33748 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

that are established on the basis of a 

petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 

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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action 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: May 29, 2013. 

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 § 180.665, add alphabetically the 

following commodities to the table in 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.665 Sedaxane; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 0.01 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.01 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 0.01 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.01 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 0.01 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 0.01 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 0.01 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 0.01 

* * * * * 

Pea and bean, dried shelled, 

except soybean, subgroup 

6C .......................................... 0.01 

Rapeseed, subgroup 20A ......... 0.01 

* * * * * 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 0.01 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.01 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 0.01 

* * * * * 

Vegetable, foliage of legume, 

except soybean, subgroup 

7A .......................................... 0.01 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13267 Filed 6–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0469; FRL–9387–8] 

Diisopropyl Adipate; 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 diisopropyl 

adipate when used as an inert 

ingredient (solvent) in pesticide 

formulations applied to pre- and postharvest crops under EPA regulations at 

no more than 40% in formulated 

products intended for mosquito control. 

Wellmark International submitted a 

petition prepared by Technology 

Sciences Group Inc. to EPA under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), requesting establishment of an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 

diisopropyl adipate. 

DATES: This regulation is effective June 

5, 2013. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 5, 2013, 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: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0469, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Lieu, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

703–305–0079; email address: 

Lieu.David@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. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 33749 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

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 http:// 

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ 

40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http:// 

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–2012–0469 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 5, 2013. 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 (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(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 the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2012–0469, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Petition for Exemption 

In the Federal Register of August 22, 

2012 (77 FR 50661) (FRL–9358–9), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing 

the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 

2E8031) by Wellmark International, 

Central Life Sciences, 1501 East 

Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, 

Schaumburg, IL 60173. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of diisopropyl adipate (CAS 

Reg. No. 6938–94–9) when used as an 

inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide 

formulations applied to growing crops 

only at no more than 40% in formulated 

products intended for mosquito control. 

That document referenced a summary of 

the petition prepared by Technology 

Sciences Group Inc., the petitioner, 

which is available in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing. Based upon review 

of the data supporting the petition, EPA 

has modified the exemption requested 

to include an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of diisopropyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 

6938–94–9) under 40 CFR 180.910 when 

used as an inert ingredient in pesticide 

formulations applied to growing crops 

or to raw agricultural commodities after 

harvest at no more than 40% in 

formulated products intended for 

mosquito control. The reason for these 

changes is explained in Unit V. 

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 

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 FFDCA section 

408(c)(2)(A), 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33750 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

aggregate exposure for diisopropyl 

adipate including exposure resulting 

from the exemption established by this 

action. EPA’s assessment of exposures 

and risks associated with diisopropyl 

adipate 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 diisopropyl adipate as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) 

and the lowest-observed-adverse-effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies 

are discussed in this unit. 

The acute oral toxicity of diisopropyl 

adipate in rodents, as expressed as an 

LD50, ranges from 1,500 mg/kg to 8,800 

mg/kg. In the guinea pig, the acute oral 

toxicity of diisopropyl adipate is about 

6,600 mg/kg and in the rabbit, 5,000 mg/ 

kg. In the dog, the acute oral LD50 of 

diisopropyl adipate is greater than 8,000 

mg/kg. Diisopropyl adipate is minimally 

irritating to the eyes and skin of rabbits. 

The potential for toxicity following 

repeat dose exposure to diisopropyl 

adipate was evaluated based on toxicity 

studies with diisopropyl adipate as well 

as toxicity data on the two primary 

metabolites of diisopropyl adipate, 

adipic acid (CAS Reg. No. 124–04–9) 

and isopropyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 

67–63–0). Isopropyl alcohol was 

previously assessed in the U.S. EPA 

inert reassessment document titled, 

Inert Reassessment—n-Propanol; CAS 

Reg. No. 71–23–8, dated August 24, 

2005 and no end points of concern were 

identified. In addition, toxicity data 

from two structural analogues of 

diisopropyl adipate, dipropyl adipate 

and diisobutyl adipate, were also 

considered. These substances would be 

expected to have toxicological 

properties similar to diisopropyl adipate 

and can be used to supplement the 

available toxicity data on diisopropyl 

adipate. The studies summarized below 

were either performed with diisopropyl 

adipate, adipic acid, dipropyl adipate or 

diisobutyl adipate. 

In a 5 week study, guinea pigs that 

were administered adipic acid orally 

showed no adverse effects up to doses 

of 1000 mg/kg/day. In a 90 day oral 

toxicity study, male rats were given 0, 

0.1, 1 or 5% adipic acid and female rats 

were given 0 or 1% adipic acid. The 

NOAEL was 1% (1000 mg/kg/day) and 

a LOAEL of 5% (5000 mg/kg/day) based 

on growth retardation in males. In a 19 

week oral toxicity study in rats, each rat 

was given 0, 50, 100, 200 or 400 mg 

adipic acid/rat/day. The NOAEL was 

200 mg adipic acid/rat/day (equivalent 

to 1700 mg/kg/day) and the LOAEL was 

400 mg adipic acid/rat/day (equivalent 

to 3,400 mg/kg/day) was based on slight 

effects on liver and irritation of the 

intestine. In a 33 week subchronic oral 

toxicity study on groups of 13–15 male 

and female rats at doses of 0, 400, 800 

mg/rat/day or approximately 0, 1600 

and 3200 mg/kg bw/day adipic acid 

produced a LOAEL of 400 mg/rat/day 

(equivalent to 1600 mg/kg bw/day) 

based on slight liver effects and 

inflammation of the intestine and no 

NOAEL was observed. In a 3 week 

inhalation toxicity study, rats were 

exposed to 0.126 mg/L adipic acid for 6 

hr periods daily for five days a week for 

a total of 15 exposures. No signs of 

toxicity were seen, blood tests gave 

normal values and autopsy results 

revealed all organs to be normal. 

The mutagenic potential of adipic 

acid was evaluated in a Host-Mediated 

Assay, in an in vivo cytogenetics test, 

and a dominant lethal assay. These tests 

were negative. 

An OECD SIDS Initial Assessment 

Report on Adipic Acid (2004) 

concluded that adipic acid was not 

carcinogenic in a limited two-year 

feeding study where groups of twenty 

male rats were dosed with food 

containing 0, 0.1, 1, 3 and 5% 

(equivalent to 0, 75, 750, 2250 or 3750 

mg/kg/day) adipic acid, and female rats 

were dosed with 0% (n=10) and 1% 

(n=19) adipic acid, respectively. The 

incidences of tumors observed in the 

adipic acid treated groups were 

observed at the same levels as in the 

control groups. 

Developmental studies (FDRL 1972) 

via oral gavage using adipic acid on 

mice, rats, hamsters and rabbits showed 

no maternal or developmental toxicity. 

The NOAELs for mice, rats and 

hamsters were 263, 288 and 205 mg/kg/ 

day, respectively. These studies were 

not conducted at the limit dose. 

However, the concern for 

developmental toxicity of diisopropyl 

adipate is low because no systemic 

toxicity was seen in chronic studies at 

doses near the limit dose. In addition, 

the developmental toxicity studies 

conducted with two analogue 

substances (dipropyl adipate and 

diisobutyl adipate) via intraperitoneal 

route showed no developmental toxicity 

at doses around 700 mg/kg/day. 

An immunotoxicity study from the 

OECD SIDS 2004 IUCLID Data Set stated 

that the lymphocyte mitogenesis test 

was used to test for immunotoxicity in 

vitro. In this test lymphocytes were 

stimulated by a polyclonal mitogen 

specific for either B or T cells. Neither 

B nor T lymphocyte mitogenesis was 

inhibited by adipic acid at 

concentrations up to 0.3%. 

There were no neurotoxicity studies 

available in the database. However, 

there were no clinical signs of 

neurotoxicity observed in the available 

studies. 

There are no published metabolism 

studies on diisopropyl adipate 

specifically, but the metabolic pathways 

of diisopropyl adipate are proposed 

based on the characteristic molecular 

structure of diisopropyl adipate and the 

known metabolic pathways for 

structurally similar compounds. 

Diisopropyl adipate is a linear fatty acid 

diester that has an isopropyl group 

bound to the oxygen atom on each end 

of the molecule. Given these structural 

groups, diisopropyl adipate metabolism 

is almost certainly catalyzed by 

carboxylesterase enzymes that are 

ubiquitous throughout the body to 

produce adipic acid plus two molecules 

of isopropyl alcohol. 

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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/ 

riskassess.htm. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 33751 

The rational of the toxicological 

endpoints for diisopropyl adipate used 

for human risk assessment is as follows. 

The chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity 

study in rats was selected for all 

exposure scenarios and durations for 

this risk assessment. The NOAEL in this 

study was 750 mg/kg/day. The LOAEL 

was 2,250 mg/kg/day based on body 

weight retardation. The rationale for 

selecting this study is as follows. The 

lowest NOAEL (205 mg/kg/day) in the 

database was observed in a 

developmental study in hamsters. In 

this study 205 mg/kg/day was the 

highest dose tested. This study was not 

selected because maternal and 

developmental toxicity were not 

observed at doses as high as 263 and 

288 mg/kg/day in mice and rats, 

respectively. Also, in a developmental 

toxicity study where rats were treated 

via intraperitoneal injection of adipic 

acid esters, maternal and developmental 

toxicity were not observed at doses as 

high as 727 mg/kg/day. The 

developmental LOAEL was 1,211 mg/ 

kg/day based on increased resorptions 

and a slight but significant increase in 

gross abnormalities. However, these 

studies are not useful for endpoint 

selection because they were conducted 

via intraperitoneal route which is not 

relevant for the dietary, dermal or 

inhalation risk assessment. Also, the 19 

and 33 weeks and 2 years oral toxicity 

studies showed no evidence of toxicity 

at doses as high as 750 mg/kg/day. 

Therefore, the chronic toxicity study in 

rats with the NOAEL of 750 mg/kg/day 

provided a good basis for establishing 

the chronic reference dose (cRfD). The 

NOAEL is considered extremely 

conservative because the extrapolation 

from adipic acid to diisopropyl adipate 

was not performed in order to keep the 

toxicity endpoint selection more 

conservative. Diisopropyl adipate is a 

large molecular weight compound 

compared to adipic acid. Converting 

adipic acid to diisopropyl adipate in a 

1 to 1 molar ratio (one molecule of 

diisopropyl adipate contains 1 molecule 

of adipic acid) would mean the NOAEL 

and LOAEL values would be increased 

proportionately to the molecular weight 

ratios, 230 g/mol for diisopropyl adipate 

and 146 g/mol for adipic acid (e.g. The 

NOAEL of 750 mg/kg/day for adipic 

acid would become 1,181 mg/kg/day if 

converted to diisopropyl adipate). The 

uncertainty factor of 100x was used for 

10x intraspecies variability and 10x for 

interspecies extrapolation. 

C. Exposure Assessment 

1. Dietary exposure from food and 

feed uses. In evaluating dietary 

exposure to diisopropyl adipate, EPA 

considered exposure under the 

proposed exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. EPA 

assessed dietary exposures from 

diisopropyl adipate in food as follows: 

Because no acute endpoint of concern 

was identified, a quantitative acute 

dietary exposure assessment is 

unnecessary. 

In conducting the chronic dietary 

exposure assessment using the Dietary 

Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM– 

FCIDTM, Version 3.16, EPA used food 

consumption information from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s National 

Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey, What we eat in America, 

(NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey 

was conducted from 2003 to 2008. The 

Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model 

(DEEM) is a highly conservative model 

with the assumption 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 between the 

active and inert ingredient (if any) 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 model assumes 

100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all 

crops and that every food eaten by a 

person each day has tolerance-level 

residues. 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. 

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 

diisopropyl adipate, 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). 

Diisopropyl adipate may be used in 

inert ingredients in pesticide products 

that are registered for specific uses that 

may result in outdoor residential 

exposures. A screening level postapplication residential exposure and 

risk assessment was performed using 

high-end exposure scenarios for outdoor 

residential uses based on end-use 

product application methods and 

highest labeled application rates 

submitted for two sample product labels 

containing diisopropyl adipate as inert 

ingredients submitted by the registrant. 

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 diisopropyl 

adipate to share a common mechanism 

of toxicity with any other substances, 

and it does not produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that diisopropyl adipate 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 http:// 

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 

rats, mice, rabbits or hamsters in any of 

the developmental studies with adipic 

acid, a metabolite of diisopropyl 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33752 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

adipate. Maternal and developmental 

toxicity was not observed at doses as 

high as 288 mg/kg/day. Also, in a 

developmental toxicity study in rats 

treated with dipropyl adipate or 

diisobutyl adipate, analogues of 

diisopropyl adipate, maternal and 

developmental toxicity was not 

observed at ≥ 1,130 mg/kg/day. A 2- 

generation reproduction toxicity study 

in rodents is not available in the 

database. However, the concern for the 

lack of this study is low because 

maternal and offspring toxicity was not 

observed at or above the limit dose (at 

levels up to 1,211 mg/kg/day) in rats 

and the lack of any effects on 

reproductive indices in mice, rats and 

rabbits. In addition, there was no 

evidence of histopathological changes in 

reproductive organs in chronic toxicity 

studies. 

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 SF. That decision is 

based on the following findings: 

i. The toxicity database for 

diisopropyl adipate includes several 

subchronic and chronic studies, several 

developmental toxicity studies, a 

chronic/carcinogenicity study, a 

mutagenicity study, and an 

immunotoxicity study. In addition, the 

metabolism of structurally similar 

compounds has been characterized, and 

that data supports the proposed 

metabolic pathways of diisopropyl 

adipate. No two-generation 

reproduction study is available for 

diisopropyl adipate; however, the 

degree of concern for the lack of this 

study is low for the reasons provided in 

Unit III.D.2. 

ii. There is no indication that 

diisopropyl adipate is a neurotoxic 

chemical. Although no neurotoxicity 

studies are available in the database, no 

clinical signs of neurotoxicity were 

observed in the available subchronic 

and chronic studies. Therefore, there is 

no need for a developmental 

neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to 

account for neurotoxicity. 

iii. There was no evidence that 

diisopropyl adipate results in increased 

susceptibility in rats, mice or hamsters 

in the prenatal developmental studies 

iv. There are no residual uncertainties 

identified in the exposure databases. 

EPA made conservative (protective) 

assumptions in the ground and surface 

water modeling used to assess exposure 

to diisopropyl adipate in drinking 

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 diisopropyl adipate. 

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of 

Safety 

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk 

assessment takes into account acute 

exposure estimates from dietary 

consumption of food and drinking 

water. No adverse effect resulting from 

a single oral exposure was identified 

and no acute dietary endpoint was 

selected. Therefore, diisopropyl adipate 

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 diisopropyl 

adipate from food and water will utilize 

1.9% of the cPAD for children 1–2 years 

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). Diisopropyl adipate 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 diisopropyl adipate. 

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 14,400 for both adult males 

and females and 4,400 for children. 

Because EPA’s level of concern for 

diisopropyl adipate 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). 

Diisopropyl adipate 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 diisopropyl 

adipate. 

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 16,600 for both 

adult males and females and 4,800 for 

children. Because EPA’s level of 

concern for diisopropyl adipate is a 

MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are 

not of concern. 

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. 

population. Based on the lack of 

evidence of carcinogenicity in a 2 year 

rodent carcinogenicity study, 

diisopropyl adipate is not expected to 

pose a cancer risk to humans. 

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 diisopropyl 

adipate residues. 

V. Other Considerations 

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is not establishing a numerical 

tolerance for residues of diisopropyl 

adipate in or on any food commodities. 

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 

United Nation 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 a MRL 

for diisopropyl adipate. 

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, the proposed 

use patterns may results in applications 

of pesticides post-harvest. Therefore 

EPA believes a more appropriate 

exemption would be under 40 CFR 

180.910. EPA has modified the 

exemption requested to include an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of diisopropyl 

adipate (CAS Reg. No. 6938–94–9) 

under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as an 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 33753 

inert ingredient in pesticide 

formulations applied to growing crops 

or to raw agricultural commodities after 

harvest. 

VI. Conclusions 

Therefore, an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance is established 

under 40 CFR 180.910 for diisopropyl 

adipate (CAS Reg. No. 6938–94–9) when 

used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in 

pesticide formulations applied to 

growing crops or to raw agricultural 

commodities after harvest. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) 

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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

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) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VIII. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action 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: May 29, 2013. 

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. Section 180.910 is amended by 

alphabetically adding the inert 

ingredient ‘‘Diisopropyl adipate’’ to the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and 

post-harvest; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

* * * * * * * 

Diisopropyl adipate (CAS Reg. No. 6938–94–9) ............... 40% in mosquito control formulations ............................... Solvent, co-solvent. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13189 Filed 6–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33754 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 214 

[Docket No. FRA–2008–0059, Notice No. 7] 

RIN 2130–AC37 

Railroad Workplace Safety; AdjacentTrack On-Track Safety for Roadway 

Workers 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date. 

SUMMARY: This document delays the 

effective date of the final rule published 

November 30, 2011, and scheduled to 

take effect on July 1, 2013. The final rule 

mandates that roadway workers comply 

with specified on-track safety 

procedures that railroads must adopt to 

protect those workers from the 

movement of trains or other on-track 

equipment on ‘‘adjacent controlled 

track.’’ FRA received two petitions for 

reconsideration of the final rule, and 

five comments in response to the March 

8, 2012, final rule that requested 

comments on the petitions for 

reconsideration. The petitions and 

comments raised a number of 

substantive issues requiring a detailed 

response. As FRA’s response to those 

petitions and comments is still being 

reviewed, this document delays the 

effective date of the final rule until July 

1, 2014. 

DATES: The effective date for the final 

rule published November 30, 2011, at 76 

FR 74586, and delayed on March 8, 

2012, at 77 FR 13978, is further delayed 

until July 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track 

Division, Office of Safety Assurance and 

Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., RRS–15, Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202– 

493–6236); or Joseph St. Peter, Trial 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., RCC–12, 

Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6052). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 30, 2011, FRA published a 

final rule amending its regulations on 

railroad workplace safety to further 

reduce the risk of serious injury or death 

to roadway workers performing work 

with potentially distracting equipment 

near certain adjacent tracks. See 76 FR 

74586. In particular, the rule requires 

that roadway workers comply with 

specified on-track safety procedures that 

railroads must adopt to protect those 

workers from the movement of trains or 

other on-track equipment on ‘‘adjacent 

controlled track.’’ In response to the 

final rule, FRA received two petitions 

for reconsideration that raised 

substantive issues, requiring a detailed 

response from FRA. The effective date 

of the 2011 final rule was to be May 1, 

2012; however, due to the complexity of 

the issues raised in the petitions, as well 

as in consideration of the railroads’ 

safety training schedules, FRA 

published a final rule delaying the 

effective date of the 2011 final rule until 

July 1, 2013, and establishing a 60-day 

comment period in order to permit 

interested parties an opportunity to 

respond to the petitions for 

reconsideration. See 77 FR 13978 

(March 8, 2012). FRA received five 

comments on the petitions for 

reconsideration, a number of which 

raise additional substantive issues or 

provide further detailed information on 

the issues already raised. FRA’s 

response to the petitions and comments 

is still being reviewed, and may not be 

published before the 2011 final rule’s 

current effective date of July 1, 2013. 

Accordingly, in order to accommodate 

railroads’ normal training schedules and 

to allow railroads to incorporate any 

amendments that FRA’s response to the 

petitions and comments on the petitions 

may make to the final rule, this 

document delays the effective date of 

the November 30, 2011, final rule until 

July 1, 2014. Therefore, railroads and 

roadway workers need not comply with 

any requirements imposed by the 2011 

final rule until July 1, 2014. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 214 

Occupational safety and health, 

Penalties, Railroad safety. 

The Final Rule 

In consideration of the foregoing, FRA 

delays the effective date of the 

November 30, 2011, final rule until July 

1, 2014. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 

2013. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13291 Filed 6–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES