[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19261-19268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8298]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0479; FRL-8816-5]
Alkyl (C12-C16) Dimethyl Ammonio Acetate; 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 Alkyl (C12-C16)
dimethyl ammonio acetate, herein referred to in this document as ADAA,
when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) in pesticide formulations
for pre-harvest uses under 40 CFR 180.920 or applied to animals under
40 CFR 180.930 at a maxiumum concentration of 20% in pesticide product
formulations. Technology Sciences Group, Inc., on behalf of Rhodia,
Inc., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of ADAA.
DATES: This regulation is effective April 14, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 14, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0479. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://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 http://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: Elizabeth Fertich, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (703) 347-8560; e-mail address:
[email protected].
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 cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS harmonized test quidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''
C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0479 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before June 14, 2010.
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0479, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41895) (FRL-8429-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9E7557) by
Rhodia, Inc., 5171 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 402, Raleigh, NC 27612. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 and 40 CFR 180.930 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of Alkyl (C12-C16) dimethyl ammonio
acetate, herein referred to in this document as ADAA. That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
[[Page 19262]]
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of ADAA when
used as inert ingredients in pesticide formulations for pre-harvest
uses and on animals at a maximum of 20% by weight in pesticide
formulations. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by ADAA
are discussed in this unit.
Acute oral toxicity studies were performed using C12-
ADAA and C16-ADAA. ADAA has moderate to low acute toxicity
via the oral and dermal routes of exposure. Low acute toxicity is
generally associated with C16-ADAA while moderate acute
toxicity is associated with C12-ADAA. In acute dermal and
eye irritation studies, C12-ADAA was severely irritating to
the skin and eyes. A mixture of C12-C16 ADAA was
used in a local lymph node assay (LLNA) to evaluate the potential to
cause skin sensitization, C12-C16 ADAA was found
to be a sensitizer; however, it gave a negative response for skin
sensitization in in vivo guinea pigs as determined by Magnusson-Kligman
test.
Two developmental studies were available; an oral toxicity study in
the rat and a screening level developmental dermal toxicity study in
the rabbit. In the developmental toxicity study in the rat, maternal
toxicity was manifested as reduced body weight gain, stained and matted
haircoats, and respiratory rates at 50 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/
day) and above. Offspring toxicity was manifested as reduced or absent
ossification of the skull, sternebrae 5 and/or 6, and
other sternebrae at 250 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for developmental toxicity
in rats was 150 mg/kg/day. In the screening level developmental dermal
toxicity study in rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as skin
irritation, inhibition of body weight gain, decreased food consumption
and resorptions at doses of 100 mg/kg/day and above while offspring
toxicity was manifested as increased incidence of resorptions and
decreased average litter size at >= 100 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for
systemic and developmental toxicity in rabbits via dermal route was 40
mg/kg/day.
A dose range-finding and a main study of Combined Repeated Dose
Toxicity Study with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening
Test according to the OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study
were available in the rat. In the range-finding study, at >= 100 mg/kg/
day, a reduction was observed in mean food consumption, body weight,
and body weight gain during the pre-pairing period in all animals.
Also, animals pushed their heads through the bedding throughout the
treatment period at doses >= 100 mg/kg/day. At 1,000 mg/kg/day,
mortality was observed in all animals within 24 hours. In the main
OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study, parental toxicity was
manifested as microscopic lesions (squamous hyperplasia,
hyperkeratosis, submucosal inflammation and edema) in the forestomach
at the lowest dose tested (50 mg/kg/day). Reproductive and
developmental toxicity was manifested as increased implantation losses,
decreased birth and viability indices, and decreased pup weight at 300
mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). The NOAEL for reproductive/
developmental toxicity was 150 mg/kg/day.
Several mutagenicity studies (two Ames assays and chromosome
aberration assay) were available for review. The results for these
studies were negative. No animal carcinogenicity studies are available
in the database. Based on Structure Activity Relationship (SAR)
analysis, no structural alerts for carcinogenicity were identified.
Two in vitro dermal absorption studies were available in hairless
mice. The dermal absorption factor of C12-ADAA and
C16-ADAA was estimated to be <1%.
The Agency notes the surfactants are surface-active materials that
can damage the structural integrity of cellular membranes at high dose
levels. Thus, surfactants are often corrosive and irritating in
concentrated solutions. The observed toxicity seen in the repeated dose
studies, such as microscopic stomach lesions or decreased body weight
gain, are attributed to the corrosive and irritating nature of these
surfactants.
There are no published or unpublished ADAA metabolism studies.
However, ADAA are expected to metabolized via three potential metabolic
pathways:
[[Page 19263]]
1. Omega oxidation followed by beta oxidation of the carbon chain,
2. Conjugation of ADAA at the carboxylic acid portion of the
molecule by any of a number of amino acids, or
3. Glucuronidation at the same site on ADAA, followed by
elimination.
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by ADAA, 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 http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Decision Document for Alkyl
(C12-C16) dimethyl ammonio acetate (CAS Reg. Nos.
683-10-3, 2601-33-4 and 693-33-4),'' pages 8-16 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0479.
B. Toxicological Endpoints
For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
For the purpose of this risk assessment, a protective overall NOAEL
of 40 mg/kg/day was selected for all exposure scenarios based on
weight-of-evidence from three studies in which systemic toxicity was
observed at doses of 100 mg/kg/day or above. The different NOAELs
observed in these studies are due to the dose selection process. For
example, a NOAEL of 33 mg/kg/day and LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day (based on
pushing head through bedding, decreased food consumption and weight
gain) were established in a range finding study for a combined
reproduction/ developmental toxicity screening test. In the main study,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) combined
repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental
toxicity screening test, the LOAEL was established at 50 mg/kg/day
(lowest dose tested). However, the LOAEL was based on irritation in the
forestomach of rats due to the physical/chemical properties of ADAA,
which was not considered relevant for human risk assessments. Also the
NOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day is considered to be protective of marginal
decreases in body weights seen at the LOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day in the oral
development toxicity study in rats because body weight effects were not
observed in the OECD 422 study (main study) at a dose level of 150 mg/
kg/day. Additionally, this NOAEL is supported by the developmental
dermal toxicity study in the rabbit. In this study, a NOAEL of 40 was
established based on the effects (uncoordinated movement, partial
paralysis and increased incidence of resorptions) observed at 100 mg/
kg/day in the presence of severe skin irritation.
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ADAA used for human
risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.
Table.--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for ADAA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure and
Exposure/Scenario Uncertainty/Safety RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk Study and Toxicological
Factors Assessment Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary The Agency notes the surfactants are surface-active materials that can
(all populations).................... damage the structural integrity of cellular membranes at high dose
levels. Moderate acute toxicity is associated with C12-ADAA. However,
these effects are considered local irritations rather than systemic
toxicity. Therefore this endpoint is not appropriate for risk
assessment. In addition, no endpoint of concern attributed to a single
dose was identified in the database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary NOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.40 mg/ Overall NOAEL based on
(all populations).................... UFA = 10x.............. kg/day three studies
UFH = 10x.............. cPAD = 0.40 mg/kg/day.. OECD 422 range finding
FQPA SF = 1x........... and main study
Developmental toxicity
study in rabbits via
dermal route,
Oral developmental
toxicity study in rats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Oral, dermal and NOAEL= 40 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 Overall NOAEL based on
inhalation (Short- and Intermediate- UFA = 10x.............. three studies
Term) UFH = 10x.............. OECD 422 range finding
FQPA SF = 1x........... and main study
Developmental toxicity
study in rabbits via
dermal route,
Oral developmental
toxicity study in rats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19264]]
Dermal short- and intermediate term NOAEL= 40 mg/kg/day LOC for MOE = 100 Overall NOAEL based on
(1 to 30 days) (1 to 6 months) UFA = 10x.............. three studies
UFH = 10x.............. OECD 422 range finding
FQPA SF = 1x........... and main study
10% dermal absorption Developmental toxicity
factor. study in rabbits via
dermal route,
Oral developmental
toxicity study in rats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short- and intermediate 100% inhalation LOC for MOE = 100 Overall NOAEL based on
term (1 to 30 days) (1 to 6 months) absorption three studies
OECD 422 range finding
and main study
Developmental toxicity
study in rabbits via
dermal route,
Oral developmental
toxicity study in rats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Not necessary. No cancer concerns were identified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose
(a=acute, c=chronic). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC =
level of concern. N/A = not applicable.
V. Aggregate Exposures
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to the ADAA, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from ADAA in food as follows:
i. Acute exposure. The Agency notes the surfactants are surface-
active materials that can damage the structural integrity of cellular
membranes at high dose levels. Moderate acute toxicity is associated
with C12-ADAA. However, these effects are considered local
irritations rather than systemic toxicity. Therefore this endpoint is
not appropriate for risk assessment. In addition, no endpoint of
concern attributed to a single dose was identified in the database.
ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for ADAA. 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 http://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 levels of
tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active
ingredient.
The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are
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. In the case of ADAA, EPA made a specific
adjustment to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use
limitations of the amount of ADAA that may be in formulations (to no
more than 20% by weight in pesticide products) and assumed that the
ADAA are present at the maximum limitation rather than at equal
quantities with the active ingredient. This remains a very conservative
assumption because surfactants are generally used at levels far below
this percentage.
Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding
[[Page 19265]]
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. In summary, EPA chose a very
conservative method for estimating what level of inert residue could be
on food, then used this methodology to choose the highest possible
residue that could be found on food and assumed that all food contained
this residue. No consideration was given to potential degradation
between harvest and consumption even though monitoring data shows that
tolerance level residues are typically one to two orders of magnitude
higher than actual residues in food when distributed in commerce.
Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
iii. Cancer. ADAA is not expected to be carcinogenic since there
was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the available studies. Since the
Agency has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to
ADAA, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.
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 ADAA, a conservative
drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level
modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for
chronic dietary risk assessments for ADAA. These values were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). ADAA may be used as
inert ingredients in pesticide products that are registered for
specific uses that may result in both indoor and outdoor residential
exposures. A screening level residential exposure and risk assessment
was completed for products containing ADAA as inert ingredients. The
ADAA inerts are used in pesticide formulations that may be used around
the home in pesticide formulations used on lawn, turf, or gardens. In
addition, these inerts may be present in personal care products. The
Agency selected representative scenarios and conducted an assessment to
represent worst-case residential exposure by assessing ADAA in
pesticide formulations (outdoor scenarios) and ADAA in disinfectant-
type uses (indoor scenarios). Based on information contained in the
petition, ADAA can be present in personal care products (maximum
concentration 5%). Therefore, the Agency assessed the personal care
products containing ADAA using exposure scenarios used by OPP's
Antimicrobials Division to represent worst-case residential handler
exposure. The Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case
residential exposure by assessing post application exposures and risks
from ADAA in pesticide formulations (Outdoor Scenarios) and ADAA in
disinfectant-type uses (Indoor Scenarios). Further details of this
residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled ``JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations''
(D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710.
VI. Cumulative Effects
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
Unlike other pesticide ingredients for which EPA has followed as
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA
has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ADAA acetate
and any other substances and, ADAA does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that ADAA has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for
cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.
VII. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of 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 Food Quality
Protection Act (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 is available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor. EPA concluded that the FQPA safety
factor should be reduced to 1X for ADAA.
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility of infants and children in the available
developmental toxicity studies via dermal and oral routes of exposure.
In these studies developmental toxicity was observed in the presence of
maternal toxicity and/or at one dose level higher. There was no
evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and children in the
OPPTS 870.3650 study (OECD 422) study. In this study, the maternal
toxicity was manifested as body weight changes and microscopic changes,
while the fetal toxicity was manifested as increased implantation
losses and decreased pup weight. The maternal and developmental NOAEL
was 150 mg/kg/day.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that 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 database is considered adequate for FQPA assessment. The
following acceptable studies are available:
Developmental toxicity study in rats (1)
Developmental dermal toxicity study in rabbits
Combined development/reproduction repeated dose toxicity study (1)
ii. Fetal susceptibility was not observed in the oral developmental
toxicity study in the rat, the
[[Page 19266]]
developmental dermal toxicity study in the rabbit or in the OPPTS
Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study. In these studies fetal
toxicity was observed at doses that were higher than the dose that
caused maternal toxicity. Therefore, there are low concerns and no
residual uncertainties concerning prenatal and postnatal toxicity.
iii. Clinical signs of neurotoxicity (uncoordinated movement,
partial paralysis) were observed in the developmental dermal study in
the rabbit. However, no effects on Functional Observation Battery (FOB)
parameters were observed at doses up to and including 300 mg/kg/day in
the OPPTS 870.3650 study (OECD 422 study). Therefore, EPA concluded
that the developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
iv. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in the database.
v. No chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity studies are available in
the database, however the Agency notes that surfactants are surface-
active materials that can damage the structural integrity of cellular
membranes at high dose levels. Thus, surfactants are often corrosive
and irritating in concentrated solutions. The observed toxicity seen in
the repeated dose studies, such as microscopic lesions or decreased
body weight gain, are attributed to the corrosive and irritating nature
of these surfactants. The Agency has considerable toxicity information
on surfactants which indicates that the effects do not progressively
increase in severity over time. In addition, use of the full 10X
interspecies factor will actually provide an additional margin of
safety because it is not expected that humans' response to local
irritation/corrosiveness effects would be markedly different from
animals. The database on ADAA indicates that the target organ toxicity
is occurring at relatively high doses. Based on the consideration in
this unit, the Agency concluded that an additional FQPA safety factor
for the lack of a chronic study is not necessary.
vi. The dietary food exposure assessment utilizes highly
conservative default assumptions and would not underestimate the
dietary risk to all populations. For the purpose of the screening level
dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for ADAA, a value of 100 ppb based on
screening level modeling was used for the chronic dietary risk
assessment. The value of 100 ppb is considered to be a high end,
conservative assumption that is not likely to underestimate drinking
water risks.
Taking into consideration the available information, EPA concludes
the additional 10X FQPA safety factor can be reduced to 1X.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
1. Acute risk. The Agency notes the surfactants are surface-active
materials that can damage the structural integrity of cellular
membranes at high dose levels. Moderate acute toxicity is associated
with C12-ADAA. However, these effects are considered local
irritations rather than systemic toxicity. Therefore this endpoint is
not appropriate for risk assessment. In addition, no endpoint of
concern attributed to a single dose was identified in the database.
2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for chronic exposure and the use limitation of not more than 20% by
weight in pesticide formulations, the chronic dietary exposure from
food and water to ADAA is 19.5% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and
62.9% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
ADAA are used as inert ingredients in pesticide products that are
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to ADAA. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the combined
short-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 110 for adult males and adult females. Adult
residential exposure combines high end dermal and inhalation handler
exposure from indoor hard surface wiping with a high end post
application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. EPA has
concluded the combined short-term aggregated food, water, and
residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 130 for children.
Children's residential exposure includes total exposures associated
with contact with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, 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).
ADAA are currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to ADAA. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit, EPA has concluded that the
combined intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 450 for adult males and adult
females. Adult residential exposure includes 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 150 for children. Children's
residential exposure includes total exposures associated with contact
with treated lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the level
of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 100, this MOE is not of
concern.
5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to ADAA.
6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to residues of ADAA when used as inert ingredients in
pesticide formulations for pre-harvest uses and on animals at a maximum
of 20% by weight in pesticide formulations.
[[Page 19267]]
VIII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to
determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active
and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in humans that is similar
to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such
endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.'' Following
recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory
Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis
for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone
systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted
EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of
potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use
FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
When additional appropriate screening and/or testing protocols
being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, ADAA may
be subjected to further screening and/or testing to better characterize
effects related to endocrine disruption.
B. Analytical Method
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.
C. International Tolerances
The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
ADAA nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established
for any food crops at this time.
IX. Conclusions
Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to
residues of ADAA. Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting ADAA (at a
maximum of 20% by weight in formulation) from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe.
X. 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 has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
XI. 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: April 1, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.920, in the table add alphabetically the following inert
ingredient to read as follows:
Sec. 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
[[Page 19268]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Alkyl (C12-C16) dimethyl ammonio 20% by weight in Surfactant
acetate (CAS Reg. Nos. 683-10- pesticide
3, 2601-33-4 and 693-33-4 formulation
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 180.930, in the table add alphabetically the following inert
ingredient to read as follows:
Sec. 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Alkyl (C12-C16) dimethyl ammonio 20% by weight in Surfactant
acetate (CAS Reg. Nos. 683-10- pesticide
3, 2601-33-4 and 693-33-4 formulation
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-8298 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S