72886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–1016; FRL–8345–9] 

Air Fresheners; TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On September 20, 2007, the 

Sierra Club, the National Center for 

Healthy Housing, the Alliance for 

Healthy Homes, and the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

petitioned EPA under section 21 of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

to: Call-in allegations of adverse 

reactions related to air freshener 

products recorded by manufacturers and 

processors pursuant to TSCA section 

8(c) and 40 CFR part 717; adopt a rule 

pursuant to TSCA section 8(d) to require 

submittal of heath and safety studies 

related to air fresheners, including lab 

results of ingredients and health effects 

from respiratory exposures; adopt a rule 

pursuant to TSCA section 4 to require 

manufacturers to conduct acute and 

chronic studies to evaluate the impact of 

air fresheners on human health; and 

adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 

6 to require that air fresheners be 

labeled to identify all of their 

ingredients. TSCA section 21 does not 

apply to the petitioners’ request for a 

call-in under TSCA section 8(c), and, for 

the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

has denied the petitioners’ remaining 

three requests. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Robert Jones, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8161; e-mail address: 

jones.robert @epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

import, or distribute in commerce air 

fresheners or their ingredients. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• Chemical manufacturers (including 

importers) and processors (NAICS code 

325), e.g., air and room freshener 

manufacturers. 

• Other manufacturers (including 

importers) and processors (NAICS code 

3399), e.g., manufacturers of potpourri. 

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. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the TSCA section 21 petition 

on air fresheners. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2007–1016. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket’s 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

2. Electronic access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. 

II. Background 

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

Section 21 of TSCA allows any person 

to petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 

TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order 

under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A 

TSCA section 21 petition must set forth 

the facts that are claimed to establish 

the necessity for the action requested. 

EPA is required to grant or deny the 

petition within 90 days of its filing. If 

EPA grants the petition, the Agency 

must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of either a denial or the expiration of the 

90 day period. 

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on 

a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

1. Legal standard regarding TSCA 

section 21 petitions. Section 21(b)(1) of 

TSCA requires that the petition ‘‘set 

forth the facts which it is claimed 

establish that it is necessary’’ to issue 

the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 

implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this petition. 

2. Legal standard regarding TSCA 

section 8(d) rules. Section 8(d) of TSCA 

authorizes EPA to require the 

submission of unpublished health and 

safety studies initiated or conducted by, 

or known to or reasonably ascertainable 

by, manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors of chemical substances or 

mixtures. Studies may be excluded ‘‘if 

the Administrator finds that submission 

of lists of such studies are unnecessary 

to carry out the purposes of [TSCA].’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2607(d)(1). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 72887 

Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides 

the standard for judicial review should 

EPA deny a request for rulemaking 

under TSCA section 8(d): ‘‘If the 

petitioner demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the court by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

...there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the issuance of such a rule ...is 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury,’’ the court shall order the 

Administrator to initiate the requested 

action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). 

3. Legal standard regarding TSCA 

section 4 rules. EPA must make several 

findings in order to issue a rule to 

require testing under TSCA section 4. In 

all cases, EPA must find that data and 

experience are insufficient to reasonably 

determine or predict the effects of a 

chemical or mixture on health or the 

environment and that testing of the 

chemical is necessary to develop the 

missing data. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In 

addition, EPA must find either that the 

chemical or mixture may present an 

unreasonable risk of injury or that the 

chemical is produced in substantial 

quantities and may either result in 

significant or substantial human 

exposure or result in substantial 

environmental release. Id. 

In the case of a mixture, EPA must 

also find that ‘‘the effects which the 

mixture’s manufacture, distribution in 

commerce, processing, use, or disposal 

or any combination of such activities 

may have on health or the environment 

may not be reasonably and more 

efficiently determined or predicted by 

testing the chemical substances which 

comprise the mixture.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2603(a)(2). 

If EPA denies a petition for TSCA 

section 4 rulemaking and the petitioners 

challenge that decision, TSCA section 

21 allows a court to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking if the petitioner 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

court by a preponderance of the 

evidence in a de novo proceeding that 

findings very similar to those described 

in this unit with respect to a chemical 

substance have been met. However, 

TSCA section 21 omits the finding that 

‘‘testing is necessary to develop the 

data’’ from the findings that a petitioner 

must demonstrate in order for a court to 

require EPA to initiate TSCA section 4 

rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)(i). 

Nonetheless, EPA believes TSCA 

section 21(b)(4) is best interpreted as 

incorporating this finding. The 

alternative would be to read the statute 

as empowering a court to require EPA 

to initiate a rulemaking even where the 

Agency could not make proposed 

findings consistent with TSCA section 4 

or take final action on the rule. EPA’s 

interpretation is supported by legislative 

history. House Conference Report 94–

1679 at pp. 97–99 (1976). 

In addition, EPA believes TSCA 

section 21(b)(4) does not provide for 

judicial review of a petition to 

promulgate a test rule for mixtures. 

Section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) of TSCA specifies 

that the court’s review pertains to 

application of the TSCA section 4 

factors to chemical substances. 

Moreover, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) 

does not contain the additional finding 

that TSCA section 4 requires for issuing 

a test rule for mixtures (that the effect 

may not be reasonably and more 

efficiently determined or predicted by 

testing the chemical components). 

Congress left the complex issues 

associated with the testing of mixtures 

to the Administrator’s discretion. 

4. Legal standard regarding TSCA 

section 6 rules. In order to promulgate 

a rule under TSCA section 6, the 

Administrator must find that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, or disposal of a 

chemical substance or mixture . . . 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding 

cannot be made considering risk alone. 

In promulgating any rule under TSCA 

section 6(a), the statute requires that the 

Administrator consider: 

• The effects of such substance or 

mixture on health and the magnitude of 

the exposure of human beings to such 

substance or mixture. 

• The effects of such substance or 

mixture on the environment and the 

magnitude of the exposure of the 

environment to such substance or 

mixture. 

• The benefits of such substance or 

mixture for various uses and the 

availability of substitutes for such uses. 

• The reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, after 

consideration of the effect on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 15 

U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). 

Furthermore, the control measure 

adopted is to be the ‘‘least burdensome 

requirement’’ that adequately protects 

against the unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 

2605(a). 

Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides 

the standard for judicial review should 

EPA deny a request for rulemaking 

under TSCA section 6(a): ‘‘If the 

petitioner demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the court by a 

preponderance of the evidence that ... 

there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the issuance of such a rule ... is 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury,’’ the court shall order the 

Administrator to initiate the requested 

action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). 

C. What Action is Requested Under this 

TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

On September 19, 2007, the Sierra 

Club, the National Center for Healthy 

Housing, the Alliance for Healthy 

Homes, and NRDC petitioned EPA to: 

1. Call-in allegations of adverse 

reactions related to air freshener 

products recorded by manufacturers and 

processors pursuant to TSCA section 

8(c) and 40 CFR part 717. 

2. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 8(d) to require submittal of 

health and safety studies related to air 

fresheners, including lab results of 

ingredients and health effects from 

respiratory exposures. 

3. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 4 to require manufacturers to 

conduct acute and chronic studies to 

evaluate the impact of air fresheners on 

human health. 

4. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 6 to require that air fresheners 

be labeled to identify all of their 

ingredients (Ref. 1). 

The petition defined air fresheners as: 

...a broad range of product types, from 

traditional sprays to outlet- and batteryoperated plug-ins, solid gel dispensers, 

hanging car air fresheners and potpourri. Air 

fresheners can serve two purposes: odor 

control (which includes unscented air 

fresheners) and aesthetic scent. Some 

products may serve both purposes, and 

others may serve only one. Cleaning products 

that kill germs, clean surfaces and leave a 

pleasant fragrance are not included in these 

petitions. 

(Ref. 1) 

The petitioners also simultaneously 

petitioned the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) (15 

U.S.C. 1261 et seq.) ‘‘to undertake 

specific actions to assess fully the risk 

to the public from exposure to air 

fresheners and to take reasonable steps 

to reduce that risk’’ (Ref. 1). In 

November 2007, the CPSC declined to 

docket the petition for rulemaking, 

because it did not meet the CPSC’s 

statutory or regulatory requirements 

(Ref. 2). CPSC stated that it was rejecting 

the petition because the petition did not 

‘‘identify the specific toxic 

constituent(s) and their concentration(s) 

in the air fresheners, the mechanism of 

exposure and/or uptake of each such 

constituent or the ‘substantial illness’

that might result from customary or 

reasonably foreseeable handling or use 

of such air fresheners that contain each 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
72888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

of these substances.’’ CPSC also found 

that the petition did not ‘‘provide[] 

sufficient information to establish that a 

rule is necessary.’’

D. What Support Do the Petitioners 

Offer for These Requests? 

Petitioners are concerned about 

potential risks from air fresheners and 

believe EPA should take the requested 

actions to assess and reduce any such 

risks. The petition discusses at length 

three reports in support of these 

requests: 

• The American Association of Poison 

Control Centers’ (AAPCC) 2005 Annual 

Report (Ref. 3). 

• An ‘‘opinion’’ issued in January 

2006 by the European Commission’s 

Scientific Committee on Health and 

Environmental Risks (SCHER) (Ref. 4) 

on a report issued in January 2005 by 

the Bureau Europe ́en des Unions de 

Consommateurs (BEUC), which 

measured and assessed chemical 

emissions from 74 air fresheners sold in 

Europe (Ref. 5). 

• A report issued in September 2007 

by NRDC on the presence of phthalate 

esters in air fresheners (Ref. 6). 

1. Association of Poison Control 

Centers (AAPCC) Report. In support of 

the assertion that air fresheners present 

‘‘a significant source of human exposure 

to a veritable cocktail of dangerous and 

potentially dangerous’’ chemicals, the 

petition presents information drawn 

from the AAPCC 2005 Annual Report. 

EPA considered the AAPCC report and 

does not agree with the petitioners that 

the information in the report raises 

significant concerns about possible 

health effects of air fresheners. 

According to the petition (Ref. 1), the 

AAPCC reported the following 

‘‘exposures’’ to air fresheners based on 

calls to local poison control centers in 

2005: 14,094 people overall (including 

11,800 children younger than 6). Of the 

reported exposures, the petition 

indicates that 98% were unintentional, 

and 2,623 resulted in injuries (2,492 

minor injuries; 125 moderate injuries; 5 

major injuries; and 1 death). 

These numbers, however, represent 

only a very small percentage (0.58%) of 

the total number of 2,424,180 exposures 

to all substances reported in the 

AAPCC’s 2005 Annual Report (Ref. 3). 

This incidental percentage is the more 

striking considering the industry’s 

assertion that 70% of U.S. homes use air 

fresheners (Ref. 7) and the petitioners’

assertion that ‘‘[a]lmost every American 

is exposed to air fresheners in some 

manner’’ (Ref. 1). Moreover, according 

to the 2005 AAPCC report, only 32 

(0.23%) of the 14,094 reported air 

freshener exposures involved an adverse 

reaction, which is defined by AAPCC as 

‘‘an adverse event occurring with 

normal, prescribed, labeled, or 

recommended use of the product, as 

opposed to overdose, misuse, or abuse’’

(Ref. 3). 

Considering the widespread use of air 

fresheners, the number of reported 

exposure incidents for air fresheners is 

relatively small when compared to the 

reported exposure incidents for other 

product categories. In the AAPCC 

report, air fresheners are one of five 

subcategories of deodorizers, and 

deodorizers have among the lowest 

number of reported exposures and 

injuries among the 55 categories in the 

AAPCC report (Refs. 3 and 8). In the 

AAPCC report, deodorizers are not 

included in the list of 23 categories 

‘‘most frequently involved in human 

exposures’’ (Refs. 3 and 8). Deodorizers 

are 20th among 23 categories for ‘‘most 

frequently involved in pediatric 

exposures (children younger than 6 

years),’’ but deodorizers were involved 

in only 1.3% of the total number of such 

exposures (Ref. 3). (The percentages for 

the 21st (asthma therapies), 22nd (dietary 

supplements/herbals/homeopathic), and 

23rd (antidepressants) categories were 

1.2%, 1.1%, and 1.1%, respectively, 

nearly the same as for deodorizers). 

Nearly 95% of the injuries resulting 

from air freshener exposures were 

minor, 4.8% were moderate, and only 

0.2% (5) were major. Of the two deaths 

reported, one resulted from intentional 

misuse and the reason for the other was 

reported as ‘‘unknown’’ (Refs. 3 and 8). 

The petitioners assert that these 

figures under-represent exposures 

because people may not recognize the 

relationship asserted by the petitioners 

between air freshener exposures and 

adverse effects (Ref. 1). On the other 

hand, EPA recognizes that asthma 

attacks and other health effects may be 

incorrectly attributed by callers to air 

freshener exposures. EPA has no basis 

to draw conclusions based on the 

possibility of unreported exposures to 

air fresheners or any other products. It 

is also important to note that these 

exposure reports, which provide the 

basis for the AAPCC report, rarely, if 

ever, include information about the 

concentrations or durations of the 

reported exposures and, therefore, 

cannot be used to make any conclusions 

about actual exposures during use or 

long-term health risks (Ref. 9). 

2. NRDC Report. According to the 

petition, NRDC tested 14 air fresheners 

and found phthalate esters in 12 (Ref. 6). 

NRDC stated that none of these 12 air 

fresheners listed phthalate esters as 

ingredients on their labels. According to 

the petition, phthalate esters are 

associated with ‘‘a number of 

reproductive health risks’’ and with 

allergic symptoms and asthma. The 

petitioners also state that ‘‘California’s 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment lists some phthalates 

(including some found in these air 

fresheners) as chemicals known to the 

state to cause reproductive toxicity 

under California’s Proposition 65’’ (Ref. 

1). 

Phthalate esters are a broad category 

of chemicals with varying toxicological 

profiles. California Proposition 65 (the 

Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 

Enforcement Act of 1986) requires the 

State to publish a list of chemicals 

known to be carcinogens or 

developmental toxicants and requires 

businesses to provide public notice 

about any ‘‘significant’’ amount of a 

listed chemical in their products by, 

among other methods, labeling a 

consumer product (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html) (Ref. 

11). Of the five phthalate esters on the 

Proposition 65 list, only one (di-n-butyl 

phthalate (DBP)) was reported in the 

NRDC study as being detected in air 

fresheners. According to the U.S. 

Centers for Disease Control Third 

National Report on Human Exposure to 

Environmental Chemicals, many 

consumer products contain phthalate 

esters, including vinyl flooring, 

adhesives, detergents, lubricating oils, 

solvents, automotive plastics, plastic 

clothing (e.g., raincoats), personal-care 

products (e.g., soap, shampoo, 

deodorants, fragrances, hair spray, nail 

polish), medical pharmaceuticals, 

plastic bags, garden hoses, inflatable 

recreational toys, blood-storage bags, 

intravenous medical tubing, and 

children’s toys (Ref. 10). 

The NRDC study tested for 15 

phthalate esters (including 4 of the 5 

phthalate esters on the Proposition 65 

list) and found one or more of 5 

phthalate esters (including 1 (DBP) on 

the Proposition 65 list) in 12 of 14 air 

freshener products tested. The 5 

phthalate esters were: Di-n-butyl 

phthalate (DBP), CAS No. 84–74–2; 

diethyl phthalate (DEP), CAS No. 84–

66–2; diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), CAS 

No. 84–69–5; diisohexyl phthalate 

(DIHP), CAS No.146–50–9; and 

dimethyl phthalate (DMP), CAS No. 

131–11–3 (Ref. 6). 

With the exception of DEP, the 

phthalate esters were detected at very 

low concentrations (less than 7 parts per 

million (ppm)), which might indicate 

their presence as an impurity or lab 

contaminant rather than as an 

intentional ingredient. DBP was the 

only phthalate ester on the California 

Proposition 65 list (where it is listed for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 72889 

developmental toxicity) detected in the 

air fresheners examined in the NRDC 

report. DBP was detected at very low 

concentrations in 5 samples: At 

concentrations less than 1 ppm in four 

samples and at a concentration of 4.5 

ppm in one sample. 

DEP was detected in three samples at 

concentrations of 360 ppm, 1,100 ppm, 

and 7,300 ppm; DEP was detected in six 

other samples at concentrations of 6.3 

ppm or less (Ref. 6). DEP is known to 

be used as a solvent and vehicle in a 

wide variety of fragrance and cosmetic 

products at concentrations ranging from 

<0.1% to 11% (i.e., 1,000 to 110,000 

ppm) (Ref. 29), which could explain its 

detection at concentrations in the 

thousands of ppm in several air 

fresheners reported by NRDC. While 

higher than the very low levels of other 

detected phthalate esters, the levels of 

DEP in air fresheners identified in the 

NRDC Report are still quite low. In 

2003, the European Union’s (EU) 

Scientific Committee on Cosmetic 

Products and Non–Food Products 

Intended for Consumers (SCCNFP), a 

scientific advisory body to the European 

Commission (as is the EU’s SCHER that 

is cited by the petitioners), concluded 

that the safety profile of DEP supports 

its use in European cosmetic products at 

‘‘current levels’’ (Refs. 12 and 13). 

The petitioners also referenced 

several studies in footnotes within the 

petition and in a public comment that 

reported possible associations between 

general exposure to phthalate esters 

(i.e., not specifically from exposure to 

air fresheners) and potential adverse 

health effects in humans. The NRDC 

report did not measure nor estimate the 

potential exposures or risks that may 

result from the use of air fresheners in 

which phthalate esters have been 

detected and so does not provide a basis 

to assess such exposure or potential 

risk. There are numerous other potential 

sources of phthalate esters to which 

consumers may be exposed that could 

lead to potentially higher exposures 

than those that may result from use of 

air fresheners. 

In 2007, following release of a report 

by Greenpeace that reported 

concentrations of phthalate esters in 

perfumes (Ref. 14), the EU’s Scientific 

Committee on Consumer Products 

(SCCP) issued an opinion on certain 

phthalate esters in cosmetic products 

(Ref. 15). The SCCP opinion addressed 

nine phthalate esters including four of 

the five phthalate esters detected in air 

freshener samples by NRDC. The 

magnitude of the phthalate ester 

concentrations reported in the 

Greenpeace report for perfumes are 

similar to those reported by NRDC. 

DIHP, detected by NRDC at a 

concentration of 2.1 ppm in one air 

freshener, was not included in the SCCP 

opinion. The SCCP concluded that: 

There was no need to update the 

SCCNFP opinion on the safe use of DEP 

in cosmetics; in view of the low 

concentrations of DIBP and DMP found 

in samples analyzed (38 and 2,982 ppm, 

respectively), there would be no 

quantifiable risk for the consumer; and 

that traces of DBP up to 100 ppm do not 

indicate a risk to the health of the 

consumer. Similarly, the Cosmetic 

Ingredient Review Expert Panel 

concluded in 2002/2003 that DBP, DMP, 

and DEP are safe for use in cosmetic 

products (including perfumes and hair 

sprays) ‘‘in the present practices of use 

and concentrations’’ (Ref. 29). 

EPA recently contracted with the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

evaluate human health risks and the 

potential for conducting a cumulative 

risk assessment for phthalate esters (Ref. 

16). (Project information is available at 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ 

projectview.aspx?key=48860). 

Specifically, EPA is eliciting external 

expert consultation to evaluate the 

issues related to cumulative hazard and 

dose–response assessment. The study 

panel will examine the strengths and 

limitations of a cumulative approach 

opposed to or in addition to an 

individual chemical approach for risk 

assessment of phthalates. EPA 

anticipates that the final product of this 

study panel will be a report discussing 

the issues identified by the panel, the 

ways in which any assessment may be 

approached, the strengths and 

limitations of any of the proposed 

approaches, and whether any additional 

research is needed. The project began in 

September 2007 and NAS is scheduled 

to submit a report in December 2008. 

In addition, EPA has developed five 

individual phthalate human health risk 

assessments (DEP, DMP, di(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, 

and butyl benzyl phthalate) that are 

currently available on the Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) 

database. The IRIS Summaries for these 

phthalates can be found at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=

iris.showSubstanceList. The IRIS 

Program has also undertaken 

reassessments for di(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, 

and butyl benzyl phthalate. The 

schedules for the reassessments of these 

phthalates are available on IRIS Track 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iristrac/ 

index.cfm). 

In sum, the NRDC report indicates 

that some phthalate esters are present in 

some air fresheners at generally low 

concentrations. This information is not 

surprising and does not provide a basis 

to suspect that the presence of the 

phthalate esters at the concentrations 

detected presents a significant public 

health risk. In addition, the NAS 

evaluation, which is expected to address 

phthalate esters more comprehensively, 

rather than in a very specific use such 

as air fresheners, will help inform any 

risk assessment or testing needs. 

3. BEUC and SCHER reports. The 

petition also relies on an opinion issued 

by SCHER in January 2006 about a 

report issued by the Bureau Europe ́en 

des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) 

in January 2005 that measured and 

assessed chemical emissions from 74 air 

fresheners sold in Europe (Refs. 4 and 

5). 

In order to understand these reports, 

some background information is 

necessary. BEUC is a European 

association of national consumer 

organizations. In November 2004, BEUC 

announced that a study it had 

commissioned had found that air 

fresheners emitted toxic air pollutants 

(Ref. 17). According to the report, the 

study tested 74 ‘‘products belonging to 

different categories (incense, natural 

products, scented candles, aerosols, 

liquid diffusers, electric diffusers and 

gels),’’ ‘‘simulate[ed] common use of 

such products by consumers,’’ and 

measured, ‘‘for each product, the 

concentration of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes in 

the air after the use’’ (Ref. 5). The BEUC 

report focused on emissions of ‘‘total 

VOCs’’ and several individual VOCs: 

Allergens, benzene, formaldehyde, 

terpenes, styrene, DEP, and toluene. The 

BEUC report found that the 74 products 

studied emitted over 350 different 

chemicals. 

A company that produces air 

fresheners filed a lawsuit in Belgium to 

compel BEUC to withdraw public 

statements indicating ‘‘that normal 

usage of the fragrances generates serious 

health risks, and that these fragrances 

are not subjected to regulations in terms 

of product safety standards’’ (Ref. 28). In 

March 2005, the court found that the 

BEUC study did not support statements 

that air fresheners were ‘‘dangerous to 

people’s health.’’ The court ordered 

BEUC to withdraw statements that 

‘‘might or could create the impression 

that fragrances are unsafe with normal 

usage’’ and issue a statement that its 

‘‘repeated public communications on 

the subject of air freshener safety’’ were 

‘‘not appropriate as the currently known 

results from [the BEUC study] on which 

[BEUC] based [its] statements in effect 

do not justify the conclusion that air 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
72890 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

fresheners are diffusing substances ... in 

concentrations that present a hazard to 

public health’’ and ‘‘may unjustly have 

generated the unwarranted impression 

that the air fresheners on sale in the 

Netherlands can result in health risk 

under normal usage.’’

SCHER was subsequently asked to 

consider whether the specific chemical 

emissions from air fresheners reported 

in the BEUC study represented a health 

risk to consumers and what further 

studies might be necessary to 

adequately assess the potential health 

risks from air fresheners. SCHER issued 

its assessment in January 2006 (Ref. 4). 

SCHER noted that ‘‘Neither the 

composition of the tested products, nor 

the rationale for the selection of the 

individual substances studied are given 

in the BEUC report;’’ that ‘‘[t]he 

individual compounds in the reported 

results are, in most cases, well studied;’’

and that ‘‘[t]he results in the BEUC 

study may ... be regarded as realistic 

worst case values.’’ SCHER noted that, 

with the exception of benzene emissions 

resulting from the burning of certain 

incense products, the air concentrations 

of the substances assessed in the BEUC 

report were below known limit values 

for adverse health effects and/or were 

within the range of typical indoor air 

concentrations. 

SCHER reached the general 

conclusion that current scientific 

knowledge on ‘‘the use of air fresheners, 

emissions and resulting concentrations 

in indoor air’’ was ‘‘limited’’ and that 

‘‘the [exposure] data on air fresheners 

available to the SCHER are insufficient 

for an overall risk evaluation for 

consumers.’’ SCHER concluded that 

‘‘[m]ore data, on e.g. the use pattern of 

these products, are required to allow 

assessment of the actual exposure of the 

residents’’ and that, in particular, ‘‘the 

frequency of the used air freshener, the 

duration of exposure and the frequency 

of peak levels needs to be considered.’’

EPA conducted a literature review of 

sources of information relevant to 

human exposure to air freshener 

products (i.e., formulation, emission 

measurement, air monitoring, and 

modeling information) (Ref. 21). This 

review identified additional studies not 

reviewed in the BEUC and SCHER 

reports. Some of the same analytes 

reported in the BEUC report (e.g., 

terpenes and formaldehyde) were 

detected in these studies, usually at 

lower maximum concentrations than 

those reflected in the BEUC report. 

EPA then reviewed the BEUC and 

SCHER reports in light of the 

information gathered during the 

literature review (Ref. 18). EPA 

concluded, as did the SCHER report, 

that there were deficiencies related to 

the quality of the data in the BEUC 

report. EPA concluded that the 

information and findings in the BEUC 

report did not appear to satisfy EPA’s 

Information Quality Guidelines (Ref. 

19). EPA also concluded that 

uncertainty about how representative 

the BEUC results are for the U.S. air 

freshener market is a key limitation in 

their usefulness for estimating potential 

U.S. consumer exposures. 

The petitioners point out that BEUC 

found that ‘‘for most products tested the 

emitted total VOC values exceeded 200 

microgram/milligram cubed (μg/m3), the 

proposed maximum limit value in 

indoor air in several countries...’’ While 

total VOC does measure the presence of 

VOCs indoors, there is no validated 

evidence to indicate that this measure is 

a predictor of indoor air quality 

concerns or potential health effects. 

Total VOC does not indicate the impact 

of other pollutants present or building 

factors that may also impact indoor air 

quality and health. In addition, there is 

no standardized procedure for 

measuring total VOCs and, therefore, no 

ability to compare between reported 

measurements. Although under certain 

conditions total VOC measurements 

may be useful as a screening tool, EPA 

does not believe total VOC 

measurements should be used as an 

indicator of indoor air quality or health 

concerns. 

4. Epidemiological studies and other 

information. In addition to the three 

sources listed in Unit II.D., the 

petitioners submitted to EPA 

epidemiological studies as additional 

support (Refs. 22 and 23). Reference 23 

was submitted as part of the petition. 

Reference 22 was submitted after the 

petition and, consequently, is not 

considered by EPA to be part of the 

petition. However, EPA reviewed both 

studies. The studies attempted to 

determine whether there was an 

association between asthma and either 

the use of common household cleaners 

or chemical hypersensitivity. EPA’s 

review concluded that both studies, 

neither of which was specifically 

designed to evaluate possible health 

effects related to exposure to air 

fresheners, contained numerous design 

limitations and could not be used to 

support an association between asthma 

and the use of air fresheners (Ref. 20). 

Petitioners also present certain 

arguments about the risks and benefits 

of air fresheners. Petitioners assert that 

‘‘air fresheners provide no public health 

value’’ (Ref. 1). Petitioners further assert 

that air fresheners may mask the 

presence of mold and other health 

threats (Ref 1). Petitioners have 

provided no basis for EPA to evaluate 

these assertions, although EPA agrees 

that, in general, air fresheners are not a 

solution for indoor air quality issues. In 

addition, public health value is not the 

only type of benefit cognizable under 

TSCA. As petitioners recognize, air 

fresheners are purchased in large 

quantities, and, as noted in comments 

submitted by industry, 70% of homes in 

the United States use air fresheners (Ref. 

7); which together suggest that 

consumers place significant value on 

them. With regard to petitioners’ second 

assertion, EPA sees no connection 

between the actions requested and any 

risk that might be presented by the 

masking of mold or similar conditions. 

5. Conclusion. The information 

provided by petitioners does not 

support the conclusion that air 

fresheners present a significant health 

risk, or a health risk that is a priority in 

relation to risks potentially posed by 

other chemicals or products. In addition 

to the limitations discussed in Unit 

II.D., it is clear that the information 

supplied by petitioners is only a sample 

of the information available on health 

risks potentially associated with air 

fresheners. Based on comments received 

during the comment period and 

independent inquiry by EPA (see Unit 

III.C.1.), there are a number of 

additional publicly available studies 

and analyses of the potential health 

effects from air fresheners and air 

freshener ingredients. Industry 

commenters assert that some of these 

studies demonstrate that air fresheners 

in general do not present a significant 

risk (Refs. 24 and 25). EPA expresses no 

view on this industry characterization, 

but EPA cannot judge whether air 

fresheners generally, or any particular 

air fresheners, present an unreasonable 

risk, or a significant risk at all, without 

further review of available information. 

E. Other Considerations 

EPA has a number of high priority 

chemical assessment and risk 

management projects and actions 

already underway that are requiring a 

substantial amount of OPPT resources. 

EPA views many of these projects as 

being more broadly applicable, and as 

having greater potential to result in the 

understanding and reduction of possible 

chemical risks, than the actions 

suggested by the petitioners. These 

projects include, for example, the 

following: 

In August 2007, the President 

committed the United States to join 

Canada and Mexico in a collaborative 

effort under the Security and Prosperity 

Partnership (SPP) to rapidly and 

efficiently improve chemical security 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 72891 

and safety throughout North America. 

The U.S. contribution to this 

partnership is, by 2012, to assess and 

initiate needed actions on the 

approximately 9,000 chemicals 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States in volumes greater than 

25,000 pounds. These include 3,000 

‘‘high-production-volume’’ (HPV) 

chemicals (produced or imported at 1 

million lbs/year annually) and 6,000 

‘‘medium-production-volume’’ MPV 

chemicals (produced or imported 

between 25,000 and 1 million lbs/year). 

EPA expects that many of the 

ingredients of air fresheners will be 

encompassed within these groups of 

chemicals. The North American 

collaboration also provides for the 

sharing of scientific information and 

technical understanding, best practices, 

and research on new approaches to 

chemical testing and assessment. The 

scope and pace of this commitment 

represents a significant commitment of 

Agency resources over the period of the 

next 5 years. Additional information on 

this commitment can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/chemrtk/index.htm. 

Another, chemical-specific, project 

involves conducting and integrating 

new studies into the ongoing risk 

assessment on perfluorooctanoic acid 

(PFOA) and managing the related 2010/ 

15 PFOA Stewardship Program, in 

which companies have committed to 

reduce emissions and product content 

of PFOA and other perfluorinated 

compounds, many of which have been 

found in the blood of the general U.S. 

population. Additional information on 

this project can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppt/pfoa/index.htm. 

In addition, EPA has several efforts 

underway under the Design for the 

Environment (DfE) Program. DfE works 

in partnership with a broad range of 

stakeholders to reduce risk to people 

and the environment by preventing 

pollution. One example of special 

relevance to fragrances and air 

fresheners is DfE’s work with 

formulators of chemical products to 

identify safer chemical alternatives for 

ingredients of concern and to recognize 

those formulators who develop safer 

chemical products through green 

chemistry. Cleaning products can 

contain a wide variety of ingredients 

including surfactants, solvents, builders, 

and fragrances. Fragrances are key 

ingredients in some cleaning products. 

To enable and further environmental 

stewardship in the fragrance industry, 

and to help fragrance houses identify 

safer ingredients for the formulation of 

fragrances in cleaning products, DfE is 

working with stakeholders from the 

fragrance industry, formulators of 

cleaning products, environmental 

groups, and other Agency 

representatives. The goal of this 

stakeholder effort is to define safer 

fragrance materials for cleaning 

products, and provide fragrance houses 

and cleaning product formulators with a 

marketplace for those ingredients. 

Additional information on the DfE 

program in general and the formulators 

project in particular is available at: 

http://www.cleangredients.org. 

III. Disposition of Petition 

EPA has concluded that the petition 

does not set forth sufficient facts to 

support the petitioners’ assertion that it 

is necessary to initiate the requested 

rulemakings under TSCA sections 4, 6, 

or 8(d). Furthermore, EPA has 

concluded that a TSCA section 8(c) data 

call-in is not a petitionable matter under 

TSCA section 21. A detailed 

explanation of EPA’s determination 

follows. 

A. TSCA Section 8(c) Request 

The petitioners requested that EPA 

‘‘call-in allegations of adverse reactions 

recorded by manufacturers and 

processors [of air fresheners] pursuant 

to TSCA section 8(c) and 40 CFR part 

717 [EPA’s TSCA section 8(c) 

regulations].’’

Section 8(c) of TSCA provides that 

‘‘[a]ny person who manufactures, 

processes, or distributes in commerce 

any chemical substance or mixture shall 

maintain records of significant adverse 

reactions to health or the environment, 

as determined by the Administrator [of 

EPA] by rule, alleged to have been 

caused by the substance or mixture,’’

and that, ‘‘[u]pon request of any duly 

designated representative of the 

Administrator, each person who is 

required to maintain records under 

[TSCA section 8(c)] shall permit the 

inspection of such records and shall 

submit copies of such records.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2607(c). EPA issued regulations 

implementing TSCA section 8(c), 40 

CFR part 717, which were published in 

the Federal Register issue of August 22, 

1983 (48 FR 38187). These regulations 

provide that EPA may require that 

records of allegations of significant 

adverse reactions be reported either by 

letter or by notice in the Federal 

Register: ‘‘EPA will notify those 

responsible for reporting by letter or 

will announce any such requirements 

for submitting copies of records by a 

notice in the Federal Register.’’ 40 CFR 

717.17(b). 

The requested call-in is not a 

petitionable matter under TSCA section 

21. Among the actions potentially 

available under TSCA section 8, only 

rules are proper objects of a TSCA 

section 21 petition. Pursuant to TSCA 

section 8(c), and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 717.17, allegations 

of adverse reactions are not called in by 

rule. In contrast, other provisions of 

TSCA—including part of TSCA section 

8(c)—require or authorize the 

Administrator to act by rule. Section 21 

of TSCA allows any person to petition 

‘‘to initiate a proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under section 2603, 2605, or 2607.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2620(a). EPA interprets TSCA 

section 21 to apply only to the 

enumerated actions. EPA believes the 

Congress reasonably chose to extend 

TSCA section 21 only to the specific 

rules and orders identified under TSCA 

section 21. In general, rules are more 

broadly applicable and more significant 

regulatory actions than individual 

implementation actions, such as TSCA 

section 8(c) call-ins. While TSCA 

section 21 provides for petitions for 2 

types of orders, these rest on findings 

related to potential health or 

environmental risks, or production and 

release of, or exposure to, a chemical or 

mixture, and each requires potentially 

significant action by the recipient of the 

order. Congress chose not to extend 

TSCA section 21 to other kinds of 

agency implementation actions. 

B. Denial of TSCA Section 8(d) Request 

Petitioners requested that EPA 

promulgate a rule pursuant to TSCA 

section 8(d) to require submittal of 

heath and safety studies related to air 

fresheners, including lab results of 

ingredients and health effects from 

respiratory exposures. This request is 

denied. Petitioners have not set forth 

sufficient facts to establish that it is 

necessary to initiate the requested TSCA 

section 8(d) rulemaking. 

First, in order to grant petitioners’

request, air fresheners would have to be 

treated as a category of mixtures, rather 

than an individual chemical or 

particular mixture, and based on the 

limited analyses undertaken in 

responding to the petition, EPA does not 

believe that it would be appropriate at 

this time to treat the vast array of air 

freshener products as a category. The 

issues associated with addressing air 

fresheners as a category are further 

discussed in Unit III.C.1. Second, 

petitioners have not provided sufficient 

facts or information to support their 

assertion that air fresheners present an 

unreasonable, or even a significant, risk. 

Finally, even if petitioners had 

demonstrated that air fresheners present 

an unreasonable risk, they have not 

demonstrated that the requested TSCA 

section 8(d) rule would be necessary or 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
72892 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

an appropriate tool to protect human 

health against that risk. 

As described in Unit II.D., the 

information that the petitioners relied 

upon to support their request is not 

persuasive and is not adequate to 

support the assertion that air fresheners 

present a significant public health risk, 

much less an unreasonable risk. 

The cost of this TSCA section 8(d) 

rule would be substantial for both the 

industry and the Agency. Although such 

a rule would not require industry to 

perform new testing, the scope of 

studies covered by the requested rule 

would be very broad. It is not clear 

whether the ‘‘manufacturers and 

processors’’ that would to be subject to 

the rule petitioners request are intended 

to include manufacturers and processors 

of air freshener ingredients as well as 

products. Such a rule would potentially 

cover a very large group of entities, 

products, and ingredients. 

In addition, this rulemaking would 

require substantial Agency resources to 

develop, and significant Agency 

resources would also be required to 

analyze submitted studies on air 

fresheners. 

Petitioners request EPA to use a TSCA 

section 8(d) rule to obtain ingredient 

information. While information on air 

freshener ingredients could be a useful 

starting point for assessing whether air 

fresheners present any significant health 

risk, TSCA section 8(d) does not provide 

an efficient or effective way to obtain 

ingredient information because a TSCA 

section 8(d) rule would only obtain the 

ingredient information that was part of 

a health or safety study. Section 8(d) of 

TSCA is not designed for, and is not an 

efficient or effective means of obtaining 

general or comprehensive ingredient 

information on air fresheners. 

As a second general type of 

information, petitioners request EPA to 

use a TSCA section 8(d) rule to obtain 

information on ‘‘exposure of consumers 

to air fresheners,’’ ‘‘health effects of 

exposure to air fresheners,’’ and 

‘‘toxicity, persistence, and other 

characteristics of air fresheners that 

affect health and/or the environment.’’

EPA generally considers this type of 

information to be health and safety 

information, which could be obtained 

through a TSCA section 8(d) rule. 

However, air fresheners are mixtures of 

chemicals, not individual chemicals, 

and as such contain a large number and 

wide variety of different chemicals. As 

a result, the interpretation of individual 

air freshener study results could be very 

difficult. When assessing studies of 

mixtures it is frequently difficult to 

determine which chemical or 

combination of chemicals produced a 

given result or caused a given effect. 

Further, the likely compositional 

diversity of the tested air freshener 

formulations presents EPA with 

difficulties in assessing the significance 

of any such health and safety studies in 

relationship to the ingredients and 

concentrations that are commonly 

present in commercially available air 

fresheners. Moreover, since air freshener 

ingredients are likely to change over 

time, the value or significance of health 

and safety study information on 

particular air freshener formulations 

could be limited. 

EPA would want a better general 

understanding of air freshener 

ingredients before concluding that the 

broad rule requested by the petitioners 

is a necessary or efficient tool to address 

possible health effects associated with 

air fresheners. In addition, EPA 

currently does not view collection of 

TSCA section 8(d) information on air 

fresheners, or analysis of such 

information should EPA obtain it, as a 

high priority among the many chemical 

issues and activities that the Agency 

could potentially expend resources 

investigating, and the petitioners have 

not persuaded EPA otherwise. 

Accordingly, EPA concludes that the 

petitioners have not set forth sufficient 

facts to support their assertion (and 

information available to EPA does not 

otherwise indicate) that it is necessary 

or appropriate to issue the requested 

TSCA section 8(d) rule. 

C. Denial of TSCA Section 4 Request 

Petitioners requested that EPA 

promulgate a rule under TSCA section 

4 to require ‘‘acute and chronic studies 

that use appropriate exposure routes 

and that capture a diversity of life stages 

and health conditions, such as asthma, 

for large populations of mammals 

evaluating the impact of air fresheners 

on human health. These tests must 

consider the byproducts of a reaction of 

the air fresheners with ozone and 

analyze both exposure and 

sensitization’’ (Ref. 1). This request is 

denied. Petitioners have not set forth 

sufficient facts to support their assertion 

that it is necessary to issue a TSCA 

section 4 rule, as required by TSCA 

section 21(b)(1). 

In addition to the request for a TSCA 

section 4 testing rule with respect to 

‘‘air fresheners’’ as described in the 

petition, petitioners also presented 

additional requests, orally and in 

written comments. EPA does not 

consider these additional requests part 

of the TSCA section 21 petition, but 

nonetheless does address the 

petitioners’ suggested alternative 

approaches in this unit. 

1. TSCA section 4 request set forth in 

petition. Petitioners have not set forth 

sufficient facts to support their assertion 

that it is necessary to issue a TSCA 

section 4 rule for air fresheners. 

As a threshold matter, petitioners’

request as articulated in the petition 

would entail treatment of ‘‘air 

fresheners’’ as a category of chemical 

substances or mixtures (almost certainly 

mixtures, since it is unlikely that any air 

freshener is composed of a single 

chemical substance). Petitioners present 

both their request and their support for 

the request in terms of ‘‘air fresheners.’’

For example, the petition states, ‘‘air 

fresheners may pose a risk to public 

health’’ and defines air fresheners 

broadly to include a ‘‘broad range of 

product types,’’ from sprays to ‘‘plugins’’ to potpourri. Thus, treatment of air 

fresheners as a category would be 

necessary to grant petitioners’ request as 

articulated in the petition. 

EPA has broad discretion to 

determine whether to regulate by 

category under TSCA section 26(c). 

Beyond the language of TSCA section 

26(c), this discretion is evidenced by the 

fact that TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) 

provides an opportunity for a de novo 

hearing with respect to petitions for 

testing of chemical substances, but not 

for categories of chemicals or mixtures. 

As with mixtures, Congress left the 

complex issues associated with 

regulation by category to the 

Administrator’s discretion. Congress 

intended this authority to ‘‘facilitate the 

efficient and effective administration’’

of TSCA. Senate Report No. 94–698 at 

p. 31. 

While a broad category might be 

appropriate under certain 

circumstances, based on the limited 

analyses undertaken by EPA in 

responding to the petition, EPA does not 

believe that treating air fresheners as a 

category for the purposes of a TSCA 

section 4 testing rule would be 

appropriate, efficient, or effective at this 

time given the large number and wide 

variety of air fresheners. There is a vast 

array of mixtures and physical forms 

within the meaning of air fresheners 

that the petitioners provide. The 

category is so broad and varied that 

similar treatment for each member of 

the category (i.e., testing of each 

member) would not be practical, 

efficient or effective. In addition, EPA is 

not able at this time, nor would it be 

able in the reasonably foreseeable 

future, to identify a standard or 

standards for development of certain 

test data, as required by TSCA section 

4(b)(1), that would be appropriate to the 

category as a whole. Specifically, EPA is 

currently not aware of any standard test 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 72893 

method for testing respiratory 

sensitization in animals. Given limited 

information and the lack of applicable 

standards, a testing rule for the category 

air fresheners would take years and a 

very large expenditure of resources for 

EPA to develop, promulgate and 

implement. In addition, a requirement 

to conduct the wide array of testing 

requested by petitioners would be costly 

for industry. The implementation of 

such a requirement would entail 

multiple methods to test a wide variety 

of products for each of the identified 

endpoints. Moreover, even if EPA could 

identify or devise appropriate test 

standards for respiratory sensitization, it 

is not at all certain that testing of air 

fresheners for this effect or other acute 

and chronic effects would provide 

useful data relevant to determining 

whether air fresheners as a class, or any 

particular chemical substances or 

mixtures, present an unreasonable risk. 

As described in Unit III.B., the 

interpretation of air freshener study 

results would be problematic. 

Even if category treatment were 

appropriate, petitioners have not set 

forth sufficient facts and information to 

support the TSCA section 4 findings for 

air fresheners. 

First, petitioners have not set forth 

facts sufficient to support the required 

finding for mixtures under TSCA 

section 4(a)(2): That the effects of air 

fresheners would not be ‘‘reasonably 

and more efficiently determined or 

predicted by testing the chemical 

substances which comprise the 

mixture.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2). EPA has 

broad discretion to make this finding, 

and EPA does not, at this time, believe 

this finding is warranted. (TSCA section 

21(b)(4)(B)(i) provides an opportunity 

for a de novo hearing with respect to 

petitions for testing of individual 

chemical substances, but not for 

mixtures.) On the contrary, based on the 

limited analyses undertaken by EPA in 

responding to the petition, identifying 

individual substances used in air 

fresheners and proceeding with 

additional requirements only where 

appropriate with respect to particular 

substances would be the more 

reasonable and efficient approach and 

would allow the Agency to target both 

public and private resources towards 

developing useful data. Given more 

complete information on the chemical 

substances, EPA might conclude that 

testing of some air freshener mixtures or 

ingredients would be appropriate, but 

petitioners provide no basis to support 

this finding for the category of air 

fresheners as a whole. 

Petitioners assert that the testing of 

individual chemical substances alone 

could lead to gaps in data about 

synergistic effects or byproducts of air 

fresheners with ozone. While this is 

possible, petitioners have not provided 

any information to support the assertion 

nor at present does EPA have any basis 

to evaluate the assertion. 

In addition, petitioners have not set 

forth sufficient facts to support the other 

required TSCA section 4 findings as 

described in Unit II.B.2. For example, 

petitioners have not set forth sufficient 

facts for EPA to find that information 

available to the Administrator is 

insufficient to permit a reasoned 

evaluation of the health and 

environmental effects of air fresheners, 

or that testing of the air fresheners is 

necessary to develop missing data. 15 

U.S.C. 2603. Petitioners have cited some 

information in an attempt to make these 

showings. For example, they point out 

that the EPA HPV Information System 

contains no repeat dose toxicity studies 

for respiratory exposure for the common 

fragrances reported in the BEUC study, 

and that more than 25 material safety 

data sheets (MSDSs) on air fresheners 

reviewed by the petitioners indicated no 

data are available for respiratory tract 

sensitization. This information could be 

suggestive of an insufficiency of data, 

but EPA cannot judge whether existing 

data or experience are insufficient to 

determine or predict the health effects 

of air fresheners and, even so, whether 

new testing would be necessary to 

develop such data without review of the 

additional available information. EPA’s 

literature search indicates the existence 

of many published health and safety 

studies pertaining to the potential 

health effects of air fresheners or their 

ingredients (Ref. 24). Further, comments 

received on the petition indicate a large 

body of information created and 

maintained by the fragrance industry of 

which many are reported to be 

published in peer-reviewed scientific 

literature (Ref. 25). 

In light of the large body of additional 

available information which was not 

considered by petitioners, the petition 

does not support petitioners’ claims 

regarding the insufficiency of existing 

data or that testing is necessary. 

For these reasons, the petitioners have 

not demonstrated that it is necessary or 

appropriate to issue the requested TSCA 

section 4 rule. 

2. Additional TSCA section 4 request 

articulated at meeting. EPA met with 

petitioners at their request on October 

24, 2007, to discuss this petition. At that 

time, petitioners indicated that they 

intended their TSCA section 4 request 

to be for the testing of individual 

chemical substances used in air 

fresheners, not the air fresheners 

themselves (Ref. 26). A request to 

promulgate a TSCA section 4 rule with 

respect to either a category of chemical 

substances or individual chemical 

substances is significantly different from 

the request as articulated in the petition. 

Given the petitioners’ obligation to 

articulate requests and set forth facts in 

their petition, EPA does not view this 

request as part of the petition. 

Nonetheless, EPA will address the 

alternative approaches identified by 

petitioners. 

First, EPA does not believe the 

designation of ‘‘chemical substances 

used in air fresheners’’ as a category of 

chemical substances for the purpose of 

the requested TSCA section 4 testing 

rule is appropriate, for reasons similar 

to those discussed in Unit III.C.1. This 

category is extremely large, undefined 

and indiscriminate. It appears that 

petitioners are requesting that EPA 

require testing for all of the chemical 

substances in all air fresheners (Ref. 27, 

p. 1). This would be a massive testing 

rule—significantly larger than any EPA 

has ever promulgated before. In addition 

to the sheer scope of the requested rule, 

similar treatment for each member of 

the category would not be practical, 

efficient or effective. The chemical 

substances in air fresheners have not 

been completely identified, and EPA 

has no reason to believe that by virtue 

of their use in air fresheners, these 

substances would be appropriate for 

treatment as a category for the purposes 

of a TSCA section 4 rule. In addition, 

petitioners have failed to set forth facts 

sufficient to support the TSCA section 

4 findings as described in Unit II.B.3. 

with respect to the category of 

‘‘chemical substances used in air 

fresheners.’’ The petitioners have not 

shown that the TSCA section 4 findings 

can be made for any chemical substance 

used in air fresheners. In addition, the 

category is likely to include chemicals 

that are benign, and/or are not produced 

in substantial quantities, and/or that 

have been extensively studied. 

Therefore, EPA does not believe that the 

requested testing of all chemical 

substances used in air fresheners should 

be applied. 

To the extent petitioners seek testing 

on only some of the chemical 

substances used in air fresheners, 

petitioners have not specified for which 

ingredients testing should be required 

nor have they provided information that 

would enable EPA to make the TSCA 

section 4 findings with respect to any 

individual chemical substances. 

Petitioners have identified a few 

chemical substances used in air 

fresheners, but they have not set forth 

facts with respect to any individual 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
72894 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

substances to support the TSCA section 

4 findings. For example, petitioners 

identify phthalate esters as a category of 

chemicals they are concerned about, but 

they have not shown that phthalate 

esters as a category, or any particular 

phthalate ester, meet the findings under 

TSCA section 4(a)(1). In addition, with 

respect to phthalate esters, the NAS 

evaluation regarding phthalate esters 

will help inform consideration of the 

sufficiency of the existing data and the 

need for any testing. 

3. Additional TSCA section 4 request 

made in comments. Through written 

comments on the petition dated 

November 5, 2007, petitioners presented 

an additional request for a rule requiring 

that ‘‘[each of the] manufacturers [of air 

fresheners] specifically test at least one 

formulation for each category of air 

freshener that it sells’’ (Ref. 27). EPA 

again considers this additional request 

to be different from the request in the 

petition, and not part of the petition, but 

will address the alternative approach 

identified by petitioners. 

In order to require testing under 

TSCA section 4 on a particular mixture, 

the TSCA section 4 findings must be 

met with respect to the mixture to be 

tested. Petitioners’ request is essentially 

for a rule requiring testing on individual 

mixtures, which they have identified as 

‘‘formulations.’’ While petitioners’

comments imply that any ‘‘formulation’’

might be a candidate for testing, they do 

not identify any particular mixture, nor 

have they provided a rationale for 

selecting which air fresheners should be 

tested. 

The petitioners have not set forth facts 

sufficient to support their assertion that 

a TSCA section 4 testing rule is 

necessary with respect to any particular 

mixture. It is possible that some air 

freshener ‘‘formulations’’ may meet the 

standards for testing as described in 

Unit II.B.2., but the petitioners have not 

identified such a mixture or provided 

any information toward these findings. 

For example, the petitioners have not 

set forth sufficient facts to make the 

necessary finding under TSCA section 

4(a)(2) with respect to any mixture. As 

described in Unit II.B.3., EPA would 

have to find that the effects of the 

mixture ‘‘may not be reasonably and 

more efficiently determined or 

predicted by testing the chemical 

substances which comprise the 

mixture.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2). Here, as 

described in Unit III.C.1., EPA currently 

believes that identifying individual 

substances used in air fresheners and 

proceeding with additional 

requirements only where appropriate 

with respect to particular substances, 

would be the more reasonable and 

efficient approach. By way of further 

example, petitioners have also not set 

forth sufficient facts to show an 

insufficiency of data or necessity of 

testing for any particular formulations. 

Rather, ‘‘air fresheners’’ by the 

petitioners’ own definition encompass a 

‘‘broad range of product types’’ and 

varying formulations. 

To the extent the petitioners assert 

that testing of some subset of air 

fresheners could be required as a 

category of mixtures, this approach 

presents the same problems identified 

in Unit III.C.1. While the category 

described in the petitioners’ comment is 

not quite as sweeping as the request in 

their petition, it is still a very expansive 

and ill-defined category of mixtures, 

and more information and analysis 

would be needed to determine if such 

an approach even merits further 

consideration. 

D. Denial of Request to Issue TSCA 

Section 6 Labeling Rule 

The petitioners requested that EPA 

issue a rule under TSCA section 6(a)(3) 

requiring air fresheners to be labeled to 

identify all ingredients. This request is 

denied. Petitioners have not set forth 

sufficient facts to establish that it is 

necessary to initiate the requested TSCA 

section 6(a) rulemaking. 

In support of their request, the 

petitioners assert that manufacturers 

and importers are already aware of the 

ingredients in their products, that their 

products are unnecessary, and that 

requiring the requested labeling would 

therefore impose an insignificant cost. 

The petitioners also assert that many of 

the chemicals present in air fresheners 

are toxic. However the petition does not 

provide a reasonable basis to conclude 

that air fresheners, or the chemicals 

used in air fresheners, present or will 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. In addition 

to the limitations of the three reports 

petitioners principally rely on, the 

petition does not provide a basis upon 

which to estimate the cost of the 

requested rulemaking. Furthermore, the 

petition does not provide a basis for 

finding that the action requested by 

petitioners would be necessary to 

protect adequately against any 

unreasonable risk, or that it is the least 

burdensome requirement that would 

adequately protect against such risk. 

As a threshold issue, as with their 

other requests, the petitioners do not 

demonstrate that any particular air 

freshener or air freshener ingredient 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk. The petitioners do briefly discuss 

some specific risk issues, but their 

statements are not sufficient to support 

any risk conclusions about any 

particular products or ingredients. For 

example, they cite the conclusions of 

the SCHER report that burning of some 

incense products available in Europe 

generated high benzene concentrations 

and that such ‘‘benzene emissions need 

attention to diminish the exposure’’

(Ref. 4). EPA does not believe this 

information is relevant, because the 

definition of air freshener provided by 

the petitioners does not appear to 

include incense. The definition in the 

petition does not include any products 

involving combustion—a process that 

raises issues significantly different from 

those raised by non-combustion 

products. In addition, combustion—

whether of incense, candles, or anything 

else—creates chemicals that are not 

present in the original article, and it 

does not appear to EPA that the listing 

of ingredients in the article would be an 

effective means of protecting against any 

risk that might result from combustion 

of the ingredients. 

Because the petitioners have not set 

forth sufficient facts with respect to any 

particular air freshener mixture or 

ingredient, EPA would have to treat air 

fresheners as a category of mixtures in 

order to grant the petitioners’ request 

under TSCA section 6(a). This would 

result in a rule requiring labeling for a 

very broad product type, despite the fact 

that the petitioners have not shown that 

any specific air freshener, or air 

fresheners generally, present or will 

present an unreasonable risk. As 

described in Unit II.D., the information 

that the petitioners relied upon to 

support their request do not provide 

sufficient facts to support the assertion 

that air fresheners present or will 

present a significant risk, much less an 

unreasonable risk to human health or 

the environment. In addition, while not 

part of the petition, EPA also considered 

information provided by the petitioners 

and others during the public comment 

period. This information also did not 

provide a reasonable basis to conclude 

that air fresheners, or the chemicals in 

air fresheners, present or will present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment. 

In addition to the limitations of the 

risk information provided by 

petitioners, petitioners did not provide 

adequate information to address the 

other components of the unreasonable 

risk standard. These relate not merely to 

the effects of the mixture (i.e., air 

freshener), or the chemicals comprising 

the mixture, but also to the benefits of 

the substance(s) for various uses and the 

availability of substitutes for such uses 

and to the reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the control 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 72895 

mechanisms proposed to control the 

risk. 

These considerations are integral to 

the determination that there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that a 

substance presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk, and the petitioners 

have not presented sufficient facts to 

address them. The petitioners asserted 

that the costs of their requested controls 

would be small and that the benefits of 

their controls would reduce risk, but 

provided no data or other information to 

substantiate either their estimates of 

cost or of the efficacy of their proposed 

control action. With respect to cost, 

contrary to petitioners’ assertion, it 

seems likely to EPA that the cost of a 

rule requiring the listing of every 

ingredient of every air freshener would 

be substantial. The cost to the Agency 

of promulgating such a rule would also 

be very large. EPA would need to 

develop sufficient information to 

provide a reasonable basis to conclude 

that air fresheners as a category present 

or will present an unreasonable risk (it 

would need a record significantly more 

extensive than the information supplied 

by petitioner), and that product labeling 

is the least burdensome requirement 

that would adequately address that risk. 

The petitioners made no attempt to 

address this last requirement. 

With regard to the benefits of air 

fresheners, even assuming air fresheners 

provide no public health value, this is 

not the only kind of benefit cognizable 

under TSCA. As petitioners recognize, 

air fresheners are purchased in large 

quantities, which suggests that 

consumers place significant value on 

them. 

In sum, the petitioners have not set 

forth sufficient facts to establish that the 

requested rulemaking under TSCA 

section 6 is necessary, and EPA has 

denied the request. 

IV. Comments Received 

EPA published a notice in the Federal 

Register issue October 23, 2007 (72 FR 

60016) (FRL–8154–5) announcing 

receipt of the petition and inviting 

public comment on or before November 

7, 2007. EPA received 28 timely 

comments, 4 of which were from the 

petitioners. One of the comments was 

received the day after the comment 

deadline due to a delivery problem on 

the part of the courier. EPA decided to 

consider this comment with the others. 

Eleven comments were from 

individuals who supported the petition. 

Several were allergy or asthma sufferers 

who felt that air fresheners aggravate 

their health problems. Several indicated 

a belief that manufacturers are not 

adequately testing their products and 

were especially concerned about 

children and air freshener misuse. 

Five comments were from health, 

environmental, or animal welfare nonprofit organizations (Toxics Information 

Project, Environmental Health Coalition 

of Western Massachusetts, People for 

the Ethical Treatment of Animals 

(PETA), Ecological Health Organization 

(ECHO), and the American Lung 

Association of New England). Four of 

the five supported the petition, while 

the fifth, PETA, supported portions of 

the petition in principle, while 

opposing the portion calling for testing 

on large numbers of animals. PETA 

criticized some of the information that 

the petitioners cited in support of their 

petition, and argued that additional 

animal testing is not necessary and 

would not provide useful information 

on the effects of air fresheners on 

human health. 

Eight comments were received from 

air freshener manufacturing companies 

named in the petition and from trade 

organizations representing 

manufacturers of fragrance and 

fragrance-related products. (Reckitt 

Benckiser, Soap and Detergent 

Association, Grocery Manufacturers/ 

Food Products Association, Fragrance 

Materials Association of the United 

States, Consumer Specialty Products 

Association, Dial Corporation, American 

Chemistry Council Phthalate Esters 

Panel, and Blythe, Inc.). All of these 

companies and organizations opposed 

EPA granting any part of the petition. 

The American Chemistry Council 

Phthalate Esters Panel and the Fragrance 

Materials Association of the United 

States (FMA) comments focused on the 

safety of several phthalate esters and the 

remainder of the commenters focused 

on air fresheners and fragrances 

generally. 

The Consumer Specialty Products 

Association (CSPA) comments are 

representative of the industry 

comments, and almost all of the other 

industry commenters specifically 

endorsed CSPA’s comment submission. 

The CSPA comment argued that the 

petition should be denied because: 

1. There is inadequate evidence that 

air fresheners cause significant adverse 

reactions. 

2. Sufficient air freshener safety data 

are already available to EPA. 

3. The fragrance industry is already 

engaged in safety testing. 

4. Labeling requirements are 

unjustified and duplicative of FHSA. 

CSPA’s comments asserted that the 

fragrance industry is adequately selfregulating through an industry research 

and testing organization, Research 

Institute for Fragrance Materials, and an 

industry standards-setting organization, 

International Fragrance Association. 

The comment included documents 

explaining the role of these 

organizations in the evaluation of 

ingredient safety by the fragrance 

industry. CSPA comments (and those 

from the two companies) explained the 

product stewardship programs used by 

Reckitt Benckiser and SC Johnson. 

CSPA’s comments included their 

disagreements with and criticisms of the 

studies and data that petitioners used to 

support their position, and supplied 

additional studies that CSPA argued 

demonstrate the safety of fragrances 

and/or air fresheners. 

The petitioners submitted four more 

comments, including two 

epidemiological studies: One on 

household cleaning sprays and adult 

asthma and one on prenatal phthalate 

ester exposure. Petitioners also 

submitted a press release about a 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) study 

concluding that exposure to 1,4- 

dichlorobenzene, a VOC, used in 

household cleaning products, may cause 

reductions in lung function. Finally, 

petitioners submitted a comment 

clarifying two terms used in their 

petition, and further defining the type 

and scale of testing they are petitioning 

for under TSCA section 4. Given the 

petitioners’ obligation to clearly 

articulate requests and set forth facts in 

their original petition and the short span 

of time within which EPA must respond 

to the petition as written, EPA does not 

view the clarifications and scope 

modifications subsequently submitted 

in petitioner’s comments as components 

of the petition. Nevertheless, EPA has 

considered and addressed petitioners’

comments, as detailed in Unit III. 

V. References 

1. Sierra Club, Alliance for Healthy 

Homes, National Center for Healthy 

Housing and Natural Resources Defense 

Council. Letter from Ed Hopkins, Sierra 

Club; Robert Zdnek, Alliance for 

Healthy Homes; Rebecca Morley, 

National Center for Healthy Housing; 

and Mae C Wu, Natural Resources 

Defense Council to Stephen Johnson, 

Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency and Commissioner 

Thomas Moore, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. Re: Citizen Petition 

to EPA and CPSC Regarding Air 

Fresheners. September 19, 2007. 

2. CPSC. Letter from Lowell F. Martin, 

Acting General Counsel, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, to Mr. Ed 

Hopkins, Director, Environmental 

Quality Program, Sierra Club; Ms. 

Rebecca Morley, National Center for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3
72896 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices 

Health Housing; Mr. Robert Zdenek, 

Alliance for Healthy Homes, and Mae C. 

Wu, Natural Resources Defense Council. 

November 23, 2007. 

3. Lai, M.W.; Klein-Schwartz, W.; 

Rodgers, G. C.; Abrams, J. Y.; Haber, D. 

A.; Bronstein, A. C.; and Wruk, K. M. 

2006. 2005 Annual Report of the 

American Association of Poison Control 

Centers’ National Poisoning and 

Exposure Database. Clinical Toxicology. 

44:803–932. 

4. European Commission, Scientific 

Committee on Health and 

Environmental Risks (SCHER). Opinion 

on the Report: ‘‘Emission of chemicals 

by air fresheners: Tests on 74 consumer 

products sold in Europe’’ (BEUC report 

January 2005). January 27, 2006. 

5. Bureau Europe ́en des Unions de 

Consommateurs (BEUC). The European 

Consumers’ Organization. Emission of 

chemicals by air fresheners: Tests on 74 

consumer products sold in Europe. 54 

pp. January 2005. 

6. Cohen, A. Janssen, S. and Solomon, 

G. ‘‘Clearing the Air: Hidden Hazards of 

Air Fresheners.’’ Natural Resources 

Defense Council. September 2007. 

7. Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. Letter from 

Eileen J. Moyer, Director of Regulatory 

Relations, to Document Control Office, 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (OPPT), EPA. Docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–1016–0018.1. 

November 6, 2007. 

8. EPA. Memorandum from Dirk F. 

Young, Environmental Engineer, 

Exposure Assessment Branch, 

Economics, Exposure, and Technology 

Division, to Robert Jones, Biologist, 

Chemical Information and Testing 

Branch, Chemical Control Division. 

Subject: Review of 2005 AAPCC on Air 

Fresheners. November 18, 2007. 

9. EPA. E-mail communication from 

Tala Henry, Toxicologist, Risk 

Assessment Division, to Andrea PfahlesHutchens, Epidemiologist, Risk 

Assessment Division with E-mail 

communication response from Andrea 

Pfahles-Hutchens to Tala Henry. Re: 

Poison control reports. November 5 and 

6, 2007. 

10. CDC, HHS. Third National Report 

on Human Exposure to Environmental 

Chemicals. National Center for 

Environmental Health, NCEH Pub. No. 

05–0570. July 2005. Available on-line at: 

http:// www.jhsph.edu/ephtcenter/ 

Third%20Report.pdf. 

11. State of California. Proposition 65 

List of Chemicals. September 27, 2007. 

Available on-line at: http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html. 

12. SCCNFP. The Scientific 

Committee on Cosmetic Products and 

Non-Food Products Intended for 

Consumers. Opinion Concerning 

Diethyl Phthalate. December 9, 2003. 

13. SCCNFP. The Scientific 

Committee on Cosmetic Products and 

Non-Food Products Intended for 

Consumers. Opinion Concerning 

Diethyl Phthalate. June 4, 2002. 

14. Greenpeace. Perfume: An 

Investigation of Chemicals in 36 Eaux 

de Toilette and Eaux de Parfum. 

Greenpeace International. 16 pp. 

February 2005. 

15. SCCP. Scientific Committee on 

Consumer Products. Opinion on 

Phthalates in Cosmetic Products. March 

21, 2007. 

16. NAS. The National Academies. 

Project Information: Health Risks of 

Phthalates. 2007 Available online at: 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/ 

projectview.aspx?key=48860. 

17. Europe Information Service. 

Product Safety: BEUC Report Claims Air 

Fresheners are ‘‘Risk to Health.’’ Europe 

Environment. February 18, 2005. 

18. EPA. Memorandum from Conrad 

Flessner, Jr., Biologist, Exposure 

Assessment Branch, Economics, 

Exposure, and Technology Division, to 

Robert Jones, Biologist, Chemical 

Information and Testing Branch, 

Chemical Control Division. Re: 

Exposure Information Review of the 

Scientific Committee on Health and 

Environmental Risks (SCHER) Report on 

Air Fresheners (December 13, 2007). 

19. A Summary of General 

Assessment Factors for Evaluating the 

Quality of Scientific and Technical 

Information, U.S. EPA, EPA 100/B–03/ 

001 (June 2003). 

20. EPA. Memorandum from Andrea 

Pfahles-Hutchens, Epidemiologist, 

Existing Chemicals Assessment Branch, 

Risk Assessment Division, to Robert 

Jones, Project Manager, Chemical 

Information and Testing Branch, 

Chemical Control Division. Subject: 

Review of Epidemiology Studies for 

TSCA Section 21 Petition. November 27, 

2007. 

21. EPA. Screening Review of 

Literature for Air Freshener Exposure 

Information. Submitted by Versar Inc., 

to U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics. EPA Contract No. EP–W–

04–035. November 20, 2007. 

22. Zock, J-P; Plana, E; Jarvis, D.;, 

Anto, J. M.; Kromhout, H.; Kennedy, 

S.M.; Kunzli, N.; Villani, S.; Olivieri, 

M.; Toren, K.; Radon, K.; Sunyer, J.;, 

Dahlman-Hoglund, A.; Norback, D., and 

Dogevinas, M. 2007. The Use of 

Household Cleaning Sprays and Adult 

Asthma: An International Longitudinal 

Study. American Journal of Respiratory 

and Critical Care Medicine. 176: 735–

741. 

23. Caress, S. M. and Steinemann, A. 

C. 2005. National Prevalence of Asthma 

and Chemical Hypersensitivity: An 

Examination of Potential Overlap. 

Journal of Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine. 47:518–522. 

24. EPA. E-mail communication with 

sample search results from Randall 

Brinkhuis to Greg Schweer. Subject: 

Search strategy and results for TSCA 

section 21 petition on air fresheners. 

December 3, 2007. 

25. CSPA. Consumer Specialty 

Products Association. Letter with 

enclosure from Robert A. Matthews, 

McKenna Long and Aldridge, LLP, to 

Document Control Office, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

(OPPT), EPA. Docket ID number EPA–

HQ–OPPT–2007–1016–0029.1. 

November 7, 2007. 

26. EPA. Minutes of meeting held 

October 19, 2007, between EPA and 

petitioners. Re: TSCA section 21 

petitioners on air fresheners. October 

19, 2007. 

27. NRDC. Letter with attachment 

from Mae C. Wu, Natural Resources 

Defense Council and Ed Hopkins, Sierra 

Club on behalf of petitioners. Re: Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–1016, to 

Document Control Office, Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

(OPPT), EPA. Docket ID number EPA–

HQ–OPPT–2007–1016–0013.1. 

November 5, 2007. 

28. Sara Lee B.V. v. BEUC, KG 05/64 

(March 8, 2005). 

29. Cosmetic Ingredients Review (CIR) 

Expert Panel, 2005. Annual Review of 

Cosmetic Ingredient Safety 

Assessments—2002/2003. International 

Journal of Toxicology. 24 (Supp. 1); 1–

102. 

30. CEPA. California Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment, Reproductive and Cancer 

Hazard Assessment Branch. 2007. 

Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels: No 

Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens 

and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels 

for Chemicals Causing Reproductive 

Toxicity. October 2007. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Air 

fresheners, Phthalates, Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs). 

Dated: December 18, 2007. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. 07–6176 Filed 12–19–07; 11:51 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES3