabbit. In
a 13-week dermal toxicity study in the
Sprague-Dawley (SD) rat, systemic
toxicity was not observed at doses up to
2,000 mg/kg/day. In a separate 13-week
dermal toxicity study in SD rats, the
NOAEL was 580 mg/kg/day based on
renal tubular epithelium degeneration
seen at the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day.
In a neurotoxicity study via the dermal
route of exposure, degeneration of the
renal tubular epithelium was observed
at 2000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL was 600
mg/kg/day. No effects on FOB
parameters, motor activity or
neuropathology were observed at doses
up to 2000 mg/kg/day following dermal
treatment. No local or systemic effects
were observed in the New Zealand
white rabbit.
Several inhalation toxicity studies
with DEGBE were available for review
in rats. Perivascular and peribronchial
infiltrate were observed in Wistar male
and female rats and decreased spleen
weights in males at doses > 100 mg/m3.
In addition, liver toxicity, kidney
toxicity and blood effects were
identified as the target organs in
inhalation studies.
Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE
were not available for review. However,
DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class
of chemicals. Immunotoxicity studies
were available for ethylene glycol mono
butyl ether, also a glycol ether differing
in only one ethyl group from DEGBE.
These data were used to assess the
immunotoxic potential of DEGBE. Signs
of potential immunotoxicity were not
observed in any of the available studies
with the surrogate chemical. Nor was
there evidence of immunotoxicity
potential in any of the studies submitted
for DEGBE. Therefore, DEGBE is not
expected to be immunotoxic.
Mutagenicity studies (Ames test,
mammalian gene mutation, mouse
lymphoma, chromosome aberration and
unscheduled DNA synthesis) with
DEGBE were available for review. All
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the tests were negative with the
exception of the mouse lymphoma assay
in which cells were weakly positive in
the absence of S–9, while it was
negative in the presence of S–9.
Chronic and carcinogenicity studies
were not available on DEGBE. However,
DEGBE belongs to the glycol ether class
of chemicals which include structurally
similar chemicals ethylene glycol and
diethylene glycol. Therefore,
carcinogenicity data available on these
chemicals were used to assess DEGBE’s
potential to cause cancer. Based on the
lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
potential for ethylene glycol and
diethylene glycol and the lack of
mutagenic concerns for DEGBE, it is not
expected to be carcinogenic to humans.
Metabolism studies demonstrated that
DEGBE was absorbed rapidly,
metabolized and primarily eliminated
via the urine. The major metabolite was
identified as 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) acetic
acid.
Specific information on the studies
received and the nature of the adverse
effects caused by the diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether, as well as, the no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
and the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov in the document
042203, Diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether; Human Health Risk Assessment
and Ecological Effects Assessment to
Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used
as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide
Formulations at pp. 6–21 and pp. 19–22
in EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0474.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which no adverse effects are
observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern
are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://www.epa.
gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1 of this
unit.
No acute endpoint of concern for
general population was identified in the
available data base.
The 90 day oral toxicity study in rats
via drinking water was selected to
establish the chronic reference dose
(cRfD). The NOAEL in this study was
250 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was
1000 mg/kg/day based on kidney, liver,
and blood effects. Although 51 mg/kg/
day was the lowest LOAEL in the
database, confidence in this study was
low due to the observed unexplained
mortality. A lower NOAEL (94 mg/kg/
day) was also observed in a 30 day oral
38029
toxicity study in the rat. The LOAEL
(210 mg/kg/day) was based on
decreased water consumption, growth
retardation, and abnormalities in
various organs. However, there is more
confidence in the 90 day oral toxicity
study in rats because it is a more recent
study, was well conducted, tested more
animals, provided more detailed
information, provided data on all
parameters measured in the 30-day
study, has a well established NOAEL
(250 mg/kg/day) and none of the
aforementioned effects were observed.
Therefore, the point of departure of 250
mg/kg/day was selected to establish the
cRfD.
The point of departure selected for the
dermal exposure scenario is from the 13
week neurotoxicity screening battery in
rats. The NOAEL in this study was 600
mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 2,000
mg/kg/day based on mild degeneration
of renal tubular epithelium in males.
This endpoint and dose for dermal
exposure assessment was further
supported by a 90-day dermal toxicity
study in rats with a NOAEL of 580 mg/
kg/day based renal tubular degeneration
seen at the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day.
For the inhalation scenarios, 94 mg/m3
(∼27 mg/kg/day) from an inhalation
toxicity study in Wistar rats was
selected for the point of departure.
Although, 39 mg/m3 (∼11 mg/kg/day)
from an inhalation toxicity study in
F344 rats represents the lowest NOAEL
in the database for this scenario it was
not selected because the observed liver
changes were minor and occurred at the
high dose (117 mg/m3). In addition, the
selected study was more recent and one
would expect changes to occur in the
liver since animals in this study were
treated for a longer duration. However,
liver toxicity was not observed in the
selected study. Therefore, 94 mg/m3
(∼27 mg/kg/day) was selected for the
point of departure for all inhalation
scenarios.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONO BUTYL ETHER FOR
USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
Exposure/scenario
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
An acute endpoint was not identified in the database.
Chronic dietary (All populations) ..................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Acute dietary (Females 13–50 years of age)
NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Study and toxicological effects
Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) ......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Chronic RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/
day
cPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/day
90 Day Oral Toxicity Study LOAEL =
1000 mg/kg/day based on kidney,
liver, and blood effects.
LOC for MOE = 00
90 Day Oral Toxicity Study LOAEL =
1000 mg/kg/day based on kidney,
liver, and blood effects.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
38030
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSES AND ENDPOINTS FOR DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONO BUTYL ETHER FOR
USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT—Continued
Exposure/scenario
Point of departure and
uncertainty/safety factors
Incidental oral intermediate-term (1 to 6
months).
NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day
(UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
UFA = 10x
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) .................
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) ...
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) .............
Inhalation (1 to 6 months) ............................
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) .................
RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
assessment
Study and toxicological effects
LOC for MOE = 100
90 Day Oral Toxicity Study LOAEL =
1000 mg/kg/day based on kidney,
liver, and blood effects.
LOC for MOE = 100
13 week Neurotoxicity Screening
Battery LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/day
based on [mild degeneration of
renal tubular epithelium in males.
13 week Neurotoxicity Screening
Battery LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/day
based on mild degeneration of
renal tubular epithelium in males.
5 week Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study LOAEL was not established.
LOC for MOE = 100
LOC for MOE = 100
LOC for MOE = 100
5 week Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study LOAEL was not established.
Not likely to be carcinogenic based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in structurally similar
chemicals, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol and the lack of mutagenicity.
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
(intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account
for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a =
acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether, EPA considered exposure
under the proposed exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from
diethylene glycol mono butyl ether in
food as follows:
No acute endpoint of concern was
identified in the database. Therefore,
acute dietary risk assessment was not
conducted.
i. Chronic exposure. In conducting the
chronic dietary exposure assessments,
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 the diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
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 led
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 concentration of
active ingredient in agricultural
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
products is generally at least 50 percent
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.
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 percent 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.
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
ii. Cancer. For the reasons discussed
above, the Agency has not identified
any concerns for carcinogenicity
relating to diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether. Accordingly, a dietary exposure
assessment to evaluate cancer risk was
not performed.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. For the purpose of the screening
level dietary risk assessment to support
this request for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for
diethylene glycol mono butyl ether, 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., textiles (clothing and diapers),
carpets, swimming pools, and hard
surface disinfection on walls, floors,
tables).
DEGBE may be used in inert
ingredients in products that are
registered for specific uses that may
result in residential exposure. A
screening level residential exposure and
risk assessment was completed for
products containing DEGBE as inert
ingredients. The DEGBE inerts may be
present in consumer personal (care)
products and cosmetics (at
concentrations up to 30%) (https://
hpd.nlm.nih.gov/index.htm). The
Agency conducted exposure
assessments based on end-use product
application methods and labeled
application rates. The Agency
conducted an assessment to represent
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
worst-case residential exposure by
assessing DEGBE in pesticide
formulations used in crack and crevice
applications. The Agency conducted an
assessment to represent worst-case
residential exposure by assessing post
application exposures and risks from
DEGBE in pesticide formulations.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has
assumed that diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether 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 Web site 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 Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity.
Fetal susceptibility was not observed in
either of the developmental toxicity
studies with rats or rabbits. There were
no toxic effects observed in parents or
offspring in either study at the highest
doses tested, 633 and 1000 mg/kg/day,
respectively. No developmental effects
were observed in mice at doses up to
2050 mg/kg/day. In a reproduction
toxicity study in the rat, quantitative
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
38031
fetal susceptibility was observed.
Parental toxicity was not observed at
doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. However,
offspring toxicity (decreased
bodyweight) occurred at 1000 mg/kg/
day. There was a well established
NOAEL in this study protecting fetuses.
Therefore, the concern for increased
fetal susceptibility is low and there are
no residual concerns.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined
that reliable data show the safety of
infants and children would be
adequately protected if the FQPA SF
were reduced to 1X. That decision is
based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether is adequate.
The following acceptable studies are
available:
Developmental toxicity in rodents (3
oral)
Developmental toxicity in rabbits (1
dermal)
Reproduction toxicity study in rats (2
oral, 1 dermal)
ii. Signs of neurotoxicity were not
observed in the neurotoxicity screening
battery administered via the dermal
route. Nor were signs of neurotoxicity
observed in a 90 day oral toxicity
(drinking water) in rats. In addition,
signs of neurotoxicity were not observed
in any of the other submitted studies.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the
developmental neurotoxicity study is
not required.
iii. Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE
were not available for review. However,
DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class
of chemicals. Immunotoxicity studies
were available for ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether, also a glycol ether
differing only in one ethyl group. This
data was used to assess the
immunotoxic potential of DEGBE. Signs
of potential immunotoxicity were not
observed in any of the available studies
with DEGBE and the surrogate chemical.
Therefore, DEGBE is not expected to be
immunotoxic.
iv. Evidence of increased
susceptibility was observed in a
reproduction toxicity study in the rat.
However, the concern for this increased
susceptibility was low because there
was a well established NOAEL of 500
mg/kg/d in this study. Also, the
established cRfD (250 mg/kg/day) is
protective of the fetal effects.
v. There are no residual uncertainties
identified in the exposure databases.
The dietary food exposure assessments
were performed using very conservative
assumptions. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to
assess exposure to DEGBE in drinking
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
38032
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks
posed by DEGBE.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
Determination of safety section. EPA
determines whether acute and chronic
dietary pesticide exposures are safe by
comparing aggregate exposure estimates
to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic
PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks,
EPA calculates the lifetime probability
of acquiring cancer given the estimated
aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
1. Acute risk. No adverse effects
attributable to a single exposure of
DEGBE were seen in the toxicity
databases. Therefore, DEGBE is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded
that chronic exposure to DEGBE from
food and water will utilize 0.08% for
the U.S. population and 0.25% of the
cPAD for children 1–2 yrs old, the
population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
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).
DEGBE is currently used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products that are
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
DEGBE.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for short-term
exposures, EPA has concluded the
combined short-term food, water, and
residential exposures result in aggregate
MOEs of 102 for both adult males and
females respectively. Adult residential
exposure combines high end dermal and
inhalation handler exposure from
liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden use
with a high end post application dermal
exposure from contact with treated
lawns. As the level of concern is for
MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE
is not of concern. EPA has concluded
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
that the combined short-term aggregated
food, water, and residential exposures
result in an aggregate MOE of 163 for
children. Children’s residential
exposure includes total exposures
associated with contact with treated
lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth
exposures). Because EPA’s level of
concern for DEGBE is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk.
Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered
to be a background exposure level).
DEGBE is currently used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide products that are
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 DEGBE.
Using the exposure assumptions
described in this unit for intermediateterm exposures, EPA has concluded that
the combined intermediate-term food,
water, and residential exposures result
in aggregate MOEs of 550 for adult
males and females. Adult residential
exposure combines high end dermal and
inhalation handler exposure from
liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden use
with a high end post application dermal
exposure from contact with treated
lawns. EPA has concluded the
combined intermediate-term aggregated
food, water, and residential exposures
result in an aggregate MOE of 230 for
children. Children’s residential
exposure includes total exposures
associated with contact with treated
lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth
exposures). Because EPA’s level of
concern for DEGBE is a MOE of 100 or
below, 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 DEGBE.
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 DEGBE
residues.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N.
Food and Agriculture Organization/
World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized
as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade
agreements to which the United States
is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance
that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4)
requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established an
MRL for diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether.
C. Response to Comments
The 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
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 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
the statute.
VI. Conclusions
Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established
under 40 CFR 180. 920 for diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether when used as
an inert ingredient (pesticide inert
ingredient as a solvent, stabilizer and/or
antifreeze within pesticide
formulations/products without
limitation) in pesticide formulations
applied to pre-harvest crops.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance
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
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
38033
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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) (Pub. L. 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 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: June 20, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
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 ingredients to read as follows:
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
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
Inert ingredients
Limits
Uses
*
*
*
Diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (CAS Reg. No. 112–
34–5).
*
Without limitation ................
*
*
*
Pesticide inert ingredient as a solvent, stabilizer and/or
antifreeze
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–16188 Filed 6–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0980; FRL–8877–2]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Cloquintocet-mexyl; Pesticide
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation amends the
established tolerance expression for
residues of cloquintocet-mexyl and its
acid metabolite on wheat forage, wheat
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
*
*
grain, wheat hay, and wheat straw to
cover residues in or on these
commodities when cloquintocet-mexyl
is used as an inert ingredient (safener)
in pesticide formulations containing the
active ingredient, dicamba. BASF
Corporation requested this tolerance
amendment under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective June
29, 2011. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
August 29, 2011, 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–
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
OPP–2010–0980. 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.
E:\FR\FM\29JNR1.SGM
29JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38026-38033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16188]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474; FRL-8876-5]
Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (CAS
Reg. No. 112-34-5) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient as a
solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze within pesticide formulations/
products without limitation under 40 CFR 180.920. Huntsman, Dow
AgroSciences L.L.C., Nufarm Americas Inc., BASF, Stepan Company,
Loveland Products Inc., and Rhodia Inc. submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether.
DATES: This regulation is effective June 29, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 29, 2011,
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-2008-0474. 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,
[[Page 38027]]
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: Lisa Austin, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number: (703) 305-7894; e-mail address: Austin.Lisa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Crop production (NAICS 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 provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 29, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
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. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474, 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. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39291) (FRL-8371-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7355) by Huntsman,
10003 Woodloch Forest Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380; Dow AgroSciences
L.L.C., 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268; Nufarm
Americas Inc., 150 Harvester Drive Suite 220, Burr Ridge, Illinois
60527; BASF, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; Stepan
Company, 22 W. Frontage Road, Northfield, IL 60093; Loveland Products
Inc., PO Box 1286, Greeley, CO 80632; and Rhodia Inc., CN 1500,
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (CAS Reg.
No. 112-34-5) when used as an inert ingredient solvent, stabilizer and/
or antifreeze without limitation in pesticide formulations applied to
pre-harvest crops. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Huntsman, Dow AgroSciences L.L.C., Nufarm Americas Inc.,
BASF, Stepan Company, Loveland Products Inc., and Rhodia Inc., which is
available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. The Agency
received one comment in response to the notice of filing.
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(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 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
[[Page 38028]]
reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water
and in residential settings, but does not include occupational
exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether including exposure resulting from the exemption established by
this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
diethylene glycol mono butyl ether follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by diethylene glycol mono butyl ether as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are
discussed in this unit.
Diethylene glycol mono butyl ether (DEGBE) has low acute toxicity
via the oral and dermal routes. It is a slightly irritating to the skin
and moderately irritating to the eyes. It is a skin not a sensitizer.
Oral subchronic studies with DEGBE were available in the rat. In a
study in F344 rats, toxicity was mainly manifested as an increase in
creatinine levels at >51 mg/kg/day. Confidence in this study is low
because of the high unexplained mortality. Also, in other studies in
rats, toxicity was observed at doses >210 mg/kg/day. These effects
included increased absolute relative liver weight; and hepatic
cytochrome P450's and UGT levels; decreased total protein, cholesterol,
and aspartate aminotransferase, very slight hepatocyte hypertrophy and
increased individual hepatocyte degeneration in females only, decreased
RBC count; hemoglobin (Hgb); and hematocrit (Hct) and increased
absolute and relative kidney weights with an equivocal increase in
minor histopathologic changes typical of early spontaneous nephropathy.
In a well conducted 90-day toxicity study in rats via drinking water,
rats were exposed to DEGBE at 0, 50, 250, or 1000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL
in this study was 250 mg/kg/day based on kidney, liver and blood
effects seen at the LOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day. In this study, no adverse
treatment-related effects were observed on functional observational
battery (FOB) parameters. Liver toxicity (including liver enzymes),
kidney toxicity and blood parameters were affected at the limit dose of
1000 mg/kg/day.
There was one developmental toxicity study in Wistar rats conducted
via the oral route of exposure. In this study, there were no maternal
or developmental effects at doses up to 633 mg/kg/day. In a
developmental toxicity study in mice via gavage, DEGBE did not produce
any malformations at doses up to 2050 mg/kg/day. The maternal and
developmental NOAEL in mice was 500 mg/kg/day. A developmental study in
rabbits via the dermal route of exposure was available for review. In
this study, maternal and developmental toxicity was not observed at
doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day.
There were 2 oral reproduction toxicity studies in rats available
for review. In both studies rats were exposed to DEGBE via gavage at
doses of 0, 250, 500 or 1000 mg/kg/day. In one study fetal
susceptibility was not observed. Maternal (mortality) and offspring
(reduced mean pup weight) toxicity occurred at the same dose (1000 mg/
kg/day). The maternal and developmental NOAELs in this study were 500
mg/kg/day. In a second study quantitative fetal susceptibility was
observed. Parental toxicity was not observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/
kg/day. Offspring toxicity (decreased bodyweight) was observed at 1000
mg/kg/day. The offspring NOAEL was 500 mg/kg/day. Reproductive toxicity
was not observed in either study. A reproductive toxicity study in rats
with exposure via the dermal route was also available for review.
Parental, offspring and reproduction toxicity was not observed at doses
up to 2000 mg/kg/day.
Dermal toxicity studies with DEGBE were available in the rat and
rabbit. In a 13-week dermal toxicity study in the Sprague-Dawley (SD)
rat, systemic toxicity was not observed at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day.
In a separate 13-week dermal toxicity study in SD rats, the NOAEL was
580 mg/kg/day based on renal tubular epithelium degeneration seen at
the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day. In a neurotoxicity study via the dermal
route of exposure, degeneration of the renal tubular epithelium was
observed at 2000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL was 600 mg/kg/day. No effects on
FOB parameters, motor activity or neuropathology were observed at doses
up to 2000 mg/kg/day following dermal treatment. No local or systemic
effects were observed in the New Zealand white rabbit.
Several inhalation toxicity studies with DEGBE were available for
review in rats. Perivascular and peribronchial infiltrate were observed
in Wistar male and female rats and decreased spleen weights in males at
doses > 100 mg/m3. In addition, liver toxicity, kidney toxicity and
blood effects were identified as the target organs in inhalation
studies.
Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE were not available for review.
However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class of chemicals.
Immunotoxicity studies were available for ethylene glycol mono butyl
ether, also a glycol ether differing in only one ethyl group from
DEGBE. These data were used to assess the immunotoxic potential of
DEGBE. Signs of potential immunotoxicity were not observed in any of
the available studies with the surrogate chemical. Nor was there
evidence of immunotoxicity potential in any of the studies submitted
for DEGBE. Therefore, DEGBE is not expected to be immunotoxic.
Mutagenicity studies (Ames test, mammalian gene mutation, mouse
lymphoma, chromosome aberration and unscheduled DNA synthesis) with
DEGBE were available for review. All
[[Page 38029]]
the tests were negative with the exception of the mouse lymphoma assay
in which cells were weakly positive in the absence of S-9, while it was
negative in the presence of S-9.
Chronic and carcinogenicity studies were not available on DEGBE.
However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ether class of chemicals which
include structurally similar chemicals ethylene glycol and diethylene
glycol. Therefore, carcinogenicity data available on these chemicals
were used to assess DEGBE's potential to cause cancer. Based on the
lack of evidence of carcinogenicity potential for ethylene glycol and
diethylene glycol and the lack of mutagenic concerns for DEGBE, it is
not expected to be carcinogenic to humans.
Metabolism studies demonstrated that DEGBE was absorbed rapidly,
metabolized and primarily eliminated via the urine. The major
metabolite was identified as 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) acetic acid.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by the diethylene glycol mono butyl ether, as
well as, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest
observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document 042203, Diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological
Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations
at pp. 6-21 and pp. 19-22 in EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0474.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this
unit.
No acute endpoint of concern for general population was identified
in the available data base.
The 90 day oral toxicity study in rats via drinking water was
selected to establish the chronic reference dose (cRfD). The NOAEL in
this study was 250 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 1000 mg/kg/day based on
kidney, liver, and blood effects. Although 51 mg/kg/day was the lowest
LOAEL in the database, confidence in this study was low due to the
observed unexplained mortality. A lower NOAEL (94 mg/kg/day) was also
observed in a 30 day oral toxicity study in the rat. The LOAEL (210 mg/
kg/day) was based on decreased water consumption, growth retardation,
and abnormalities in various organs. However, there is more confidence
in the 90 day oral toxicity study in rats because it is a more recent
study, was well conducted, tested more animals, provided more detailed
information, provided data on all parameters measured in the 30-day
study, has a well established NOAEL (250 mg/kg/day) and none of the
aforementioned effects were observed. Therefore, the point of departure
of 250 mg/kg/day was selected to establish the cRfD.
The point of departure selected for the dermal exposure scenario is
from the 13 week neurotoxicity screening battery in rats. The NOAEL in
this study was 600 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 2,000 mg/kg/day based on
mild degeneration of renal tubular epithelium in males. This endpoint
and dose for dermal exposure assessment was further supported by a 90-
day dermal toxicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 580 mg/kg/day based
renal tubular degeneration seen at the LOAEL of 1900 mg/kg/day. For the
inhalation scenarios, 94 mg/m3 (~27 mg/kg/day) from an inhalation
toxicity study in Wistar rats was selected for the point of departure.
Although, 39 mg/m3 (~11 mg/kg/day) from an inhalation toxicity study in
F344 rats represents the lowest NOAEL in the database for this scenario
it was not selected because the observed liver changes were minor and
occurred at the high dose (117 mg/m3). In addition, the selected study
was more recent and one would expect changes to occur in the liver
since animals in this study were treated for a longer duration.
However, liver toxicity was not observed in the selected study.
Therefore, 94 mg/m3 (~27 mg/kg/day) was selected for the point of
departure for all inhalation scenarios.
Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Diethylene Glycol Mono Butyl Ether for Use in Human
Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of departure and RfD, PAD, LOC for risk Study and
Exposure/scenario uncertainty/safety factors assessment toxicological effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50 years An acute endpoint was not identified in the database.
of age).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations). NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 2.5 mg/kg/ 90 Day Oral Toxicity
UFA = 10x day Study LOAEL = 1000
UFH = 10x cPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x kidney, liver, and
blood effects.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 00 90 Day Oral Toxicity
30 days). UFA = 10x Study LOAEL = 1000
UFH = 10x mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x kidney, liver, and
blood effects.
[[Page 38030]]
Incidental oral intermediate-term NOAEL= 250 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 90 Day Oral Toxicity
(1 to 6 months). UFA = 10x Study LOAEL = 1000
UFH = 10x mg/kg/day based on
FQPA SF = 1x kidney, liver, and
blood effects.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).. NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 13 week Neurotoxicity
(UFA = 10x Screening Battery
UFH = 10x LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/
FQPA SF = 1x day based on [mild
degeneration of
renal tubular
epithelium in males.
Dermal intermediate-term (1 to 6 NOAEL = 600 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 13 week Neurotoxicity
months). UFA = 10x Screening Battery
UFH = 10x LOAEL = 2000 mg/kg/
FQPA SF = 1x day based on mild
degeneration of
renal tubular
epithelium in males.
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 5 week Subchronic
days). (inhalation absorption rate Inhalation Toxicity
= 100%) Study LOAEL was not
UFA = 10x established.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
Inhalation (1 to 6 months)........ NOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 5 week Subchronic
(inhalation absorption rate Inhalation Toxicity
= 100%) Study LOAEL was not
UFA = 10x established.
UFH = 10x
FQPA SF = 1x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation). Not likely to be carcinogenic based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
in structurally similar chemicals, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol
and the lack of mutagenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL. UFS = use of a short-term
study for long-term risk assessment. UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other data deficiency. FQPA
SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD =
reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to diethylene glycol mono butyl ether, EPA considered exposure
under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from diethylene glycol mono butyl ether in
food as follows:
No acute endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
Therefore, acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted.
i. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessments, 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 the diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether. 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 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 led 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
concentration of active ingredient in agricultural products is
generally at least 50 percent 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.
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 percent 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.
[[Page 38031]]
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.
ii. Cancer. For the reasons discussed above, the Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether. Accordingly, a dietary exposure assessment to
evaluate cancer risk was not performed.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether, 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., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
DEGBE may be used in inert ingredients in products that are
registered for specific uses that may result in residential exposure. A
screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was completed
for products containing DEGBE as inert ingredients. The DEGBE inerts
may be present in consumer personal (care) products and cosmetics (at
concentrations up to 30%) (https://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/index.htm). The
Agency conducted exposure assessments based on end-use product
application methods and labeled application rates. The Agency conducted
an assessment to represent worst-case residential exposure by assessing
DEGBE in pesticide formulations used in crack and crevice applications.
The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential
exposure by assessing post application exposures and risks from DEGBE
in pesticide formulations.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found diethylene glycol mono butyl ether to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and diethylene
glycol mono butyl ether does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether 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 Web site 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 Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Fetal susceptibility was not
observed in either of the developmental toxicity studies with rats or
rabbits. There were no toxic effects observed in parents or offspring
in either study at the highest doses tested, 633 and 1000 mg/kg/day,
respectively. No developmental effects were observed in mice at doses
up to 2050 mg/kg/day. In a reproduction toxicity study in the rat,
quantitative fetal susceptibility was observed. Parental toxicity was
not observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. However, offspring
toxicity (decreased bodyweight) occurred at 1000 mg/kg/day. There was a
well established NOAEL in this study protecting fetuses. Therefore, the
concern for increased fetal susceptibility is low and there are no
residual concerns.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
i. The toxicity database for diethylene glycol mono butyl ether is
adequate. The following acceptable studies are available:
Developmental toxicity in rodents (3 oral)
Developmental toxicity in rabbits (1 dermal)
Reproduction toxicity study in rats (2 oral, 1 dermal)
ii. Signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in the neurotoxicity
screening battery administered via the dermal route. Nor were signs of
neurotoxicity observed in a 90 day oral toxicity (drinking water) in
rats. In addition, signs of neurotoxicity were not observed in any of
the other submitted studies. Therefore, EPA concluded that the
developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
iii. Immunotoxicity studies for DEGBE were not available for
review. However, DEGBE belongs to the glycol ethers class of chemicals.
Immunotoxicity studies were available for ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether, also a glycol ether differing only in one ethyl group. This data
was used to assess the immunotoxic potential of DEGBE. Signs of
potential immunotoxicity were not observed in any of the available
studies with DEGBE and the surrogate chemical. Therefore, DEGBE is not
expected to be immunotoxic.
iv. Evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in a
reproduction toxicity study in the rat. However, the concern for this
increased susceptibility was low because there was a well established
NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/d in this study. Also, the established cRfD (250 mg/
kg/day) is protective of the fetal effects.
v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed using
very conservative assumptions. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to DEGBE in drinking
[[Page 38032]]
water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-
application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of
toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by DEGBE.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
Determination of safety section. EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate
exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of
acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. No adverse effects attributable to a single exposure
of DEGBE were seen in the toxicity databases. Therefore, DEGBE is not
expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
DEGBE from food and water will utilize 0.08% for the U.S. population
and 0.25% of the cPAD for children 1-2 yrs old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure.
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).
DEGBE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are 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 DEGBE.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 102 for both
adult males and females respectively. Adult residential exposure
combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from liquids/
trigger sprayer/home garden use with a high end post application dermal
exposure from contact with treated lawns. As the level of concern is
for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of concern. EPA has
concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 163 for children.
Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated
with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
Because EPA's level of concern for DEGBE is a MOE of 100 or below,
these MOEs are not of concern.
4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
DEGBE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are 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 DEGBE.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 550 for adult males and females. Adult residential
exposure combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from
liquids/trigger sprayer/home garden use with a high end post
application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has
concluded the combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 230 for children.
Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated
with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
Because EPA's level of concern for DEGBE is a MOE of 100 or below,
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 DEGBE.
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 DEGBE residues.
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
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established an MRL for diethylene glycol mono
butyl ether.
C. Response to Comments
The 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 section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 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 the statute.
VI. Conclusions
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180. 920 for diethylene glycol mono butyl
ether when used as an inert ingredient (pesticide inert ingredient as a
solvent, stabilizer and/or antifreeze within pesticide formulations/
products without limitation) in pesticide formulations applied to pre-
harvest crops.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes a tolerance 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
[[Page 38033]]
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) (Pub. L. 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: June 20, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
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.
2. In Sec. 180. 920, the table is amended by adding alphabetically
the following inert ingredients to read as follows:
Sec. 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Diethylene glycol mono butyl Without Pesticide inert
ether (CAS Reg. No. 112-34-5). limitation. ingredient as a
solvent, stabilizer
and/or antifreeze
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2011-16188 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P