[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49938-49982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23267]



[[Page 49937]]

Vol. 82

Friday,

No. 207

October 27, 2017

Part II





 Consumer Product Safety Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





16 CFR Part 1307





 Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 
Specified Phthalates; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2017 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 49938]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1307

[Docket No. CPSC-2014-0033]


Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 
Specified Phthalates

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(Commission or CPSC) issues this final rule prohibiting children's toys 
and child care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 
percent of diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), 
di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), and 
dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP). Section 108 of the Consumer Product 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) established permanent and 
interim prohibitions on the sale of certain consumer products 
containing specific phthalates. That provision also directed the CPSC 
to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to study the effects 
on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as 
used in children's toys and child care articles and to provide 
recommendations to the Commission regarding whether any phthalates or 
phthalate alternatives, other than those already permanently 
prohibited, should be prohibited. The CPSIA requires the Commission to 
promulgate a final rule after receiving the final CHAP report. This 
rule fulfills that requirement.

DATES: The rule will become effective on April 25, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information related to the 
phthalates prohibitions, contact: Carol L. Afflerbach, Compliance 
Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; 
telephone: 301-504-7529; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680b090e0e040d1a0a090b00280b181b0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e6d6f6868626b7c6c6f6d664e6d7e7d6d20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
    1. Statutory Prohibitions
    2. Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel
    3. Rulemaking
    B. The Proposed Rule
    C. Additional NHANES Analysis
    D. Public Comments
    E. Final Rule
II. Legal Authority
    A. Summary of Legal Authority
    B. Comments Regarding Legal Authority
    1. The Information Quality Act
    2. CPSIA Requirements for the CHAP
    3. CPSIA's Requirements for the Rulemaking
    4. The APA's Requirements
III. The CHAP
    A. CPSIA Direction
    B. The CHAP's Process
    C. The CHAP Report
    1. Health Effects
    2. Exposure
    3. Phthalates Risk Assessment
    4. CHAP's Recommendations to the Commission
    D. Comments Regarding the CHAP
    1. Peer Review
    2. CHAP's Transparency and Openness
    3. Weight of Evidence and Completeness of CHAP's Review
IV. Final Rule and Rationale
    A. Hazard: Phthalates' Effect on Male Reproductive Development
    1. Summary
    2. Comments Concerning MRDE
    B. Exposure to Phthalates
    1. Human Biomonitoring Data
    2. Scenario-Based Exposure Assessment
    C. Risk Assessment
    1. Cumulative Risk Assessment
    2. Risk in Isolation
    D. Assessments/Determination for Each Phthalate
    1. Phthalates Subject to the Interim Prohibition
    2. Phthalates Subject to the Rule But Not Currently Prohibited 
Under the CPSIA
    E. The Concentration Limit
    F. International and Other Countries' Requirements for 
Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing Phthalates
    1. Summary of Requirements
    2. Comments Concerning Other Countries' and International 
Requirements
    G. Description of the Final Rule
    H. Effective Date
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    A. Certification
    B. Comments Concerning Impact on Small Business
VI. Notice of Requirements
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Preemption
IX. Environmental Considerations
X. List of References

I. Background

A. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

    In accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 
2008 (CPSIA), the Commission issues this final rule prohibiting 
children's toys and child care articles containing concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of certain phthalates.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 3-2 to publish this final rule in the 
Federal Register. Commissioners Robert S. Adler, Marietta S. 
Robinson, and Elliot F. Kaye voted to publish this final rule. 
Acting Chairman Anne Marie Buerkle and Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic 
voted against publication of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Statutory Prohibitions
    Section 108 of the CPSIA establishes requirements concerning 
phthalates. Section 108(a) of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the 
manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or 
importation into the United States of any ``children's toy or child 
care article'' that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of 
di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or butyl 
benzyl phthalate (BBP). 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a). In addition, section 
108(b)(1) prohibits on an interim basis (i.e., until the Commission 
promulgates a final rule), the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 
distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of 
``any children's toy that can be placed in a child's mouth'' or ``child 
care article'' containing concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of 
diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or di-n-octyl 
phthalate (DNOP). Id. 2057c(b)(1). The CPSIA provides the following 
definitions:
    <bullet> ``Children's toy'' is ``a consumer product designed or 
intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for 
use by the child when the child plays.''
    <bullet> ``child care article'' is ``a consumer product designed or 
intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of 
children age 3 and younger, or to help such children with sucking or 
teething.''
    <bullet> A ``toy can be place in a child's mouth if any part of the 
toy can actually be brought to the mouth and kept in the mouth by a 
child so that it can be sucked and chewed. If the children's product 
can only be licked, it is not regarded as able to be placed in the 
mouth. If a toy or part of a toy in one dimension is smaller than 5 
centimeters, it can be placed in the mouth.''

Id. 2057c(g). These statutory prohibitions became effective in February 
2009. The interim prohibitions remain in effect until the Commission 
issues a final rule determining whether to make the interim 
prohibitions permanent. Id. 2057c(b)(1).
2. Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel
    The CPSIA directs the CPSC to convene a Chronic Hazard Advisory 
Panel (CHAP) ``to study the effects on children's health of all 
phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and 
child care articles.'' Id. 2057c(b)(2). A ``phthalate alternative'' is 
``any common substitute to a phthalate, alternative material to a 
phthalate, or alternative plasticizer.'' Id. 2057c(g). The CHAP is to 
recommend to

[[Page 49939]]

the Commission whether any phthalates or phthalate alternatives other 
than those permanently prohibited should be declared banned hazardous 
substances. Id. 2057c(b)(2)(C).
3. Rulemaking
    The CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate a final rule, 
pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), not 
later than 180 days after the Commission receives the final CHAP 
report. The Commission must ``determine, based on such report, whether 
to continue in effect the [interim] prohibition . . . , in order to 
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, 
or other susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety. . . 
.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(3)(A). Additionally, the Commission must 
``evaluate the findings and recommendations of the Chronic Hazard 
Advisory Panel and declare any children's product containing any 
phthalates to be a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), as the Commission 
determines necessary to protect the health of children.'' Id. 
(b)(3)(B).

B. The Proposed Rule

    On December 30, 2014, the Commission published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register. 79 FR 78324. The preamble to 
the NPR summarized the CHAP report, explaining the CHAP's review of 
potential health effects of phthalates in animals and humans, the 
CHAP's assessment of human exposure to phthalates, the CHAP's 
assessment of risk (both cumulative and in isolation) of various 
phthalates, and the CHAP's recommendations to the Commission. The 
preamble to the NPR then provided CPSC staff's assessment of the CHAP 
report and stated the Commission's description of the proposed rule and 
its explanation of the rationale for the proposal.
    The NPR generally followed the recommendations of the CHAP report. 
As explained further in section III of this preamble, the CHAP focused 
on certain phthalates' effect on male reproductive development. After 
reviewing relevant studies, the CHAP found that certain phthalates 
(which the CHAP called active or antiandrogenic) cause adverse effects 
on the developing male reproductive tract. The CHAP determined that 
these phthalates act in a cumulative fashion. The CHAP concluded that 
DINP is an active (antiandrogenic) phthalate. Based on the cumulative 
risk assessment conducted by the CHAP, the Commission determined that 
``to ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant 
women, or other susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of 
safety,'' the Commission proposed to permanently prohibit children's 
toys and child care articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 
percent of DINP. The Commission proposed making the interim prohibition 
concerning DINP permanent because the Commission concluded that 
allowing the use of DINP in children's toys and child care articles 
would further increase the cumulative risk to male reproductive 
development. Although the interim prohibition applies to children's 
toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles, the 
NPR proposed permanently prohibiting DINP in all children's toys and 
child care articles. 79 FR at 78334-35.
    The Commission proposed lifting the interim prohibitions regarding 
DIDP and DNOP. The Commission agreed with the CHAP that DIDP and DNOP 
are not antiandrogenic, and therefore, they do not contribute to the 
cumulative risk from antiandrogenic phthalates. The CHAP determined 
that neither phthalate poses a risk in isolation. Therefore, the 
Commission concluded that continuing the prohibitions regarding DIDP 
and DNOP is not necessary to ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm 
to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with an 
adequate margin of safety. Id. at 78334-78336.
    In addition, the Commission determined that DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and 
DCHP are associated with adverse effects on male reproductive 
development and contribute to the cumulative risk from antiandrogenic 
phthalates. The Commission agreed with the CHAP's recommendation and 
proposed to prohibit children's toys and child care articles containing 
concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and 
DCHP. 79 FR at 78326-38. The Commission proposed that the rule would 
take effect 180 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal 
Register. Id. at 78339.

C. Additional NHANES Analysis

    As explained further in section III.C.2 of this preamble, the CHAP 
based its analysis, in part, on human biomonitoring data from the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The CHAP analyzed data from 
NHANES' 2005/2006 data cycle. That data set had a larger number of 
pregnant women than is usual for NHANES data sets. Since publication of 
the NPR, CPSC staff has reviewed and analyzed the NHANES data cycles 
released by the CDC after the 2005/2006 data cycle. CPSC staff issued a 
report in June 2015 concerning the NHANES data sets that had been 
released up to that point: ``Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to 
Pregnant Women and Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using Four 
NHANES Biomonitoring Data Sets (2005/2006, 2007/2008, 2009/2010, 2011/
2012).'' See https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/NHANES-Biomonitoring-analysis-for-Commission.pdf . The June 2015 staff analysis reviewed the 
2005/2006 NHANES data set to replicate the CHAP's methodology and 
reviewed the subsequent NHANES data sets through 2011/2012. Staff's 
analysis used women of reproductive age (WORA; 15-45 year of age) as 
the population of interest, because NHANES data sets after 2005/2006 
did not have sufficient numbers of pregnant women to be statistically 
relevant. The Commission published a notice of availability in the 
Federal Register seeking comment on the CPSC staff document. 80 FR 
35939 (June 23, 2015).
    In December 2016, the CDC released the NHANES 2013/14 data cycle. 
CPSC staff prepared a document with staff's analysis of the NHANES 
2013/14 data cycle titled, ``Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to 
Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using 2013/2014 NHANES 
Biomonitoring Data.'' See https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Estimated%20Phthalate%20Exposure%20and%20Risk%20to%20Women%20of%20Reproductive%20Age%20as%20Assessed%20Using%202013%202014%20NHANES%20Biomonitoring%20Data.pdf. The Commission published a notice of availability in 
the Federal Register seeking comments on CPSC staff's February 2017 
analysis of the NHANES 2013/14 data cycle. 82 FR 11348 (February 22, 
2017).

D. Public Comments

    The NPR, which published in the Federal Register on December 30, 
2014, requested comments by March 16, 2015. 79 FR 78324 (Dec. 30, 
2014). The Commission extended the comment period for an additional 30 
days to April 15, 2015. 80 FR 14880 (March 20, 2015). Additionally, the 
Commission requested comments on each of the staff's analyses of more 
recent NHANES data. 80 FR 35939 (June 23, 2015); 82 FR 11348 (February 
22, 2017). The Commission received 91 comments on the NPR and an 
additional 18 comments on CPSC

[[Page 49940]]

staff's reports on more recent NHANES data cycles. The comments are 
available on regulations.gov under the docket: CPSC-2014-0033. 
Throughout this preamble, we discuss significant issues raised by these 
comments and CPSC's responses to those issues. As part of the briefing 
package that CPSC staff prepared for the Commission's consideration of 
this final rule, staff developed a more detailed summary of the public 
comments and staff's responses. These may be found at Tab B of the 
staff's briefing package: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Phthalates%20-%20September%2013%202017.pdf At the 
end of each comment summary in this preamble, we provide, in 
parentheses, the number of the relevant and more detailed comment/
response in Tab B of the staff's briefing package.

E. Final Rule

    The Commission has considered the CHAP report, CPSC staff's 
analyses, and comments submitted on the NPR and staff's reports 
concerning later NHANES data cycles. CPSC staff prepared a briefing 
package for the Commission that provides staff's analysis of these 
materials and gives staff's recommendations for the final rule. Staff's 
briefing package is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Phthalates%20-%20September%2013%202017.pdf Based on 
consideration of these materials, the Commission issues this final 
rule, which is substantially the same as the proposed rule.
    In the interest of clarity, the final rule restates the CPSIA's 
permanent prohibition on the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 
distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any 
children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of DEHP, DIBP, or BBP.
    The final rule continues the interim prohibition concerning DINP 
and expands that restriction to prohibit all children's toys (not just 
those that can be place in a child's mouth) and child care articles 
that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DINP. After 
reviewing the information presented by the CHAP, CPSC staff, and 
commenters, the Commission concludes that continuing the interim 
prohibition regarding DINP will ensure a reasonable certainty of no 
harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with 
an adequate margin of safety. The Commission also determines that 
expanding the prohibition regarding DINP to cover all children's toys, 
not just those that can be placed in a child's mouth, is necessary to 
protect the health of children.
    The final rule also prohibits children's toys and child care 
articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DIBP, 
DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP. After reviewing the information presented by 
the CHAP, CPSC staff, and commenters, the Commission concludes that 
this restriction on the four additional phthalates is necessary to 
protect the health of children.
    The final rule adds a paragraph, not in the proposed rule, that 
repeats the statutory provision stating that the phthalates 
prohibitions apply to plasticized component parts of children's toys 
and child care articles, or other component parts of those products 
that are made of materials that may contain phthalates. See 15 U.S.C. 
2057c(c). This addition does not make any substantive change, but it 
provides clarity by placing this statutory language in the regulation.
    As was proposed, the final rule will take effect 180 days after 
publication in the Federal Register and will apply to products 
manufactured or imported on or after that date. The Commission's 
rationale for the final rule is explained in the following sections of 
this preamble.

II. Legal Authority

A. Summary of Legal Authority

    Section 108 of the CPSIA provides the legal authority for this 
rule. As directed by section 108(b)(2), the Commission convened a CHAP 
to study the effects on children's health of phthalates and phthalate 
alternatives. The CPSIA directs the CHAP to examine ``the full range of 
phthalates that are used in products for children,'' and to consider 
numerous issues specified in the statute (discussed further in section 
III.A of this preamble). As required by section 108(b)(2)(C), the CHAP 
prepared a report for the Commission that included recommendations to 
the Commission concerning any phthalates not already subject to the 
permanent prohibition or phthalate alternatives that should be 
prohibited. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(C).
    The CPSIA further directs that, within 180 days of receiving the 
CHAP's report, the Commission shall promulgate a final rule in 
accordance with section 553 of the APA. The Commission must 
``determine, based on such report, whether to continue in effect the 
[interim] prohibition . . ., in order to ensure a reasonable certainty 
of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible 
individuals with an adequate margin of safety.'' Id. 2057c(b)(3)(A). 
Additionally, the Commission must ``evaluate the findings and 
recommendations of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel and declare any 
children's product containing any phthalates to be a banned hazardous 
product under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
2057), as the Commission determines necessary to protect the health of 
children.'' Id. 2057c(b)(3)(B).
    A violation of the permanent or interim prohibitions or any rule 
the Commission subsequently issues under section 108(b)(3) ``shall be 
treated as a violation of section 19(a)(1) of the Consumer Product 
Safety Act.'' Id. 2057c(e). Additionally, section 108(f), concerning 
preemption, states that the permanent and interim prohibitions and the 
Commission's phthalates rule ``shall be considered consumer product 
safety standards under the Consumer Product Safety Act.'' Id. 2057c(f).
    Section 108 of the CPSIA sets out the criteria for the Commission's 
determinations in this rulemaking. Regarding phthalates subject to the 
interim prohibition, the Commission is to determine, based on the CHAP 
report, whether their continued regulation is needed ``to ensure a 
reasonable certainty of no harm . . . with an adequate margin of 
safety.'' Regarding other children's products and other phthalates, the 
Commission is to evaluate the CHAP report and determine whether 
additional restrictions are ``necessary to protect the health of 
children.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(3). Congress required the Commission to 
use these criteria for the phthalates rulemaking.

B. Comments Regarding Legal Authority

    Comments raised various issues concerning the Commission's legal 
authority for this rulemaking. These comments focused primarily on: The 
CPSIA's requirements for the CHAP, the CPSIA's requirements for the 
rulemaking, relevance of (and compliance with) the Information Quality 
Act (IQA), and compliance with requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA). This section summarizes and responds to key issues 
raised by comments related to the Commission's legal authority. Tab B 
of staff's briefing package provides a more detailed discussion of the 
comments and responses. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final%20Rule%20-%20Phthalates%20-%20September%2013%202017.pdf?nArsRDzq81e90J4Re2BFAzjdQHxq8Mh_.

[[Page 49941]]

1. The Information Quality Act
    Comment: IQA Applicability: Several commenters asserted that the 
CHAP report and the phthalates rulemaking must comply with the Office 
of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Guidelines issued under the IQA and 
CPSC's guidelines. The commenters stated that the OMB's IQA Guidelines 
require that agencies' disseminations meet a basic standard of quality 
for objectivity, utility and integrity, and that these requirements 
apply to the CHAP report and to CPSC's rulemaking. The commenters also 
asserted that the CHAP report is ``influential'' under the IQA 
Guidelines because it meets the OMB standard for influential, i.e., has 
``a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 
private sector decisions.''
    Response: The IQA, Public Law 106-554, required OMB to draft 
guidelines regarding ``the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 
of information . . . disseminated by Federal agencies'' and required 
each agency to issue its own guidelines. OMB issued ``Guidelines for 
Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 
Integration of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies'' (OMB 
Guidelines), 67 FR 8452. The CPSC issued its Information Quality 
Guidelines (CPSC Guidelines) in October 2002, which substantially 
follow OMB's Guidelines.\2\ As provided in CPSC's Guidelines, we are 
responding to comments on the NPR to address a commenter's request for 
correction under the IQA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CPSC Information Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/Information-Quality-Guidelines/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB's Guidelines apply to federal agencies that are subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 42 U.S.C. chapter 35. 67 FR 8453. This 
includes the CPSC. Both OMB's and CPSC's Guidelines apply to 
information that the agency ``disseminates.'' OMB's Guidelines define 
the term ``dissemination'' to mean ``agency initiated or sponsored 
distribution of information to the public,'' with several exclusions. 
Under OMB's Guidelines, if an agency releases information prepared by 
an outside party, but the agency then distributes the information ``in 
a manner that reasonably suggests that the agency agrees with the 
information, this appearance of having the information represent agency 
views makes agency dissemination of the information subject to the 
guidelines.'' 67 FR 8454. As the commenters noted, the CHAP report was 
not prepared by CPSC but by a third party. However, in the NPR, CPSC 
based its recommendations on the CHAP report as required by section 108 
of the CPSIA. Thus, we agree that OMB's and CPSC's Guidelines apply to 
the CHAP report.
    As discussed in the following comments/responses, OMB's Guidelines 
require agencies to adopt a basic standard of information quality that 
includes ``objectivity, utility, and integrity.''
    OMB's Guidelines define ``influential'' as:

    ``Influential'', when used in the phrase ``influential 
scientific, financial, or statistical information'', means that the 
agency can reasonably determine that dissemination of the 
information will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on 
important public policies or important private sector decisions. 
Each agency is authorized to define ``influential'' in ways 
appropriate for it given the nature and multiplicity of issues for 
which the agency is responsible.

67 FR 8460. The definition of ``influential'' places significant 
emphasis on the agency's discretion to determine what information is 
influential. The OMB Guidelines state that influential information is 
held to a higher standard and must have a high degree of transparency. 
Even if the CHAP report is considered ``influential,'' it met the OMB 
Guidelines' provisions for such documents. As explained throughout this 
document, the CHAP was transparent about its data sources and 
processes. See the following comments and responses. (Comments 8.1 and 
8.2).
    Comment: Objectivity of CHAP report. Commenters asserted that the 
CHAP Report (and by extension, the rulemaking) does not meet the IQA 
Guidelines' standard of ``objectivity.'' In addition, the commenters 
argued that, because the CHAP Report is influential information 
regarding risks to health, safety, or the environment, it ``must be 
based on requirements drawn from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), to 
use `the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies 
conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; 
and . . . data collected by accepted methods or best available methods 
. . . .' '' (Comment 8.3).
    Response: The OMB Guidelines state: `` `Objectivity' includes 
whether disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, 
clear, complete, and unbiased manner.'' 67 FR 8459. According to the 
OMB Guidelines, this involves presenting the information within a 
proper context and identifying the sources of the information. Id. The 
OMB Guidelines further state: ``In addition, `objectivity' involves a 
focus on ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information.'' In a 
scientific context, this means ``using sound statistical and research 
methods.'' Id.
    The CHAP report met the ``objectivity'' standard enunciated in the 
OMB Guidelines. The fact that the commenters might have conducted the 
analysis differently does not mean that the CHAP's analysis was not 
``objective.'' The CHAP report clearly set forth its data sources and 
noted that to assess studies, it used the criteria of reliability, 
relevance, and adequacy established by the Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development. CHAP report at pp. 13-14. The CHAP held 
open meetings during the process of developing its analysis, inviting 
experts to present their latest research findings and taking 
submissions of a large volume of written material. The CHAP members 
were selected in accordance with section 28 of the CPSA through a 
process to ensure their independence from bias (e.g., nominated by 
National Academy of Sciences; free from compensation by or substantial 
financial interest in a manufacturer, distributor or retailer of a 
consumer product; not employed by the federal government, with certain 
scientific/research related exceptions). The CHAP explained its 
choices, such as the decision to focus on the effects on male 
reproductive development, and the CHAP noted that this approach was 
consistent with a National Research Council (NRC) report.\3\ Similarly, 
the CHAP explained its decision to conduct a cumulative risk assessment 
and explained the methodology that it used which, again, was consistent 
with one of the methods discussed in the NRC report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NRC (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For an analysis of risks to human health, safety, and the 
environment that an agency disseminates, OMB's Guidelines direct 
agencies to ``adapt or adopt'' the information quality principles of 
the SDWA. 67 FR 8460. The SDWA directs agencies to use: `` (i) The best 
available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in 
accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and (ii) data 
collected by accepted methods or best available methods (if the 
reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies use 
of the data).'' Id. at 8457. The SDWA direction is very similar to the 
charge to the CHAP in section 108, which states, among other things, 
that the CHAP is to ``review all relevant data, including the most 
recent best available, peer reviewed, scientific studies of these 
phthalates and phthalate alternatives

[[Page 49942]]

that employ objective data collection practices or employ other 
objective methods.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(v). As our discussion in 
section III of this preamble demonstrates, the CHAP report met this 
direction.
    Comment: IQA deficiencies as basis to invalidate rule. A commenter 
asserted that the CHAP report had numerous methodological flaws that 
violated the IQA and that these deficiencies would invalidate the 
phthalates rulemaking unless they are corrected because the proposed 
rule was premised almost entirely on the CHAP report. The commenter 
further asserted that OMB's IQA Guidelines are ``binding'' on agencies. 
(Comment 8.4).
    Response: Elsewhere in this document and in Tab B of staff's 
briefing package, staff responds to the specific methodological 
``flaws'' the commenter identifies. Regarding the legal point, we note 
that OMB's Guidelines are not legally enforceable requirements--
guidelines, which are essentially interpretive rules, by their nature 
do not establish binding requirements. See, e.g., U.S. Iowa League of 
Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 873 (8th Cir., 2013) (``interpretive rules 
do not have the force of law''). Notably, the IQA directed OMB to 
``issue guidelines . . . that provide policy and procedural guidance to 
Federal agencies.'' The IQA did not direct OMB or agencies to undertake 
substantive legislative rulemaking. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2001, Public Law 06-554, 515 (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3516 Note). OMB's 
Guidelines repeatedly stress their flexibility, noting that they are 
not intended to be ``prescriptive, `one-size-fits-all' '' and that OMB 
intends for agencies to ``apply them in a common-sense and workable 
manner.'' 67 FR at 8452-53. The IQA established a binding requirement 
that OMB issue guidelines and that each agency that is subject to the 
PRA must issue its own guidelines, but the guidelines themselves do not 
bind agencies. Courts that have examined the question of the legal 
status of the IQA have found that the IQA (and thus necessarily, OMB's 
guidelines) ``creates no legal rights in any third parties.'' Salt 
Inst. v. Leavitt, 440 F.3d 156, 159 (4th Cir. 2006). See Mississippi 
Comm. on Environmental Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138 (D.C. Cir. 2015) 
(dismissing argument that IQA created a legal requirement for EPA to 
use ``best available science and supporting studies'').
2. CPSIA Requirements for the CHAP
    Comment: Review of all relevant data. Several commenters noted that 
the CPSIA directed the CHAP to ``review all relevant data, including 
the most recent, best available . . . scientific studies . . . that 
employ objective data collection practices.'' A commenter asserted that 
the CHAP's ``selective use and systematic mischaracterization of the 
data'' did not meet this requirement. Commenters argued that the CHAP's 
reliance on the 2005/2006 NHANES data set, rather than later data sets 
that were available to the CHAP before the CHAP's stopping point (2007/
2008, 2009/2010 and 2011/2012 data sets), violated the CPSIA's 
direction to review ``all relevant data'' and to include ``the most 
recent'' studies. The commenters asserted that the CHAP's failure to 
rely on later data sets is particularly important because, due to the 
drop in DEHP exposures, there has been a significant decline in total 
risk. One commenter asserted that the CHAP had ignored 32 relevant 
publications on phthalates. Other commenters stated that the CHAP's 
analysis ``represents the cutting edge and most current and best 
available science,'' a significant improvement over methodologies 
currently used for government review of chemical risk that considered 
one chemical at a time. (Comments 7.8, 8.17, and 10.2).
    Response: The CHAP used 2005/2006 NHANES data on pregnant women to 
assess phthalate exposure as part of the CHAP's cumulative risk 
analysis, to satisfy the CPSIA's charge to ``examine the likely levels 
of children's, pregnant women's, and others' exposure to phthalates . . 
. '' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(iii). This data set was the most recent 
data on pregnant women available at the time the CHAP completed its 
analysis in July 2012, CHAP report at p. 31, and it was the last data 
set to include a larger sample of pregnant women. CPSC staff 
subsequently analyzed NHANES WORA data from 2007/2008 through 2013/2014 
using the CHAP's analytical methodology.
    The CHAP considered new scientific information published up to the 
end of 2012, and used standard and acceptable methods for study review, 
conducting an unbiased literature search and publication identification 
and in-depth review and reporting of the most important publications. 
Specifically, the CHAP included many elements of systematic review 
methods in its work. The CHAP used a defined literature search strategy 
and limited the search to studies published through 2012. The CHAP 
considered the quality, relevance, and weight of evidence (WOE) of 
individual studies. The CHAP described criteria for evaluating 
published studies, CHAP report at pp. 19-23, and the CHAP ensured that 
all studies and data were publicly available. The CHAP also described 
the criteria used to formulate its recommendations on individual 
phthalates and phthalate alternatives. Id. at p. 79. The CHAP criteria 
included review of animal and human data, weight of evidence, study 
replication, human exposure, hazard, and risk. Id. at pp. 82-142. The 
CHAP conducted a thorough review of a large body of literature on a 
complex environmental health question using appropriate methods.
    All current scientific publications and NHANES data sets have been 
analyzed by the CHAP and CPSC staff in preparation for the final rule. 
This fulfills the CPSIA's directive to review ``all relevant data'' and 
to include ``the most recent'' studies.
    Regarding the assertion that the CHAP ignored 32 relevant 
publications, CPSC staff reviewed this claim. The CHAP cited 
approximately 250 articles using a systematic approach to select the 
most relevant and informative articles. Five of the 32 articles the 
commenter identified are not relevant because they considered effects 
that are not relevant to the CHAP's focus on male reproductive 
development (e.g., onset of puberty in girls, estrogenic effects); they 
measured exposure, but not health effects; or did not accurately 
reflect exposure. The other 27 articles were review articles (which are 
considered secondary sources), several of which covered broad topics 
such as environmental chemicals. Staff's more detailed assessment of 
these publications is provided in the response to comment 7.8 at Tab B 
of the staff's briefing package.
    Comment: Foreseeable use and likely exposure. Several commenters 
noted that the CPSIA required the CHAP to ``examine the likely levels 
of children's, pregnant women's, and others' exposure to phthalates, 
based on a reasonable estimation of normal and foreseeable use and 
abuse of such products.'' Commenters asserted that the CHAP failed to 
meet this requirement because the CHAP ignored the more recent data 
that shows a significant drop in DEHP exposure and the CHAP included 
permanent prohibitions involving phthalates in the analysis. (Comment 
8.18).
    Response: As explained, the 2005/2006 NHANES dataset that the CHAP 
used was the most recent data on pregnant women available at the time 
the CHAP completed its analysis in July 2012, CHAP report at p. 31, and 
included a larger sample of pregnant women. CPSC staff has since 
analyzed more recent NHANES data using the

[[Page 49943]]

same methodology used by the CHAP and using WORA as a surrogate for 
pregnant women because an insufficient number of pregnant women were 
sampled in the later data sets. The final rule considers the most 
recent NHANES data, as well as the CHAP report.
    In accordance with the CPSIA's direction to the CHAP, the CHAP's 
cumulative risk analysis estimated phthalate exposure from all 
phthalates and all sources, not only toys and child care articles. 
Because the CPSIA prohibition covers only children's toys and child 
care articles, exposures to DEHP, DBP, and BBP still occur from other 
sources. Thus, the CHAP and subsequent staff analyses provide a robust 
assessment of the ``likely levels'' of current exposures to phthalates.
    Comment: CPSIA direction to CHAP to conduct a cumulative risk 
assessment. One commenter stated that the CPSIA did not require the 
CHAP to conduct a cumulative risk assessment; the CHAP could have 
considered cumulative effects in a more general (qualitative) way. 
Other commenters asserted that a cumulative risk assessment was well 
within the CPSIA's direction to the CHAP, noting that the CPSIA 
provided a clear mandate to ``review the toxicity of phthalates 
cumulatively'' and to consider ``the exposure to all sources of these 
chemicals.'' One comment from a group of commenters stated Congress 
specifically required the cumulative risk analysis. (Comment 8.19).
    Response: Several provisions in section 108(b)(2) called on the 
CHAP to consider cumulative effects of phthalates. Specifically, the 
statute directed the CHAP to:
    <bullet> ``Study the effects on children's health of all phthalates 
and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care 
articles'';
    <bullet> ``consider the potential health effects of each of these 
phthalates both in isolation and in combination with other 
phthalates''; and
    <bullet> ``consider the cumulative effects of total exposure to 
phthalates, both from children's products and from other sources, such 
as personal care products.''

Thus, the CPSIA required the CHAP to use some method to evaluate the 
health effects of multiple phthalates from multiple products. The 
statute did not specify that the only way to do this was through a 
cumulative risk assessment. However, nothing in the statute prohibited 
the CHAP from conducting a cumulative risk assessment. As explained in 
the CHAP report, and in the NPR, based on the CHAP's knowledge and 
expertise, the CHAP decided that a cumulative risk assessment was the 
most appropriate method to fulfill the direction given to the CHAP. 
Furthermore, the CHAP used a cumulative risk assessment approach that 
was consistent with recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences 
committee that was convened specifically to consider methods for 
assessing the cumulative risks from phthalates. Thus, the CHAP used its 
judgment and provided an explanation for its reasonable choice.
    Comment: Applicability of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. A 
commenter argued that the CPSIA required the CHAP to present its 
analysis in terms of the criteria stated in the FHSA, and the commenter 
asserted that the CHAP failed to do so. Similarly, a commenter asserted 
that the CHAP's risk assessment improperly included consideration of 
exposures to substances that are excluded from the FHSA's definition of 
``hazardous substance,'' such as foods and drugs. 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(2). 
(Comments 8.27 through 8.29).
    Response: The commenter bases its argument that the CHAP should 
have followed FHSA criteria on a phrase in CPSIA section 108 that also 
appears in the FHSA. However, neither section 108 nor the legislative 
history of that provision mentions the FHSA. Rather, section 
108(b)(2)(B) provides detailed direction to the CHAP about the criteria 
that the CHAP is to consider in its examination. Moreover, section 
108(f) states clearly that the statutory prohibitions and the 
Commission's future phthalates rule ``shall be considered consumer 
product safety standards under the Consumer Product Safety Act.'' It is 
not logical that Congress would expect the CHAP to apply FHSA criteria 
(without mentioning that statute) to provide a report to the Commission 
for a rule that is to be treated as a rule under the CPSA. In fact, 
section 108 established a unique procedure for phthalates, making it 
clear that Congress did not intend for the Commission to undertake 
rulemaking under the FHSA. The CHAP and the Commission followed the 
specific process and criteria set forth in section 108. The direction 
to the CHAP explicitly requires the CHAP to consider phthalates that 
are in products outside the CPSC's jurisdiction, directing the CHAP to 
consider effects ``both from children's products and from other 
sources, such as personal care products.'' 15 U.S.C. 
2057c(b)(2)(B)(iv). Many personal care products are considered 
cosmetics and are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA). Congress thus intended for the CHAP's examination 
to be broader than just products under CPSC's authority, even though 
CPSC's rulemaking applies only to products under CPSC's jurisdiction.
3. CPSIA's Requirements for the Rulemaking
    Comment: Commission's role regarding the CHAP report. Comments 
questioned the Commission's reliance on the CHAP report in the NPR. 
Commenters asserted that the Commission cannot merely codify or 
``rigidly adhere'' to the CHAP report without applying the Commission's 
own judgment. To do so, they argued, would raise serious Constitutional 
questions by vesting government powers in a private entity and would 
also conflict with the CPSIA and sections 28 and 31 of the CPSA (e.g., 
the word ``advisory'' in the CHAP). Another commenter stated that CPSC 
acted appropriately on the CHAP report, noting that ``CPSC made its own 
decision, issued its own proposed rule, and solicited public comment 
from industry and others on its proposed rule.'' (Comment 8.20).
    Response: Section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA requires that the 
Commission's rule concerning the interim prohibition be ``based on'' 
the CHAP report and requires the Commission to evaluate the findings 
and recommendations of the CHAP to determine whether to prohibit any 
other children's products containing any other phthalates. We agree 
that the statutory language does not require rigid adherence to the 
CHAP report and that the Commission cannot simply ``rubber-stamp'' the 
CHAP's recommendations. Rather, the CHAP report is advisory, and the 
Commission must use its judgment to decide on appropriate regulatory 
action in accordance with the specific criteria stated in section 
108(b)(3)(A) and (B) and must consider public comments that the 
Commission received. This is exactly the process the Commission 
followed. The NPR summarized the CHAP report, including the CHAP's 
recommendations. 79 FR 78326-78330. The NPR presented CPSC staff's 
evaluation of the CHAP report and the Commission's assessment of the 
CHAP's recommendations. Id. 78330-78338. Additionally, CPSC staff 
reviewed more recent NHANES data and conducted an analysis of the 
CHAP's evaluation of exposure data. Staff reviewed and considered the 
comments submitted in response to the NPR and the NHANES data analysis 
to develop recommendations to the Commission. All of this information 
provides the

[[Page 49944]]

basis for the Commission's decision on the final rule.
    Comment: Meaning of ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' Several 
commenters addressed the meaning of the phrase ``reasonable certainty 
of no harm.'' Some commenters asserted that the standard must be 
interpreted in the context of CPSC's other statutes and case law. In 
this view, the phrase essentially means ``reasonably necessary to 
prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury,'' as would be 
required for a consumer product safety rule the Commission issues under 
sections 7, 8 and 9 of the CPSA. Commenters also discussed the level of 
certainty required for a ``reasonable certainty of no harm.'' One 
commenter noted that the FDA uses a similar standard for food 
additives. One commenter stated that in the NPR, the CPSC has applied 
the standard essentially to require absolute certainty. In contrast, 
another commenter emphasized that the CPSIA calls for ensuring a 
```reasonable certainty of no harm' (emphasis added).'' (Comments 8.14, 
8.22, 8.23, and 8.25).
    Response: The requirements stated in section 108(b)(3) of the 
CPSIA, rather than sections 7, 8 and 9 of the CPSA, apply to this 
rulemaking. For the Commission to issue a consumer product safety rule 
under sections 7, 8 and 9 of the CPSA, the Commission must determine 
that the product presents an unreasonable risk of injury and that a 
rule is necessary to reduce or prevent the unreasonable risk. The term 
``unreasonable risk'' does not appear anywhere in the criteria stated 
in section 108(b)(3) that the Commission is to use to determine 
appropriate phthalate regulations. Nothing in the legislative history 
of section 108 indicates that Congress intended the Commission to make 
``unreasonable risk'' determinations. Nor is there any indication that 
Congress intended that the case law related to the Commission's rules 
issued under sections 7, 8 and 9 of the CPSA would apply to the 
phthalates rulemaking.
    We are aware of two other statutory schemes that use somewhat 
similar language. The Food Quality Protection Act (FPQA) uses a similar 
phrase regarding tolerance levels for pesticide residue on food. That 
provision requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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.'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). Under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), food additives must be ``safe.'' 
21 U.S.C. 348. FDA has issued regulations that define ``safe or 
safety'' to mean ``that there is a reasonable certainty in the minds of 
competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the 
intended conditions or use.'' In a very general sense, CPSC's approach 
on phthalates is consistent with FDA and EPA in that CPSC's evaluation 
is based on expert scientific opinion (the CHAP), takes into account 
the cumulative effect of the substance at issue (phthalates), and 
provides appropriate safety factors (e.g., for inter- and intra-species 
uncertainties). However, because the pesticide tolerance and food 
additive schemes differ significantly from the CPSIA's phthalates 
provision, FDA's and EPA's approaches do not provide CPSC with more 
specific guidance on ``reasonable certainty of no harm.''
    Regarding the level of certainty required, the language ``ensure a 
reasonable certainty of no harm . . . with an adequate margin of 
safety'' calls for a highly protective standard, but not 100 percent 
certainty of no harm. Congress required ``a reasonable certainty of no 
harm,'' not an absolute certainty of no harm.
4. The APA's Requirements
    Comment: Data and the CPSC's obligation under the APA. Some 
commenters argued that the Commission's reliance on certain data 
violated the APA. One commenter asserted that the NPR's reliance on 
``decade-old data'' is not reasonable, and therefore, violates the APA. 
Some commenters stated that because the NPR ``rests on outdated data,'' 
CPSC should withdraw the NPR, conduct a reanalysis with current 
exposure data, and re-propose the rule with a new comment period. In 
comments on CPSC staff's analysis of recent NHANES data, a commenter 
asserted that under the APA, ``the Commission has an obligation to 
disregard the CHAP's report to the extent it is incorrect, 
unreasonable, inconsistent with existing CPSC policy, practice, 
regulations or governing statutes, or is based on data that is outdated 
or of poor quality.'' The commenter set out the minimum requirements of 
informal rulemaking: Adequate notice, sufficient opportunity for public 
to comment, and a final rule that is not arbitrary and capricious. 
(Comments 8.12 and 8.13).
    Response: The NPR's reliance on the CHAP report and the data the 
CHAP used did not violate the APA. Rather, the Commission followed the 
CPSIA's direction to base the rulemaking on the CHAP report. As 
commenters requested, staff subsequently considered updated exposure 
data. As the CPSIA requires, the Commission's proposal regarding the 
interim prohibition was ``based on the CHAP report,'' and in addition, 
the Commission evaluated the CHAP report to determine whether to 
prohibit any children's products containing any other phthalates. 
Additionally, as required by the CPSIA, the Commission followed the 
notice and comment procedures of the APA. For the final rule staff 
considered more recent exposure data than the CHAP used. Several 
commenters asked the Commission to do this additional work. Staff 
conducted two analyses of more recent NHANES biomonitoring data sets, 
posted reports of staff analyses on the CPSC Web site, and the 
Commission requested public comment on each analysis. 80 FR 35938 (June 
23, 2015) and 82 FR 11348 (February 22, 2017). We agree that under 
section 553 of the APA, the Commission must evaluate the CHAP report 
along with comments submitted in response to the proposed rule and 
engage in reasoned decision making to issue a final rule. This is the 
approach the agency has taken. The Commission provided adequate notice 
in the NPR (describing the CHAP report, providing staff's evaluation of 
the CHAP report and explanation of, and reasons for, the proposed 
rule); provided sufficient opportunity for the public to comment (even 
extending the comment period and obtaining comment on the two staff 
reanalysis documents); and the Commission explains its reasoning for 
the final rule in this preamble and supporting documents.
    Comment: Restriction involving DINP and compliance with APA: A 
commenter asserted that continuing the interim prohibition involving 
DINP is arbitrary and capricious (in violation of the APA) because:
    <bullet> There is a reasonable certainty of no harm without such a 
prohibition (due to permanent prohibition involving DEHP);
    <bullet> DINP contributes only a small fraction to overall risk;
    <bullet> the endpoint of antiandrogenicity is likely inappropriate;
    <bullet> it is questionable that DINP should be included in a 
cumulative risk assessment;
    <bullet> it is questionable that a cumulative risk assessment 
provides a reasonable basis for a regulatory decision;
    <bullet> DEHP levels have dropped so that the Hazard Index (HI) is 
now well below one; and
    <bullet> even using the 2005/2006 NHANES data, the contribution of 
DINP to the overall HI is minimal and the major source of exposures is 
diet--children's products account for only a small fraction of overall 
HI.

[[Page 49945]]

    In contrast, another commenter stated that the CHAP's 
recommendation and the Commission's proposal to permanently prohibit 
children's toys and child care articles containing more than 0.1 
percent of DINP are justified. The commenter stated that data 
indicating that DINP is a potential health risk have gotten stronger 
since release of the CHAP report. (Comment 8.16).
    Response: In general, the APA requires that agencies' rulemaking be 
based on reasoned decision making. Staff's briefing package explains 
the reasons for staff's recommendations, satisfying this threshold 
requirement. The specific issues the commenter raised about regulation 
of DINP and the apparent reductions over time in exposure to DEHP are 
addressed in detail in section IV.D.1.a. of this preamble.

III. The CHAP

A. CPSIA Direction

    The CPSIA directed the Commission to convene a CHAP ``to study the 
effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate 
alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles.'' 15 
U.S.C. 2057c (b)(2). The statute provides very specific direction to 
the CHAP regarding its work. The CHAP must:
    Complete an examination of the full range of phthalates that are 
used in products for children and shall--
    <bullet> examine all of the potential health effects (including 
endocrine disrupting effects) of the full range of phthalates;
    <bullet> consider the potential health effects of each of these 
phthalates both in isolation and in combination with other phthalates;
    <bullet> examine the likely levels of children's, pregnant women's, 
and others' exposure to phthalates, based on a reasonable estimation of 
normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such products;
    <bullet> consider the cumulative effect of total exposure to 
phthalates, both from children's products and from other sources, such 
as personal care products;
    <bullet> review all relevant data, including the most recent, best-
available, peer-reviewed, scientific studies of these phthalates and 
phthalate alternatives that employ objective data collection practices 
or employ other objective methods;
    <bullet> consider the health effects of phthalates not only from 
ingestion but also as a result of dermal, hand-to-mouth, or other 
exposure;
    <bullet> consider the level at which there is a reasonable 
certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible 
individuals and their offspring, considering the best available 
science, and using sufficient safety factors to account for 
uncertainties regarding exposure and susceptibility of children, 
pregnant women, and other potentially susceptible individuals; and
    <bullet> consider possible similar health effects of phthalate 
alternatives used in children's toys and child care articles.

Id. 2057c(b)(2)(B). In its final report, the CHAP is required to 
recommend to the Commission whether any ``phthalates (or combinations 
of phthalates)'' in addition to those permanently prohibited, including 
the phthalates covered by the interim prohibition or phthalate 
alternatives, should be declared banned hazardous substances. Id. 
2057c(b)(2)(C).

B. The CHAP's Process

    The CHAP's process was open and transparent. The CHAP met in public 
session (and webcast) seven times and met via teleconference (also open 
to the public) six times.\4\ A record of the CHAP's public meetings, 
including video recordings and information submitted to the CHAP, as 
well as the final CHAP report, are available on the CPSC Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The CHAP met in one closed meeting as part of the peer 
review process, January 28-29, 2015.
    \5\ http://www.cpsc.gov/chap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At a meeting on July 26-28, 2010, the CHAP heard testimony from the 
public, including testimony from federal agency representatives, who 
discussed federal activities on phthalates. The CHAP also invited 
experts to present their latest research findings at the meeting in 
July 2010 and during subsequent meetings. Members of the public who 
presented testimony to the CHAP at the July 2010 meeting included 
manufacturers of phthalates and phthalate substitutes, as well as 
representatives of non-governmental organizations. In addition to oral 
testimony, the manufacturers and other interested parties submitted an 
extensive volume of toxicity and other information to the CHAP and the 
CPSC staff. All submissions given to CPSC staff were provided to the 
CHAP.
    Although the CPSIA did not require peer review of the CHAP's work, 
at the CHAP's request, four independent scientists peer reviewed the 
draft CHAP report. CPSC staff applied the same criteria for selecting 
the peer reviewers as is required for the CHAP members.\6\ The CHAP 
report was due to the Commission on April 8, 2012. The CHAP submitted 
the final report to the Commission on July 18, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Peer reviewers were nominated by the National Academy of 
Sciences. Peer reviewers did not receive compensation from, nor did 
they have a substantial financial interest in, any of the 
manufacturers of the products under consideration. In addition, the 
peer reviewers were not employed by the federal government, except 
the National Institutes of Health, the National Toxicology Program, 
or the National Center for Toxicological Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The CHAP Report

1. Health Effects
    The CHAP reviewed all of the potential health effects of 
phthalates. The CHAP explained that, although phthalates cause a wide 
range of toxicities, the CHAP focused on male reproductive 
developmental effects (MRDE) in part because this is the most sensitive 
and extensively studied endpoint for phthalates. The CHAP noted that 
this focus was consistent with a 2008 report from the National Research 
Council.\7\ The CHAP systematically reviewed literature on phthalate 
developmental and reproductive toxicology. CHAP report, at pp. 1-2 and 
12-13. The CHAP found that ``[s]tudies conducted over the past 20 years 
have shown that phthalates produce a syndrome of abnormalities in male 
offspring when administered to pregnant rats during the later stages of 
pregnancy.'' Id. at p. 15. The CHAP explained its approach to selection 
of data so that its analysis would be based on the most appropriate and 
reliable toxicological data. Id. at pp. 19-22. The CHAP stated that 
this collection of interrelated abnormalities, known as the ``rat 
phthalate syndrome,'' is characterized by various effects on the male 
reproductive system: Malformations of the testes, prostate, and penis 
(hypospadias); undescended testes; reduced anogenital distance (AGD), 
and retention of nipples.\8\ Male pups also have reduced fertility as 
adults. The CHAP noted that only certain phthalates produce these 
abnormalities, phthalates with certain structural characteristics 
(three to seven, or eight, carbon atoms in the backbone of the alkyl 
side chain). The CHAP referred to these phthalates as ``active'' or 
``antiandrogenic'' phthalates. Id. at pp. 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NRC recommended, for example, that it is appropriate to 
perform a phthalate cumulative risk assessment for MRDE (phthalate 
syndrome); the cumulative risk assessment should consider all 
endpoints associated with MRDE or, alternatively, one sensitive 
endpoint such as reductions in testosterone. NRC also recommended 
using dose addition, a hazard index approach, assuming that mixture 
effects occur at low-doses, and including other (non-phthalate) 
antiandrogens.
    \8\ Nipple retention does not normally occur in rodents, as it 
does in humans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CHAP noted that, although there is a great deal of information 
on

[[Page 49946]]

phthalate syndrome in rats, there is relatively little on the phthalate 
syndrome in other animal species. The CHAP reviewed the existing data-
exposing species, such as rabbits, mice, and marmosets, to phthalates. 
The CHAP concluded that these studies with animals other than rats show 
that most animals tested are more resistant to phthalates than rats, 
but due to the limitations on these studies (e.g., small number of 
animals exposed, only one phthalate, only one dose, high experimental 
variation), the CHAP found that ``studies in rats currently offer the 
best available data for assessing human risk.'' Id. at p. 18.
    The CHAP reviewed, and discussed in its report, studies examining 
the mechanism by which phthalates produce adverse effects. The CHAP 
concluded that the phthalate syndrome effects are largely due to the 
suppression of testosterone production, as well as reduced expression 
of the insulin-like hormone 3 gene. Id. at pp. 18-19.
    In addition to studies on animals, the CHAP also reviewed studies 
on the effect that exposure to phthalates has on human health 
(epidemiological studies). The CHAP noted that rat phthalate syndrome 
resembles testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS) in humans. TDS includes 
poor semen quality, reduced fertility, testicular cancer, undescended 
testes, and hypospadias.\9\ CHAP report at p. 2. The CHAP concluded 
that studies provide human data linking prenatal exposure to phthalates 
with certain effects on male reproductive development (such as reduced 
anogenital distance,\10\ reduced sperm quality and infertility in male 
infants). In addition, the CHAP discussed studies that found 
associations between prenatal or neonatal exposure to phthalates and 
reductions in mental and psychomotor development and increases in 
attention deficits and behavioral symptoms in children. Id. at pp. 27-
33; Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A malformation of the penis.
    \10\ Distance between the anus and genitals, which is greater in 
males than in females.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Exposure
    The CHAP assessed human exposure to phthalates by two different, 
but complementary, methods: Human biomonitoring (HBM) and exposure-
scenario analysis. HBM relies on measurements of phthalate metabolites 
in human urine to estimate exposure to phthalates. Id. at pp. 34-48; 
Appendix D. The CHAP used two data sources for HBM: NHANES and the 
Study for Future Families (SFF). NHANES is conducted by the CDC, and 
measures phthalates and other chemicals in human urine and blood in a 
statistically representative sample of thousands of U.S. residents. The 
CHAP used data from NHANES to estimate phthalate exposures in pregnant 
women and women of reproductive age (WORA). Because NHANES does not 
measure phthalate metabolites in children younger than 6 years old, the 
CHAP used measurements from the SFF to obtain exposure estimates for 
infants. SFF is a study of mother-child pairs, funded by the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the EPA. The CHAP used this HBM data to 
derive daily intake (DI) estimates to use in its risk assessment 
calculations. The CHAP used the 2005/2006 NHANES data cycle in its 
analysis. The SFF data are from 1999 to 2005. From the HBM data, the 
CHAP concluded that ``exposure to phthalates in the United States (as 
worldwide) is omnipresent. The U.S. population is co-exposed to many 
phthalates simultaneously.'' Id. at p. 37. The CHAP also noted that, 
because the data indicate that sources and routes of exposure among 
high- and low-molecular weight phthalates are similar, it is highly 
likely that substitution of one phthalate will lead to increased 
exposure to another similar phthalate. Id.
    The HBM data do not measure the sources of people's exposure to 
phthalates. For this, the CHAP used a scenario-based exposure 
assessment. Id. at pp. 49-60; Appendix E. The CHAP used estimations of 
phthalate concentrations in various sources to predict exposures to 
subpopulations (pregnant women/WORA, infants, toddlers, and children). 
For the scenario-based exposure assessment, the CHAP estimated the DINP 
exposure that would occur if DINP were allowed in children's toys and 
child care articles. The CHAP found that for most phthalates, food, 
rather than children's toys or child care articles, is the primary 
source of exposure for women and children. The CHAP examined exposures 
to various phthalates from these sources. The CHAP found that infants, 
toddlers, and children were primarily exposed to DINP, DEHP, and DIDP. 
For infants, exposure to DINP was primarily from diet, but exposure was 
also due to DINP in teethers and toys. Id. at pp. 50-51.
3. Phthalates Risk Assessment
a. Cumulative Risk Assessment
    In accordance with the CPSIA's direction, the CHAP considered 
health effects of phthalates ``in combination with other phthalates.'' 
15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(ii). The CHAP found, based on published 
studies, that active phthalates act in an additive fashion. That is, 
exposures to multiple phthalates at lower doses act in concert to 
produce the same effect as a higher dose of a single phthalate. The 
CHAP stated: ``Experimental data on combination of effects of 
phthalates from multiple studies (e.g., Howdeshell et al. (2008)) 
provide strong evidence that dose addition can produce good 
approximations of mixture effects when the effects of all components 
are known.'' Id. at p. 61. The CHAP also noted that, in addition to 
phthalates, other chemicals, including certain pesticides and 
preservatives, add to the male reproductive effects of phthalates. CHAP 
report at pp. 26-27. Due to the additive effects of certain phthalates, 
the CHAP determined that it is appropriate to conduct a cumulative risk 
analysis to assess the antiandrogenic phthalates the CHAP identified. 
Id.
    For its cumulative risk assessment, the CHAP used a Hazard Index 
(HI) approach which, the CHAP noted, is widely used in cumulative risk 
assessments of chemical mixtures. Id. To determine the HI, one first 
calculates the hazard quotient (HQ) for each chemical and then adds the 
HQs together. The ``HQ'' is generally defined as the ratio of the 
potential exposure to a substance and the level at which no adverse 
effects are expected. If the HQ is less than one, the expectation is 
that no adverse effects will result from exposure; but if the HQ is 
greater than one, adverse effects are possible. Rather than use 
acceptable daily intakes (ADI) or reference doses (RfDs) as the 
denominator of HQs, the CHAP used ``potency estimates for 
antiandrogenicity'' (PEAAs). The PEAA is an estimate of the level of 
exposure at which the risk of antiandrogenic effects is considered 
negligible. The CHAP estimated a PEAA for each phthalate by dividing 
the MRDE ``antiandrogenic'' point of departure (POD; toxicity endpoint) 
by an uncertainty factor (UF). The CHAP used three sets of PEAAs (the 
CHAP refers to these as Cases) to evaluate the impact of assumptions in 
calculating the HI. Id. at pp. 61-65.
    The CHAP calculated the HI per woman and infant, using the NHANES 
data on pregnant women (representing exposure to the fetus) and the SFF 
data on children. The CHAP found that roughly 10 percent of pregnant 
women in the U.S. population have HI values that exceed 1.0 (pregnant 
women had median HIs of about 0.1 (0.09 to 0.14), while the 95th 
percentile HIs were

[[Page 49947]]

about 5, depending on which set of PEAAs was used. The CHAP found that 
4-5 percent of infants have HI values that exceed 1.0 (infants had 
median HIs about 0.2, while the 95th percentiles were between 0.5 and 
1.0). Id. at p. 65 and Table 2.16. Based on this cumulative risk 
assessment, the CHAP recommended that phthalates that induce 
antiandrogenic effects (DINP, DIDP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP should be 
permanently banned from use in children's toys and child care articles 
at levels greater than 0.1 percent. Id. at pp. 7-8.
    Regarding the HQs for the individual phthalates, the CHAP found 
that DEHP dominated, ``with high exposure levels and one of the lowest 
PEAAs.'' Id. at p. 65. HQ values were similar for three phthalates 
(DBP, BBP, and DINP), while DIBP had the smallest HQs. Id.
b. Risks in Isolation
    In accordance with the CPSIA's direction, the CHAP also considered 
the risks of phthalates in isolation. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(ii). The 
CHAP used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach to assess the risks in 
isolation. CHAP report at p. 69. The MOE is the ``no observed adverse 
effect level'' (NOAEL) of the most sensitive endpoint in animal studies 
divided by the estimated exposure in humans. Higher MOEs indicate lower 
risks. Generally, MOEs greater than 100 to 1,000 are adequate to 
protect public health. Id. The CHAP found that, with the exception of 
DEHP, for all phthalates that it evaluated in isolation, the MOEs were 
within acceptable ranges. Id. at pp. 82-121.
4. CHAP's Recommendations to the Commission
a. Phthalates Subject to the Interim Prohibition
Diisononyl phthalate (DINP)
    The CHAP recommended that the Commission permanently prohibit the 
use of DINP in children's toys and child care articles at levels 
greater than 0.1 percent. The CHAP explained that, although DINP is 
less potent than other active phthalates, it induces antiandrogenic 
effects in animals, and therefore, DINP can contribute to the 
cumulative risk from other antiandrogenic phthalates. Id. at pp. 95-99.
    The CHAP explained that studies exposing rats to DINP during the 
critical period of fetal development showed effects on male 
reproductive development. The CHAP stated: ``Five such studies have 
shown that DINP exposure in rats during the perinatal period is 
associated with increased incidence of male pups with areolae and other 
malformations of androgen-dependent organs and testes (Gray et al., 
2000), reduced testis weights before puberty (Matsutomi et al., 2003), 
reduced AGD (Lee et al., 2006), increased incidence of multinucleated 
gonocytes, increased nipple retention, decreased sperm mobility, 
decreased male AGD, and decreased testicular testosterone (Boberg et 
al., (2011)), and reduced fetal testicular testosterone production and 
decreased StAR and Cyp11a mRNA levels (Adamson et al.,2009; Hannas et 
al., 2011b).'' Id. at pp. 96-97.
    The CHAP report discussed the CHAP's determination of a NOAEL for 
DINP. Id. at pp. 97-98. The CHAP stated:

    Taken together, the data from Boberg et al. (2011), Hannas et 
al. (2011b), and Clewell et al. (2013a; 2013b) indicate that the 
developmental NOAEL, based on antiandrogenic endpoints (nipple 
retention, fetal testosterone production, and MNGs) is between 50 
and 300 mg/kg-day. Taking a conservative approach, the CHAP assigns 
the NOAEL for DINP at 50 mg/kg-day. However, the CHAP also wants to 
point out that a simple extrapolation based upon relative potencies 
(as described in Hannas et al., 2011b) with 2.3-fold lesser potency 
of DINP than DEHP (in terms of fetal testicular T reduction) would 
lead to a NOAEL of 11.5mg/kg-d for DINP. This scenario is reflected 
in case 2 of the HI approach.

Id. at p. 98. Regarding exposure, the CHAP observed: ``DINP has been 
used in children's toys and child care articles in the past.'' Id. The 
CHAP noted that metabolites of DINP have been detected in urine samples 
in NHANES surveys. Id.
    Considering risk in isolation (following the MOE approach), the 
CHAP found MOEs that are generally considered adequate for public 
health. For male developmental effects, in infants (using the SFF 
study) the CHAP stated that the total exposure ranged from 640 to 
42,000, using 95th percentile estimates of exposure. For pregnant women 
(using NHANES data), the CHAP stated that the MOE for total DINP 
exposure ranged from 1000 to 68,000. The CHAP stated: ``Typically, MOEs 
exceeding 100-1000 are considered adequate for public health; however, 
the cumulative risk of DINP with other antiandrogens should also be 
considered.'' Id. at p. 99. The CHAP also considered the effects of 
DINP on the liver, and it found that the MOEs were within an acceptable 
range.
    In making its recommendation to the CPSC concerning DINP, the CHAP 
stated: ``The CHAP recommends that the interim ban on the use of DINP 
in children's toys and child care articles at levels greater than 0.1% 
be made permanent. This recommendation is made because DINP does induce 
antiandrogenic effects in animals, although at levels below that for 
other active phthalates, and therefore can contribute to the cumulative 
risk from other antiandrogenic phthalates.'' Id.
Di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)
    The CHAP reviewed data on DNOP. Id. at pp. 91-95. The CHAP found 
that, although DNOP is a potential developmental toxicant (causing 
supernumerary ribs) and a potential systemic toxicant (causing adverse 
effects on the liver, thyroid, immune system and kidney), ``DNOP does 
not appear to possess antiandrogenic potential.'' The CHAP estimated 
that MOEs for DNOP for infants and toddlers ranged from 2,300 to 8,200. 
The CHAP concluded: ``because the MOE in humans are likely to be very 
high, the CHAP does not find compelling data to justify maintaining the 
current interim ban on the use of DNOP in children's toys and child 
care articles.'' The CHAP recommended that the Commission lift the 
interim prohibition with regard to DNOP, but also recommended that 
``agencies responsible for dealing with DNOP exposures from food and 
child care products conduct the necessary risk assessments with a view 
to supporting risk management steps.'' Id. at p. 95.
Diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP)
    The CHAP reviewed data on DIDP. Id. at pp. 100-105. The CHAP found 
that, although DIDP is a potential developmental toxicant (causing 
supernumerary ribs) and a potential systemic toxicant (causing adverse 
effects on the liver and kidney), ``DIDP does not appear to possess 
antiandrogenic potential.'' The CHAP estimated the MOEs for DIDP range 
from 2,500 to 10,000 for median intakes and from 586 to 33,000 for 9th 
percentile intakes. Id. at p. 104. The CHAP found that DIDP's MOEs in 
humans are likely to be relatively high. The CHAP stated: ``The CHAP 
does not find compelling data to justify maintaining the current 
interim ban on the use of DIDP in children's toys and child care 
articles.'' The CHAP recommended that the Commission lift the interim 
prohibition with regard to DIDP, but suggested that ``agencies 
responsible for dealing with DIDP exposures from food and child care 
products conduct the necessary risk assessments with a view to 
supporting risk management steps.'' Id. at pp. 104-105.

[[Page 49948]]

b. Other Phthalates
    Due to their adverse effect on male reproductive development (and 
thus their contribution to the cumulative risk from other 
antiandrogenic phthalates), the CHAP recommended that the Commission 
permanently prohibit the use of four additional phthalates at levels 
greater than 0.1 percent in children's toys and child care articles.
Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP)
    The CHAP found that DIBP is similar in toxicity to DBP, one of the 
phthalates subject to the CPSIA's permanent prohibition. The CHAP 
reviewed studies that found that exposure to DIBP had effects on male 
reproductive development. The CHAP stated: ``Six studies in which rats 
were exposed to DIBP by gavage during late gestation showed that this 
phthalate reduced AGD in male pups, decreased testicular testosterone 
production, increased nipple retention, increased the incidence of male 
fetuses with undescended testes, increased the incidence of 
hypospadias, and reduced the expression of P450scc, ins13, genes 
related to steroidogenesis, and StAR protein (Saillenfait et al., 2006; 
Borch et al., 2006a; Boberg et al., 2008; Howdeshell et al., 2008; 
Saillenfait et al., 2008; Hannas et al., 2011b).'' Id. at p. 110.
    Regarding exposure, the CHAP noted that DIBP has been detected in 
some toys during routine CPSC compliance testing. The CHAP stated: 
``DIBP is too volatile to be used in PVC but is a component in nail 
polish, personal care products, lubricants, printing inks, and many 
other products.'' Id. at 111. Metabolites of DIBP have been detected in 
human urine in NHANES surveys and in Germany.
    Assessing risk, the CHAP found: ``The margins of exposure (95th 
percentile total DIBP exposure) for pregnant women in the NHANES study 
ranged from 5,000 to 125,000. For infants in the SFF study, the MOE 
(95th percentile total DIBP exposure) ranged from 3,600 to 89,000.'' 
Id. Although these MOEs are within an acceptable range, the CHAP stated 
that the cumulative risk should be considered. Id. Explaining its 
recommendation concerning DIBP, the CHAP stated:

    Current exposures to DIBP alone do not indicate a high level of 
concern. DIBP is not widely used in toys and child care articles. 
However, CPSC has recently detected DIBP in some children's toys. 
Furthermore, the toxicological profile of DIBP is very similar to 
that of DBP, and DIBP exposure contributes to the cumulative risk 
from other antiandrogenic phthalates. The CHAP recommends that DIBP 
should be permanently banned from use in children's toys and child 
care articles at levels greater than 0.1%.

Id. at pp. 111-112.
Di-n-pentyl phthalate (DPENP)
    Although DPENP is not widely used, the CHAP found that it is the 
most potent phthalate with respect to developmental toxicity. According 
to the CHAP, two studies (Howdeshell et al. (2008) and Hannas et al. 
(2011a)) found that DPENP exposure reduced fetal testicular 
testosterone production, StAR Cyp11a, and ins13 gene expression, and 
increased nipple retention. Id. at p. 112. The CHAP stated that DPENP 
is not currently found in children's toys or child care articles and is 
not widely found in the environment. Id. at p. 113. In its 
recommendation, the CHAP stated: ``The CHAP recommends that DPENP 
should be permanently banned from use in children's toys and child care 
articles at levels greater than 0.1%. The toxicological profile of 
DPENP is very similar to that of the other antiandrogenic phthalates, 
and DPENP exposure contributes to the cumulative risk.'' Id.
Di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP)
    According to the CHAP, a National Toxicology Program review of 
DHEXP in 2003 reported that based on the limited data available at that 
time, DHEXP is a developmental toxicant at high doses (9900 mg/kg-d), 
but the data were not adequate to determine an NOAEL or LOAEL. The CHAP 
stated that since then, ``one developmental toxicity study has reported 
that DHEXP exposure reduced the AGD in male pups in a dose-related 
fashion and increased the incidence of male fetuses with undescended 
testes (Saillenfait et al., 2009a).'' Id. at p. 114. The CHAP report 
stated: ``Saillenfait et al. observed reproductive tract malformations, 
including hypospadias, undeveloped testes, and undescended testes, in 
young adult male rats exposed prenatally to doses of 125 mg/kg-d DHEXP 
or greater (Saillenfait et al., 2009b).'' Id. at p. 115.
    The CHAP stated that DHEXP is currently not found in children's 
toys or child care articles and is not widely found in the environment. 
It is primarily used in the manufacture of PVC and screen printing inks 
and is also used ``as a partial replacement for DEHP.'' Id. at p. 116. 
Regarding risk, the CHAP stated: ``DHEXP is believed to induce 
developmental effects similar to those induced by other active 
phthalates. Due to low exposure, current risk levels are believed to be 
low.'' Id. The CHAP recommended that DHEXP be permanently banned from 
use in children's toys and child care articles at levels greater than 
0.1%. The CHAP stated: ``The toxicological profile of DHEXP is very 
similar to that of the other antiandrogenic phthalates, and DHEXP 
exposure contributes to the cumulative risk.'' Id.
Dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP)
    The CHAP found that studies on DCHP showed effects on male 
reproductive development. The CHAP report states: ``Two studies in rats 
exposed to DCHP by gavage during late gestation showed that this 
phthalate prolonged preputial separation, reduced AGD, increased nipple 
retention, and increased hypospadias in male offspring (Sallenfait et 
al, 2009a; Yamasaki et al., 2009). One study in rats exposed to DCHP in 
the diet showed that DCHP decreased the AGD and increased nipple 
retention in F1 males (Hoshino et al., 2005).'' Id. at pp. 116-117. The 
CHAP stated that DCHP is currently not found in children's toys or 
child care articles and is not widely found in the environment. FDA has 
approved it ``for use in the manufacture of various articles associated 
with food handling and contact.'' DCHP is also a component of hot melt 
adhesives. Id. at p. 117. The CHAP stated: ``DCHP induces developmental 
effects similar to other active phthalates. Due to low exposure, 
current risk levels are believed to be low.'' The CHAP recommended that 
DCHP be permanently banned from use in children's toys and child care 
articles at levels greater than 0.1%. Id. at p. 118.
c. Phthalate Alternatives
    The CPSIA also directed the CHAP to consider health effects of 
phthalate alternatives and to include in its report to the Commission 
recommendations for any phthalate alternatives that should be banned. 
15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(viii) and 2057c(b)(2)(C). The CPSIA defines 
``phthalate alternative'' as ``any common substitute to a phthalate, 
alternative material to a phthalate, or alternative plasticizer.'' Id. 
2057c(g)(2)(A). Accordingly, the CHAP also reviewed phthalate 
alternatives. CHAP report at pp. 121-142. The CHAP did not recommend 
banning any phthalate alternatives. We also note that the Commission's 
rulemaking authority under section 108 of the CPSIA does not extend to 
phthalate alternatives. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(3).

D. Comments Regarding the CHAP

    Comments concerning the substance of the CHAP's analysis are 
discussed in section IV of this preamble. This section covers comments 
concerning the CHAP's process.

[[Page 49949]]

1. Peer Review
    Comment: Applicability of OMB Peer Review Bulletin. Commenters 
asserted that the CHAP report was subject to OMB's peer review 
bulletin, that it qualifies as a ``highly influential'' scientific 
assessment, and that it should be subject to a peer review that 
comports with the highest standards for transparency, openness, and 
objectivity, as outlined in the OMB's peer review bulletin. (Comments 
8.6 and 8.7).
    Response: The OMB's bulletin, Final Information Quality Bulletin 
for Peer Review (70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005)) (OMB Bulletin), requires 
``to the extent permitted by law,'' that agencies conduct peer review 
on all influential scientific information that the agency intends to 
disseminate. The OMB Bulletin defines ``influential scientific 
information'' as ``scientific information the agency reasonably can 
determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on 
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' Id. at 2675. 
We believe that the CHAP report could be considered ``influential'' 
under this definition. According to the OMB Bulletin, ``dissemination'' 
means ``agency initiated or sponsored distribution of information to 
the public.'' Id. at 2674. The preamble to the OMB Bulletin notes that 
the OMB Bulletin ``does not directly cover information supplied by 
third parties (e.g., studies by private consultants, companies and 
private, non-profit organizations, or research institutions such as 
universities). However, if an agency plans to disseminate information 
supplied by a third party (e.g., using this information as the basis 
for an agency's factual determination that a particular behavior causes 
a disease), the requirements of the OMB Bulletin apply, if the 
dissemination is `influential.' '' Id. at 26676. Although the CHAP 
report was written by a third party, we believe that by relying on the 
CHAP report in support of the NPR, the Commission disseminated the CHAP 
report. Under the Bulletin, additional requirements apply to ``highly 
influential scientific assessments,'' which the Bulletin defines as a 
scientific assessment that:
    (1) Could have a potential impact of more than $500 million in any 
year, or
    (2) is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting or has 
significant interagency interest.
    One might consider the CHAP report to be a ``novel, controversial, 
or precedent-setting'' report that it could be of ``significant 
interagency interest'' because, as the CHAP report indicates, many of 
the products that contain phthalates (e.g., food and cosmetics) fall 
under other agencies' jurisdiction.
    Comment: Compliance with OMB Peer Review Bulletin. Some commenters 
asserted that the CHAP failed to adhere to the OMB Bulletin 
requirements for the peer review of a highly influential scientific 
assessment. In contrast, other commenters supported the peer review 
process used for the CHAP report, stating that the peer review was part 
of an open and transparent process. (Comment 8.7).
    Response: The peer review process used for the draft CHAP report 
complied with the additional requirements for highly influential 
scientific assessments. For example, as noted by some commenters, the 
peer review of the draft report was conducted by four independent 
scientists, using the same criteria for selecting the peer reviewers 
(by nomination of the National Academy of Sciences) required for 
selecting the CHAP members. The peer reviewers were not employed by 
manufacturers of the products under consideration or by the federal 
government, except the National Institutes of Health, the National 
Toxicology Program, or the National Center for Toxicological Research.
    Additionally, the CPSC made public: The identity of the peer 
reviewers, the charge to the peer reviewers, the draft report that was 
reviewed, and the peer reviewers' comments. CPSC posted all of the 
information on the CPSC Web site at the same time the final CHAP report 
was released to the public; and the information is available on the 
CPSC's Web site, in accordance with the additional requirements for a 
highly influential scientific assessment.\11\ Thus, the public would 
have ample opportunity to see the concerns reviewers raised and how the 
CHAP addressed the concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See https://www.cpsc.gov/chap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, regarding public comment, as discussed in the next 
response, the peer review process used by CPSC complied with the OMB 
Bulletin.
    Comment: Peer review and public comment. Commenters asserted that 
as a ``highly influential'' assessment, the CHAP report should have 
been subject to an open public comment period, as set forth in the OMB 
Bulletin. Commenters asserted that the Bulletin establishes strict 
minimum requirements for the peer review of highly influential 
scientific assessments, including a requirement that an agency ``make 
the draft scientific assessment available to the public for comment at 
the same time it is submitted for peer review . . . and sponsor a 
public meeting where oral presentations on scientific issues can be 
made to the peer reviewers by interested members of the public.'' 
Commenters asserted that this would have allowed for comment on flaws 
in the CHAP's analysis. (Comment 8.8).
    Response: The OMB Bulletin states: ``The selection of an 
appropriate peer review mechanism for scientific information is left to 
the agency's discretion.'' Id. at 2665. It also advises: ``[a]gencies 
are directed to choose a peer review mechanism that is adequate, giving 
due consideration to the novelty and complexity of the science to be 
reviewed, the relevance of the information to decision making, the 
extent of prior peer reviews, and the expected benefits and costs of 
additional review.'' Id. at 2668. We also note that CPSC staff 
consulted with OMB staff before finalizing the peer review plan for the 
CHAP report, as recommended by the OMB Bulletin.
    Although the OMB Bulletin uses the term ``requirements,'' the 
document emphasizes the intent to allow agencies flexibility in 
determining appropriate methods of peer review, id. at 2665, and the 
OMB Bulletin is a guidance document. The OMB Bulletin states that it 
``is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity.'' Id. at 
2677. See Family Farm Alliance v. Salazar, 749 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (E.D. 
Cal. 2010) (finding that a claim that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service had not conducted appropriate peer review was not judicially 
reviewable). Although the draft CHAP report was not provided to the 
public for comment at the time that the CHAP submitted the report for 
peer review, the agency was not required to do so, nor was the agency 
required to sponsor a public meeting on the peer review. CPSC staff and 
the CHAP members reasonably desired that the report should achieve a 
high level of quality before it was released to the public. Moreover, 
as explained in the next response, the CHAP report was developed 
through a very open public process that provided for public input as 
the CHAP was developing its report.
2. CHAP's Transparency and Openness
    Comment: Transparency and openness of CHAP's process. Several 
commenters stated generally that the process for the CHAP report was 
not open and transparent, but had been conducted behind closed doors. 
Other commenters questioned the transparency of particular aspects of 
the CHAP report, such as the methods used to review the scientific 
health evidence

[[Page 49950]]

and assess cumulative risk. In contrast, other commenters asserted that 
the CHAP process was a sound and fair process, adding that the process 
was highly public, and that the CHAP considered public comments and 
written submissions (including from industry representatives who 
charged that the process was not open). (Comments 8.8 and 10.3).
    Response: The CHAP's process for developing its report was open and 
transparent throughout. The CHAP developed its approach in public 
during seven public meetings and six public teleconference calls. 
During these public meetings, the CHAP discussed the methods that the 
CHAP would use to conduct the cumulative risk assessment. CPSC provided 
a page on its Web site to post all CHAP-related information. All of the 
data submitted to the CHAP, CPSC contractors' reports, and peer-
reviewed staff reports used by the CHAP were posted on the CPSC's 
public Web site. The CPSC's Web site also included correspondence 
submitted to CPSC concerning the CHAP's work. In fact, the CHAP elected 
not to use industry studies on DINX and DPHP, for the very reason that 
the manufacturer would not make the toxicology studies available to the 
public. NHANES data (which the CHAP relied on) are available to the 
public from the CDC. Once the CHAP transmitted its final report to the 
Commission, CPSC posted the final report, the draft report that had 
been submitted for peer review, and peer reviewers' comments. The CHAP 
considered all subject matter expert comments from the peer review of 
the CHAP draft report. The initial pages of the CHAP report outlined 
changes to the CHAP report resulting from the peer reviewers' comments.
3. Weight of Evidence and Completeness of CHAP's Review
    Comment: Nature of CHAP's review. Some commenters stated that the 
CHAP did not, but should have, conducted a systematic review and/or 
followed a weight of evidence (WOE) approach. Various commenters 
asserted that the CHAP should have: Employed a consistent WOE 
framework; demonstrated how the CHAP graded, rated, and interpreted the 
epidemiology studies; and specified a clear and systematic approach for 
addressing the uncertainties of the data equally. (Comment 10.1).
    Response: The CHAP used the WOE approach in two different manners. 
First, the CHAP wrote a ``Weight of Evidence'' section for each 
recommendation for each phthalate and phthalate alternative. The CHAP 
also used WOE more broadly when developing overall recommendations for 
each phthalate or phthalate alternative. The CHAP explicitly stated 
factors it considered relevant to making its recommendations. CHAP 
report at p. 79. The CHAP stated, however, that ``Because of the nature 
of the subject matter and the charge questions, which involve different 
streams of evidence and information, the CHAP concluded that its review 
was not amenable to the systematic review methodology.'' Id. at p. 12. 
This does not mean that the CHAP's review was unsystematic and biased. 
Rather, the CHAP, which began in 2010, did not have all of the 
systematic review methods that are available today. However, the CHAP 
incorporated many of the elements that are now included in systematic 
review methods in their work. (See Response 10.1 of Tab B of staff's 
briefing package for more detailed response.)

IV. Final Rule and Rationale

    This section presents the final rule and explains the Commission's 
rationale for the rule. The Commission has considered the CHAP report, 
staff's analysis of the CHAP report, staff's analysis of recent NHANES 
data, and the public comments submitted in response to the proposed 
rule and staff's NHANES reports. More specifically, we present the 
Commission's rationale for the rule by explaining the Commission's 
consideration of: Phthalates' effects on male reproductive development, 
human exposure to phthalates, assessment of phthalates' cumulative risk 
and risks in isolation, and assessment of risk for each phthalate that 
the CHAP considered. In addition, the Commission considered the 
appropriate concentration limit for the phthalates restrictions and the 
appropriate effective date for the rule. In this section, we also 
discuss phthalate requirements established by international standards 
and other countries.

A. Hazard: Phthalates' Effect on Male Reproductive Development

1. Summary
    In accordance with the CPSIA's direction, the CHAP reviewed all 
available toxicity data on phthalates. The CHAP determined that the 
critical endpoint for its analysis was adverse effects on male 
reproductive development (MRDE) and other adverse effects on male 
fertility. This focus was consistent with the NRC's 2008 assessment. As 
noted in the NPR, CPSC staff supports the CHAP's choice to focus on 
this endpoint because: MRDE in animals is associated with many of the 
most common phthalates; for most active phthalates, these effects are 
the most sensitive health effect; and phthalate syndrome in animals 
resembles testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS) in humans. Moreover, 
phthalates' effects on male reproductive development are well studied. 
79 FR 78331-32.
    As the CHAP reported, ``Studies conducted over the past 20 plus 
years have shown that phthalates produce a syndrome of reproductive 
abnormalities in male offspring when administered to pregnant rats 
during the later stages of pregnancy.'' CHAP report at p. 15. These 
effects include: Reduced testosterone synthesis, reduced anogenital 
distance (AGD), nipple retention (normally does not occur in male 
rats), undescended testes, testicular atrophy, testicular 
histopathology, multi-nuclear gonocytes (MNGs), reduced production of 
insulin-like hormone 3 (insl3), underdeveloped gubernacular cords,\12\ 
undescended testes, and genital malformations (hypospadias).\13\ 
Effects may differ depending on the dose. The CHAP noted: ``the highest 
incidence of reproductive tract malformations is observed at higher 
phthalate dose levels, whereas changes in AGD and nipple/areolae 
retention are frequently observed at lower phthalate does levels.'' 
CHAP report at p. 15. These effects persist into adulthood and lead to 
reduced or absent reproductive ability. Many, but not all, phthalates 
cause phthalate syndrome.\14\ The CHAP identified five phthalates (DBP, 
BBP, DINP, DIBP, and DEHP) that cause phthalate syndrome and for which 
human biomonitoring data were available to assess exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Underdeveloped gubernacular cords lead to undescended 
testes.
    \13\ Foster (2006); Foster et al. (2001); Howdeshell et al. 
(2016); Howdeshell et al. (2008).
    \14\ The CHAP referred to phthalates that cause phthalate 
syndrome as ``antiandrogenic,'' due to the importance of 
testosterone inhibition in causing phthalate syndrome. 
Antiandrogenic also serves to distinguish phthalates from other 
chemicals that act through the androgen receptor, which phthalates 
do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the CHAP report, studies have reported similar 
effects in species other than rats, such as guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, 
and ferrets.\15\ The evidence of phthalate syndrome in mice is even 
stronger now than when the CHAP developed its analysis.\16\ In 
addition, as the CHAP noted, ``there is a rapidly growing body of

[[Page 49951]]

epidemiological studies on the potential association of exposure to 
phthalates with human health.'' CHAP report at p. 27. For example, the 
CHAP discussed two human studies linking prenatal phthalate exposure to 
effects such as reduced AGD in male infants. Id. at p. 28. TDS in 
humans bears similarities to rat phthalate syndrome. Id. at p. 2. The 
effects of TDS (e.g., hypospadias, cryptorchidism, testicular cancer, 
impaired fertility) are observed with regularity in the U.S. 
population. Phthalates have been proposed as possible contributors to 
TDS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Guinea pigs (Gray et al. (1982)), mice, (Gray et al. 
(1982); Moody et al. (2013); Ward et al. (1998)), rabbits (Higuchi 
et al. (2003)), and ferrets (Lake et al. (1976)).
    \16\ Clewell et al. (2011) and Ding et al. (2011).
    \17\ Scott et al. (2007); Skakkebaek et al. (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments Concerning Male Reproductive Developmental Effects
    Several commenters raised issues concerning phthalates' effects on 
male reproductive development (MRDE). They asserted that studies do not 
support a determination that phthalates have the same effects on male 
reproductive development in humans (and other animals) as they do in 
rats. Commenters also asserted that, even if phthalates have some 
effect, humans are less sensitive and the CHAP failed to take this into 
account, especially through appropriate uncertainty factors. 
Additionally, commenters raised questions about the epidemiology 
studies the CHAP discussed, i.e., studies concerning phthalates' 
effects on human populations. Commenters also asserted that, because 
MRDE would affect the developing fetus, this was not an appropriate 
endpoint for CPSC's consideration of a regulation on children's toys 
and child care articles. Commenters raised questions specifically about 
DINP's association with MRDE. A summary of key comments/responses 
concerning MRDE appears in this section. Comments/responses concerning 
DINP, in particular, are provided in section IV.D.1.a. of this 
preamble.
a. Animal Studies and Their Relevance to Humans
    Comment: Studies on effects of phthalates on animals other than 
rats. Several commenters questioned the relevance of studies on rat 
phthalate syndrome in assessing effects on humans. Commenters asserted 
that studies involving animals other than rats (e.g., hamsters and 
marmosets,) indicate that phthalates are not likely to have the same 
adverse effects in people that they have in rats. Commenters argued 
that marmosets, being primates and having reproductive organ 
development that is similar to humans, were more closely related to 
humans than rats and, therefore, are a better model for estimating 
human risk. Commenters focused particularly on one study (McKinnell et 
al. (2009)) that reported no observed effects for several relevant 
endpoints. Some commenters asserted that studies involving mice 
indicate that humans, who are more similar to mice than rats, are 
likely less sensitive to phthalates than rats. Commenters also cited 
xenograft studies (i.e., transplanting human fetal testicular tissue 
into rats or mice) as supporting the conclusion that exposure to 
phthalates does not result in MRDE in humans, or at the least, humans 
are less sensitive than rats. (Comments 1.1 through 1.5).
    Response: Phthalate syndrome has been reported to occur in multiple 
mammalian species, including guinea pigs, mice, rabbits, and ferrets. 
Although studies indicate that hamsters were resistant to the effects 
of phthalates due to their slow metabolism to the active metabolite, a 
study by Gray et al. (1982) shows that giving the active metabolite to 
hamsters causes phthalate syndrome. Regarding mice, the CHAP discussed 
studies that found some effects in mice (e.g., disruptions in 
seminiferous cord formation, the appearance of multinucleated 
gonocytes, and suppression of insulin-like factor 3 (insl3)). CHAP 
report at p. 6. Some studies published after the CHAP completed its 
analysis provide additional evidence of phthalate syndrome effects in 
mice, including reduced testosterone levels, reduced testosterone 
production, testicular damage, reduced sperm count and quality, reduced 
AGD, delayed pubertal onset, and increased nipple retention.\18\ Thus, 
there is now even stronger evidence of phthalate syndrome in mice than 
was available to the CHAP. The CHAP cautioned that differences in 
methodology could cloud the issue of which species is more sensitive. 
CHAP report at pp. 17 and 72. Even if mice or other species are less 
sensitive than rats, it is not possible to make a direct comparison to 
humans without dose-response information in humans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Doyle et al. (2013) and Ge et al. (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the most sensitive species is generally used in 
assessing risks to humans.\19\ The CHAP concluded that rats provide the 
most sensitive and most extensive studies in male developmental 
toxicity. CHAP report at pp. 1, 15, 16, 76. Phthalate syndrome in rats 
resembles the TDS in humans. Id. at pp. 2, 75. For these reasons, the 
CHAP concluded that studies in rats currently offer the best available 
data for assessing human risk. Id. at pp. 18, 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Barnes and Dourson (1988); CPSC (1992); EPA (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the marmoset studies, the CHAP paid particular attention 
to these studies and invited Richard Sharpe, the principal investigator 
of the Hallmark and McKinnell studies, to present his findings at the 
CHAP meeting in November 2011. Dr. Sharpe agreed with the CHAP that 
both studies were limited by the small numbers of animals used and the 
brief duration of exposure. Dr. Sharpe added that his studies were very 
preliminary and that it would be premature to use his studies' results 
to support public health decisions. Even though limited, the published 
studies do show that the phthalate metabolite suppressed 
steroidogenesis in neonatal marmosets.
    Regarding the xenograft studies, commenters cited two studies in 
which rat fetal testes or human fetal testicular tissue were 
transplanted (xenografted) into rats (Heger et al. (2012)) or mice 
(Mitchell et al. (2012)). As discussed by the CHAP, these studies are 
subject to a number of limitations. CHAP report at p. 17. Most of the 
human fetal tissue samples were obtained after the human window of 
maximum susceptibility to phthalates, meaning that the tissues were 
less susceptible to MRDE induced by phthalates. In contrast, constant 
exposure to phthalates in the womb would always expose the fetal tissue 
to phthalates at their time of maximum sensitivity. Staff provides more 
detailed responses concerning these studies on animals other than rats 
in comment/responses 1.1 through 1.5.
    Comment: Implications of in vitro studies and studies involving 
chemicals other than phthalates. Some commenters discussed studies in 
which human testicular tissue or cells were cultured in vitro and then 
exposed to phthalates.\20\ Commenters asserted that these studies raise 
questions about whether phthalate-induced testosterone reduction in 
rats is relevant to humans. Commenters also asserted that studies 
(which were not cited by the CHAP) of chemicals with the same mode of 
action as phthalates, DES and finasteride, show that humans are 
resistant to phthalates. (Comments 1.6 and 1.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Desdoits-Lethimonier et al. (2012); Lambrot et al. (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In vitro studies use techniques that are performed in a 
controlled environment outside of a living cell or organism, while in 
vivo studies are performed inside living cells or organisms. CPSC staff 
reviewed the studies and concludes that the in vitro studies with human 
fetal testicular

[[Page 49952]]

tissue are still preliminary and are generally not sufficient, by 
themselves, to support public health decisions. In vivo animal studies 
are generally given greater weight in risk assessment. As the CHAP 
noted, there is also a growing body of evidence in humans that shows 
associations between phthalate exposure and MRDE endpoints that are 
consistent with the rat data.
    Regarding DES and finasteride, the CHAP assessed each phthalate 
based on the best available data for each individual chemical, and 
based its recommendations on those assessments. The CHAP did not base 
its conclusions on an assumption that all phthalates will behave the 
same way as DES or finasteride. The DES and finasteride publication 
cited by commenters implies that humans are less sensitive than rats to 
these two chemicals. However, this assertion does not mean that all 
phthalates will produce similar biological effects as DES or 
finasteride; phthalates do not have a similar chemical structure, are 
not metabolized or detoxified in the same way, and will not have 
similar dose-response curves to those of DES or finasteride.
b. Uncertainty Factors
    Comment: Adjusting uncertainty factors. Some commenters asserted 
that, even if one accepts that studies on rats demonstrate that 
phthalates have some effect on humans, humans are less sensitive than 
rats, and one must adjust the interspecies uncertainty factor to avoid 
overestimating the risk to humans. Some commenters suggested that 
instead of an interspecies uncertainty factor of 10, which the CHAP 
used, the uncertainty factor should be 0.1 (i.e., humans are 10x less 
sensitive than rodents) to 1 (humans are equally sensitive as 
rodents).'' Other commenters asserted that the CHAP should have used a 
different intraspecies uncertainty factor. They argued that the 
intraspecies uncertainty factor of 10 used by the CHAP is overly 
conservative because the PEAAs are already based on a sensitive 
population. Commenters on both types of uncertainty factors asserted 
that following their recommendations would have reduced the HI in the 
CHAP's cumulative risk analysis so that it would be less than one. 
(Comments 1.8 and 1.9).
    Response: An uncertainty factor is used in risk assessments to 
account for differences among different species. An interspecies 
uncertainty factor of 10 is consistent with the general practice used 
by CPSC, EPA, and others in risk assessment, to account for 
interspecies differences.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Barnes and Dourson (1988); CPSC (1992); Dankovic et al. 
(2015); EPA (1991); Pohl and Abadin (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Humans are frequently more sensitive to reproductive and 
developmental effects than animals,\22\ and human males are considered 
more vulnerable than other mammals.\23\ Commenters cited xenograft 
studies to support the assertion that humans are less sensitive than 
rats to phthalates effects. As discussed in the response above, these 
preliminary studies do not provide sufficient support for reducing the 
interspecies uncertainty factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA (1991).
    \23\ Klaassen (2001), p. 703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An uncertainty factor is also used to account for differences in 
how members of the same species could react to a chemical (i.e., human 
variability). In deriving PEAAs, the CHAP applied an intraspecies UF of 
10 to account for differences in sensitivity among individuals. CHAP 
report at pp. 63-66. CPSC staff expects that the population of infants 
and fetuses will have a broad range of sensitivity, because age, sex, 
genetic composition, nutritional status, and preexisting diseases may 
all alter susceptibility to toxic chemicals.\24\ Multiple federal 
agencies use an intraspecies uncertainty factor of 10.\25\ The CHAP 
used only the interspecies uncertainty factor and intraspecies 
uncertainty factor in its analyses. The CHAP did not apply an 
additional UF to protect infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Pohl and Abadin (1995).
    \25\ Barnes and Dourson (1988); CPSC (1992); Dankovic et al. 
(2015); EPA (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Epidemiology Studies
    Comment: Role of epidemiology studies in CHAP's report and 
recommendations. Some commenters suggested that human epidemiological 
evidence for phthalate-induced effects was equivocal or inconsistent 
with results from animal studies, and did not support the CHAP's 
conclusions and recommendations. Some commenters asserted that these 
studies did not show consistent results and have not established a 
cause and effect relationship between phthalate exposure and MRDE 
effects in humans. (Comment 7.1).
    Response: The CHAP's assessment and recommendations to the 
Commission are based primarily on animal studies. However, the CHAP 
reviewed epidemiology studies as well. CPSC staff agrees with the CHAP 
that these epidemiology studies indicate an association of exposure to 
phthalates with human health. Under CPSC's Chronic Hazard Guidelines 
and other agencies' guidance, epidemiological studies establishing a 
causal relationship between exposure and effect are not required to 
conclude that a substance or mixture is ``probably toxic to humans.'' 
CPSC's Chronic Hazard Guidelines, 57 FR 46626, 46641 (Oct. 9, 1992). 
CPSC staff considers that there is sufficient evidence in animal 
studies to conclude that certain phthalates are probably toxic to 
humans. Epidemiological data provide supporting evidence for the animal 
data and also support the conclusion that the animal data are relevant 
to humans. In addition, staff states that the CHAP's conclusion is 
consistent with a recent NAS (2017) report that also concluded that 
there is a ``moderate level of evidence'' from epidemiological studies 
that DEHP and DBP induce MRDE in humans (based on changes in AGD). The 
NAS report's conclusions provide additional confidence that phthalates 
cause MRDE in humans. Although there are a few inconsistencies in the 
findings from epidemiological studies, inconsistencies among 
epidemiological studies are common, due to differences in study 
methods, characteristics of the study population, study size, and the 
statistical power of the study to detect associations. Establishing 
cause and effect in epidemiological studies is not required by federal 
and international agencies to conclude that a substance is likely to 
cause similar effects in humans.
    Comment: Studies on reduced anogenital distance (AGD). Several 
commenters raised questions about an association between phthalate 
exposure and reduced AGD in males. Commenters noted inconsistencies in 
results among published studies and noted that effects occurred 
sporadically and inconsistently, even when performed by the same 
laboratory. Some commenters pointed to inconsistencies between 
epidemiological and animal studies. Other commenters took a different 
view, noting that ``these markers are linked with diminished 
reproductive health in males.'' (Comments 7.3 and 7.7).
    Response: The CHAP considered and discussed the inconsistent 
epidemiological data, noting the need to evaluate carefully negative 
and positive findings. CHAP report at p. 21. The CHAP considered the 
available epidemiological evidence, along with the animal studies, and 
determined that human AGD is a relevant measure of the antiandrogenic 
mode of action of phthalates during fetal development. CPSC staff 
concludes that, with few exceptions, the epidemiology studies

[[Page 49953]]

are generally consistent with one another and with the results of 
animal studies.
    Reduced AGD is one of many effects associated with phthalate 
syndrome. Studies demonstrate that phthalates cause permanent effects 
on male reproductive development.\26\ Jain and Singal (2013) reported 
that infants with undescended testis (cryptorchidism--an adverse 
clinical outcome) had a significantly shorter AGD and AGI when compared 
to infants with descended testis. Thankamony et al. (2014) reported the 
results of a comparative study involving AGD (and penile length) in 
infants that were normal and those with hypospadias or cryptorchidism. 
They determined that AGD was statistically reduced in boys with 
hypospadias or cryptorchidism when compared to boys without these 
pathologies. They concluded: ``The findings support the use of AGD as a 
quantitative biomarker to examine the prenatal effects of exposure to 
endocrine disruptors on the development of the male reproductive 
tract.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ e.g., Boberg et al. (2011); Clewell et al. (2013b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: DEHP exposure and medical procedures. One commenter stated 
that the lack of evidence showing effects occurring in adults and 
infants who are exposed to DEHP from intensive medical procedures makes 
it unlikely that less potent phthalates would induce adverse 
reproductive effects in humans. (Comment 7.4).
    Response: Few studies have specifically investigated possible 
health outcomes from phthalate exposures from medical equipment. The 
commenter cited two studies, one that the CHAP also discussed. Although 
this study did not find phthalate-related health effects, the CHAP 
concluded that the very small sample size limits its usefulness. CPSC 
staff concludes that because of the uncertainties in the existing data, 
no conclusions can be drawn from high exposures to DEHP in medical 
procedures.
d. Relevance of Endpoint to Rulemaking
    Comment: Disconnect between risk assessment's focus on fetus as 
target population and focus of rule. Commenters questioned how a rule 
restricting phthalates in children's toys and child care articles could 
reduce the risk of phthalate syndrome when the fetus, not infants and 
children who use toys and child care products, is the population 
primarily at risk for adverse effects on male reproductive development. 
Commenters noted that the CHAP's analysis shows that exposures of women 
to DINP from children's toys and childcare articles are negligible. 
(Comment 1.11).
    Response: Although fetuses are considered to be the most sensitive 
population for MRDE, based on data from animal studies, the CHAP 
recognized that other populations such as infants, toddlers, and 
children also are susceptible to the effects of phthalates. CHAP report 
at p. 14. Testosterone production and other processes involved in 
reproduction remain critical throughout male development in animals and 
humans from the prenatal period through puberty.
    Testosterone production is required throughout a male's lifetime to 
maintain the ability to reproduce.\27\ Moreover, CPSC, like other 
federal agencies, uses the most sensitive and appropriate human target 
population in risk assessments. The practice of selecting the most 
protective endpoints and potency estimates (i.e., PODs) based on the 
best available studies is consistent with the statutory mandate to 
provide a reasonable certainty of no harm with an adequate margin of 
safety. Using the lowest POD also is consistent with CPSC Chronic 
Hazard Guidelines, 57 FR 46626 (Oct. 9, 1992), and other federal agency 
practices.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Foster (2006).
    \28\ Barnes and Dourson (1988); EPA (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. National Academy of Sciences Report on Endocrine Disruptors
    In July 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine (NAS) released a report entitled, Application of Systematic 
Review Methods in an Overall Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity 
from Endocrine Active Chemicals (NAS 2017).\29\ The study responds to 
EPA's request that the NAS develop a strategy to evaluate the evidence 
for potential human health effects from endocrine active chemicals at 
low doses. The NAS selected phthalates as one of two chemicals to 
demonstrate the systematic review methods and integration of results. 
In a chapter titled, ``Phthalates and Male Reproductive-Tract 
Development,'' the NAS study evaluated three health effects (fetal 
testosterone, anogenital distance (AGD), and hypospadias). CPSC staff 
reviewed the NAS study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ NAS (2017) Application of Systematic Review Methods in an 
Overall Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity from Endocrine 
Active Chemicals. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine, National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National 
Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24758.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the CHAP report, the NAS study is not a risk assessment. 
Rather, the NAS study reviewed individual phthalates and three 
individual health effects, focusing on whether enough quality data 
existed to term the particular phthalates a reproductive hazard to 
humans. In contrast, the CHAP considered all phthalate syndrome 
effects. In spite of these differences, the NAS report's conclusions 
are consistent with the CHAP and staff's hazard conclusions. The 
phthalates section of the NAS report focused on DEHP, and provided a 
``final hazard conclusion'' for each of the endpoints. Thus, for fetal 
testosterone and AGD, DEHP is presumed to be a reproductive hazard to 
humans; for hypospadias, DEHP is suspected to be a reproductive hazard 
to humans (NAS 2017, pp. 78-81). For the other assessed phthalates, 
including DINP, the NAS report did not conduct the final analysis step 
that results in a ``final hazard conclusion.'' The report provides only 
the ``initial hazard evaluations'' for fetal testosterone, AGD, and 
hypospadias in humans. The report found for fetal testosterone, the 
phthalates BBP, DBP, DEP, DIBP, DINP, and DPP are presumed to be 
reproductive hazards to humans; DEP is not classifiable for this 
endpoint (NAS 2017, Table 3-30). AGD, BBP, DBP, and DEP are presumed to 
be reproductive hazards to humans, while DIBP, DIDP, and DINP are not 
classifiable (NAS 2017, Table 3-29). For hypospadias, BBP is suspected 
to be a reproductive hazard to humans and DBP is presumed to be a 
reproductive hazard to humans (NAS 2017, Table 3-31). The NAS committee 
did not evaluate DHEXP, DCHP, or DIOP.
    With regard to DINP, the NAS study concluded:
    <bullet> DINP effect on Fetal Testosterone: The NAS concluded: 
``there is a high level of evidence that fetal exposure to DINP is 
associated with a decrease in fetal testosterone in male rats,'' and 
that there was ``inadequate evidence to determine whether fetal 
exposure to . . . DINP, . . . is associated with a reduction in fetal 
testosterone in male humans.'' Overall, the NAS' initial hazard 
evaluation of DINP and fetal testosterone in humans was that DINP was a 
``presumed human hazard.''
    <bullet> DINP effect on AGD: The NAS concluded: ``there is an 
inadequate level of evidence to assess whether fetal exposure to DINP 
is associated with a decrease in AGD in male rats,'' and: ``the 
available studies do not support DINP exposure being associated with 
decreased AGD.'' Overall, the NAS' initial hazard evaluation of DINP 
and AGD in humans was ``not classifiable.''

[[Page 49954]]

    CPSC staff provides a more detailed discussion of the NAS report in 
the final rule briefing package at section III.B. of the briefing 
memorandum.

B. Exposure to Phthalates

    As noted, the CHAP considered exposure in two ways: Human 
biomonitoring studies that estimate total exposure to phthalates and 
the scenario-based assessment that estimates exposure to specific 
products and sources.
1. Human Biomonitoring
a. Summary
    The CHAP used data from NHANES to estimate phthalate exposures to 
pregnant women. The CHAP also used human biomonitoring data from the 
SFF study to estimate exposures to infants and their mothers because 
NHANES does not collect data on children under 6 years old. The CHAP's 
analysis of NHANES data was based on the 2005/2006 data cycle. CPSC 
staff subsequently analyzed data from later NHANES data sets. Because 
the 2005/2006 data set was the last to sample a sufficient number of 
pregnant women to make reliable exposure estimates for pregnant women, 
CPSC staff's analyses are for women of reproductive age (WORA). Staff 
determined that WORA are a suitable surrogate for pregnant women. CPSC 
staff's June 2015 report; Tab A of staff's briefing package. CPSC staff 
then used the CHAP's methodology and later NHANES data sets (2007/2008, 
2009/2010, 2011/2012) to estimate phthalate exposure, individual 
phthalate risk, and the cumulative risk (i.e, hazard index). Id. When 
CDC released another data set, 2013/2014, staff performed a similar 
analysis using that data. CPSC staff's February 2017 report; Tab A of 
staff's briefing package. No more recent SFF data are available.
    In CPSC staff's analysis of NHANES data published following the 
CHAP's analysis, staff found that total phthalate exposures in WORA 
have changed. The median total exposure to the phthalates included in 
the CHAP's cumulative risk assessment (DEHP, DINP, BBP, DBP, DIBP) has 
increased by 20 percent in WORA. In particular, the estimated median 
DEHP exposure in WORA has declined over time, while the estimated 
median DINP exposure in WORA has increased fivefold since 2005/
2006.\30\ Although DEHP was the major contributor to the cumulative 
risk in 2005/2006, DINP now contributes about as much as DEHP. See TAB 
A of staff's briefing package, Figures 6 and 7, and Table 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Zota et al. (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No new data on infants or pregnant women are available to quantify 
the effects of changing exposures. Given that the overall phthalate 
exposures to WORA have declined since 2005/2006, it is possible that 
exposures to infants and pregnant women have also declined. In general, 
studies indicate that infants' and children's exposures to chemicals 
tend to be greater than in adults.\31\ With regard to phthalates, daily 
intakes of the phthalates the CHAP examined in its cumulative risk 
assessment were generally twofold to threefold greater in SFF infants 
than in their mothers. CHAP report at Table 2.7. In the CHAP's 
scenario-based exposure assessment, estimated daily intakes were 
twofold to fivefold greater in infants than in women. CHAP report, 
Appendix E1, Table E1-18. Additionally, a study of German nursery 
school children found they had roughly twice the DEHP exposure as their 
parents.\32\ Because CPSC does not have exposure data for children more 
recent than the SFF data used by the CHAP, staff can only make a 
qualitative assessment that infants and children could have greater 
exposure to phthalates than what the NHANES data indicate for WORA. In 
section IV.C.1. of this preamble, we discuss the effect of the more 
recent NHANES data on risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CHAP 2014; Sathyanarayana et al. (2008a); Swan (2008); Swan 
et al. (2005).
    \32\ Koch et al. (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments Concerning Biomonitoring Data
i. Particular Data Sets
    Comment: CHAP's use of 2005/2006 NHANES data. Several commenters 
criticized the CHAP's use of 2005/2006 NHANES data. Commenters noted 
that the CHAP report states: ``the stopping point for CHAP analysis and 
interpretation was information available by the end of 2012.'' However, 
commenters stated, both 2007/2008 data and 2009/2010 data were 
available by then. A commenter noted that the 2009/2010 data set was 
available in September 2012, nearly 2 full years before the final CHAP 
report was issued and before the CHAP cutoff date for consideration of 
new information (end of 2012). The commenter noted that the 2011/2012 
data set was available in November 2013, ahead of the meeting in 
January 2014 at which the CHAP discussed the peer review of its report. 
(Comment 3.1).
    Response: The CHAP used 2005/2006 NHANES data on pregnant women to 
assess phthalate exposure as part of the cumulative risk assessment, to 
satisfy the CPSIA's charge to ``examine the likely levels of 
children's, pregnant women's, and others' exposure to phthalates . . . 
.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). This data set was 
the most recent data on pregnant women available at the time the CHAP 
completed its analysis in July 2012. CHAP report at p. 31. The 2005/
2006 NHANES study was the last data cycle to include a large sample of 
pregnant women. The CHAP included summary phthalate metabolite data 
from the 2007/2008 data cycle in its report, id. at Tables 2.5, 2.6., 
but did not calculate exposure and risk because this data set did not 
have sufficient numbers of pregnant women. Partial data for 2009/2010 
were first released in September 2012, after the CHAP completed its 
analysis in July 2012. Although the 2011/2012 data on phthalate 
metabolites were initially released in November 2013, the data were 
revised in October 2014, and other files that were needed to calculate 
exposure and risk were not published until January 2015, well after 
publication of the final CHAP report. Regarding the CHAP report's 
statement about a cutoff date, read in context, the cutoff date clearly 
refers to the final update of the CHAP's search of the biomedical 
literature for new peer-review publications in biomedical journals, 
specifically, National Library of Medicine databases. In any event, 
CPSC recognized that more recent NHANES data than the set on which the 
CHAP relied were available. Accordingly, CPSC staff analyzed the later 
NHANES data sets and used the most recent data in its analysis for the 
final rule.
    Comment: Pregnant women and women of reproductive age. Some 
commenters stated that the 2005/2006 NHANES data on WORA were a 
reasonable surrogate for the data on pregnant women, and that the CHAP 
should have used WORA in its cumulative risk assessment because the 
WORA have an increased sample size in most NHANES datasets and 
phthalates exposures for both are statistically similar. Commenters 
asserted that the sample size for pregnant women in the CHAP's analysis 
was too small to yield reliable risk estimates. In contrast, another 
commenter supported the CHAP's decision to base its analysis on the 
2005/2006 data that focused on pregnant women. (Comments 3.7 and 3.10).
    Response: The CHAP stated that it chose to use biomonitoring data 
from the 2005/2006 NHANES and from the SFF ``because of the CHAP's task 
to

[[Page 49955]]

investigate the likely levels of children's, pregnant women's, and 
others' exposure to phthalates and to consider the cumulative effect of 
total exposure to phthalates both from children's products and other 
sources.'' CHAP report at p. 35. Although, as the CHAP stated, there 
are indications that exposures may be higher in pregnant women than in 
women in general, the CHAP stated: ``the exposures were not found to be 
significantly different.'' Id. at p. 36. CPSC staff compared estimates 
from the 2005/2006 NHANES data set to determine whether WORA had 
similar daily intake (DI) and Hazard Index as Pregnant Women. CPSC 
staff found that median and 95th percentile estimates of the DI for 
five phthalates were generally similar when comparing WORA to pregnant 
women. Regarding the sample size of pregnant women, CDC calculated the 
sample size necessary for statistical analysis of NHANES data. In the 
data sets after 2005/2006, NHANES no longer oversampled pregnant women. 
Therefore, the numbers of pregnant women in data sets after 2005/2006 
were too small to generate statistical estimates for pregnant women. 
See Tab A of staff's briefing package.
ii. Biomonitoring Methodology
    Commenters raised concerns about various technical aspects of the 
NHANES data (e.g., effects of fasting, spot sampling rather than 
averaging urine samples over time, using hydrolic metabolites for DINP 
and DIDP, and appropriate metabolite markers). Key points are discussed 
below. More details are provided in Tab B of the staff's briefing 
package, particularly comments 1.13, 3.6, 3.11, and comments 3.14 
through 3.17.
    Comment: Urinary spot sampling. Several commenters raised concerns 
about urinary spot sampling. They noted that biomonitoring studies (and 
NHANES in particular) take one spot urine sample as opposed to 
averaging urine samples collected over a longer period of time. 
Commenters claimed that spot sampling does not accurately reflect the 
duration of exposure necessary to develop MRDE. They stated that the 
exposure information should match the exposure scenario of that hazard 
data to which it is compared (e.g., chronic exposure to chronic 
hazard). They asserted that spot sampling would not capture the day-to-
day variability in urinary concentration of most phthalates and would 
overestimate the risk. However, another commenter stated that spot 
samples are as predictive of urinary concentration as 24-hour urinary 
samples. (Comments 1.13 and 3.11).
    Response: The CHAP and CPSC staff estimated daily intake of each 
phthalate by modeling creatinine-related metabolite measurements across 
participants in NHANES. NHANES measured metabolites from one spot urine 
sample per individual in the study. Spot urine samples were collected 
at different sites and at various times of the day and days of the 
week. Additionally, because participants for each NHANES study cycle 
were randomly selected from civilian, non-institutionalized individuals 
in the United States, according to a probability-based complex, 
multistage sample design, the estimated daily intakes are 
representative of the U.S. population. The estimated daily intakes and 
the resulting HQs and HIs represent estimated population per capita 
phthalate exposure across the 2-year NHANES cycle, not average daily 
estimates of an individual's exposure across time. Thus, an estimated 
proportion of the population with an HI less than one, using HBM from 
NHANES, represents the estimated proportion of the population within 
that cycle that would have an HI less than one at any one given time of 
that cycle. Estimates based on NHANES HBM do not imply that individuals 
with HI less than one at a given time will continue to have an HI less 
than one for all 2 years of a NHANES study cycle.
    CPSC staff notes that longer-term exposures are not necessarily 
required to cause MRDE. Numerous studies in animals have demonstrated 
that MRDE and related effects can occur after one or a few doses.\33\ 
Shorter-term elevated exposure could be related to adverse health 
outcomes in the fetus, if the exposure occurs during the window of 
susceptibility. Although human phthalate exposures may vary from day-
to-day or during the course of a day, humans are exposed to phthalates 
every day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Carruthers and Foster (2005); Creasy et al. (1987); Ferrara 
et al. (2006); Gray et al. (1999); Hannas et al. (2011); Jobling et 
al. (2011); Jones et al. (1993); Li et al. (2000); Parks et al. 
(2000); Saillenfait et al. (1998); Saitoh et al. (1997); Spade et 
al. (2015); Thompson et al. (2004); Thompson et al. (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Fasting time differences. Some commenters discussed 
whether fasting times affected the concentration of phthalate 
metabolites in the urine in NHANES results and whether there were 
differences in fasting times in the data sets of different years. 
(Comment 3.6).
    Response: The CHAP paid special attention to the possible effects 
of fasting on NHANES data. Staff reviewed NHANES documentation 
<SUP>34 35</SUP> and spoke with CDC staff regarding fasting protocol 
changes between cycles. No fasting requirements changed. Therefore, 
fasting requirements were not a factor in the decision not to combine 
data from subsequent NHANES cycles with the 2005/2006 data. CPSC staff 
concludes that fasting may have an impact on food-borne phthalates; but 
if anything, this would result in underestimation of risk. CPSC staff 
concludes that the major conclusion or the recommendation of the CHAP 
report would not change whether the CHAP included the early NHANES data 
or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2006 
Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2005-2006/FASTQX_D.htm.
    \35\ National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004 
Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies. Available at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/2003-2004/PH_C.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Urinary excretion rates and metabolites. Some commenters 
raised concerns about the urinary excretion rates and the metabolites 
used in the NHANES data. One commenter asserted that staff's analysis 
in its June 2015 report of the 2009/2010 and 2011/2012 NHANES data sets 
overestimated exposures because it did not consider urinary excretion 
rates. Another commenter stated that the metabolites used for DINP and 
DIDP could lead to underestimation of phthalate risk when compared to 
other phthalates, such as DEP, DBP, DIBP, and BBP. Five commenters 
asked CPSC to re-evaluate exposure using additional metabolite 
biomarkers for DINP, DNOP, and other phthalates and also re-evaluate 
using later NHANES data. One of the commenters asserted that the 
quantitative estimates of DINP risk from the 2017 analysis provided by 
CPSC staff were calculated incorrectly and were 17 percent too high. 
The commenter requested that staff use multiple metabolites (e.g., MINP 
and MCOP) to estimate DINP exposure instead of just one (MCOP). The 
commenter noted that exposure estimated for DEHP used four metabolites. 
(Comments 3.14 through 3.17).
    Response: Regarding staff's 2015 report and excretion rates, the 
additional information necessary to calculate directly urinary mass 
excretion rates was not collected during the 2005/2006 or 2007/2008 
NHANES studies. Therefore, the extrapolation method was the only option 
available to the CHAP. Staff replicated the CHAP's reported exposure 
and risk estimates using the 2005/2006 NHANES data and

[[Page 49956]]

applied the same methods to calculate estimates from the later NHANES 
studies. Regarding metabolite biomarkers, CPSC used MCOP to analyze 
phthalate exposure, as the CHAP did. This was appropriate because for 
exposed individuals, MCOP will be detected more frequently and at 
higher levels than other DINP metabolites. Regarding the use of both 
MINP and MCOP to estimate DINP exposures, staff does not agree that the 
estimated exposures for DINP in the 2015 and 2017 analyses were 
incorrect. CPSC staff used one metabolite, MCOP, to estimate DINP 
exposure in order to be consistent with the CHAP methodology and 
previous staff exposure and risk documents. The CHAP recognized that 
there are multiple ways to estimate phthalate exposure using individual 
and combined phthalate metabolites, and the CHAP provided a table of 
potential metabolites and associated fraction of the urinary metabolite 
excreted factors. CHAP report at Table D-1.
    Comment: SFF data. A commenter noted that SFF data were collected 
before the CPSIA was implemented, and before an asserted sharp decline 
in DEHP exposure. Thus, according to the commenter, basing the NPR on 
the SFF data (which was the exposure data used to determine that 5 
percent of infants have an HI greater than one) is not supportable. 
(Comment 3.5).
    Response: Infants' and children's phthalate exposures tend to be 
greater than adults' exposure.\36\ For the phthalates in the CHAP's 
cumulative risk assessment, daily intakes were generally twofold to 
threefold greater in SFF infants than in their mothers. CHAP report at 
Table 2.7. No more recent information on infant exposures is available 
than the 1999/2005 SFF data, which was used by the CHAP (and 
subsequently by CPSC in the NPR). Infant exposures may have changed 
since 2005, but staff has no infant data to quantify any change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ CHAP (2014); Sathyanarayana et al. (2008a); Swan (2008); 
Swan et al. (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Scenario-Based Exposure Assessment
a. Summary
    Because biomonitoring data do not provide any information about the 
sources of phthalate exposure, the CHAP also included a scenario-based 
exposure assessment in its report. CHAP report at pp. 49-60, Appendix 
E1. The exposure assessment evaluated exposure from individual sources, 
such as toys, personal care products, and household products. The 
assessment considered the exposure routes of inhalation, direct and 
indirect ingestion, and dermal contact. The CHAP stated that its goal 
was to determine the significance of exposure to phthalates in toys and 
to estimate exposure to toddlers and infants for all soft plastic 
articles, except pacifiers (because pacifiers do not contain 
phthalates). Id. at p. 49. For phthalates that are currently prohibited 
from being in children's toys and child care articles, the CHAP report 
provides estimated exposures that would hypothetically occur if 
phthalates were allowed in those products. Id. at pp. 49-50.
    Scenario-based exposure estimates are developed using information 
about relevant sources of phthalate exposure (e.g., concentrations of 
phthalates in soil, dust, and in products); data on migration or 
leaching of phthalates from products; physiological information (e.g., 
body weight and skin surface area); and information about how the 
subpopulations use and interact with products, including frequency and 
duration of contact with products and environmental media.
    The exposure assessment considered seven categories of exposure 
sources and activities involving those sources: Diet, prescription 
drugs, personal care products, toys, child care articles, indoor 
environment, and outdoor environment. Id. at p. 50. For each 
subpopulation (pregnant women/WORA, infants, toddlers, and children), 
the assessment provides estimated daily aggregate exposures to each of 
the eight phthalates included in the cumulative risk assessment. Id. at 
pp. 50-51 and Table 2.11. The relative contribution (percent of total 
exposure) for each activity was determined. The analysis found that for 
women, diet contributes more than 50 percent of the exposure to DIBP, 
DNOP, DEHP, DINP and DIDP. Id. at Appendix E1-26. For infants and 
toddlers, more than 50 percent of DIBP, DINP, and DIDP exposure and 
more than 40 percent of DEHP exposure comes from diet.
    Although certain phthalates had not been permitted in children's 
toys and child care articles since 2008, the exposure assessment 
considered what contribution these products could make to overall 
phthalate exposure if those phthalates were allowed in children's toys 
and child care articles. The exposure analysis showed that, on average, 
mouthing and dermal exposure to toys could contribute around 12.8 
percent to the overall DINP exposure of infants, if DINP were used in 
these products. CHAP report at Appendix E1, Table E-21. The same 
analysis shows that dermal contact with child care articles could 
contribute up to an additional 16.5 percent of the overall exposure to 
infants. Therefore, if DINP were used in all of the products that were 
included in the scenario-based exposure assessment, children's toys and 
child care articles could account for around 29 percent of infants' 
total exposure from all evaluated sources. Id.
    It is not possible to accurately quantify the number of toys that 
might have DINP in them if the interim prohibition were lifted or to 
quantify the effect that changes in DINP exposure would have on the 
percentage of the population (infants, pregnant women, or WORA) with HI 
less than or equal to one.
b. Comments Concerning Scenario-Based Exposure Assessment
    Comment: Exposure through diet. Commenters noted that diet is the 
primary source of exposure to phthalates for infants and children and 
that children's toys and child care articles contribute very little to 
overall phthalate exposures, especially for women of reproductive age 
and fetuses. They reasoned that, therefore, a prohibition on phthalate-
containing children's toys and child care articles would have little 
effect on overall risk. (Comment 5.3).
    Response: CPSC disagrees that the contribution from sources other 
than diet are negligible, especially for DINP. The scenario-based 
exposure assessment in the CHAP report shows that mouthing and dermal 
exposure to toys could contribute an average of 12.8 percent, 5.4 
percent, and 1 percent of the overall DINP exposure to infants, 
toddlers, and children, respectively, if DINP were used in these 
products. CHAP report at Appendix E1, Tables E1-21, E1-22 and E1-23. 
Mouthing and handling soft plastic teethers and toys could contribute 
12.8 percent (mean exposure) or 16.6 percent (95th percentile 
exposures) of total DINP exposure in infants. Id. at Appendix E1, 
Tables E1-21. Dermal contact with the evaluated toys and child care 
articles may contribute up to an additional 16.5 percent of exposures 
to infants. Id. Therefore, although infants' DINP exposure was 
primarily from diet, up to 29 percent may be due to the presence of 
DINP in the evaluated toys and child care articles (Id. Figure 2.1).
    Comment: Exposure through house dust. One commenter noted that 
house dust contributed to background exposure, that DEHP was in 100 
percent of dust samples, that consumer products and building materials 
were the source of such dust, and that the EPA soil screening levels 
for DEHP were exceeded by the concentrations found. (Comment 5.4).

[[Page 49957]]

    Response: The CHAP's and staff's analyses considered exposures to 
house dust. The CHAP's exposure scenarios estimated theoretical 
exposures from house dust. The CHAP found that for infants and 
toddlers, incidental ingestion of household dust contributed roughly 25 
percent to the total BBP exposure and 15 percent to total DEHP 
exposure. For children, the CHAP found that household dust contributed 
about 18 percent to DEHP exposures. CHAP report at Appendix E1-35. 
Additionally, because NHANES includes exposures from all routes, the 
NHANES estimates would have included the survey individual's exposures 
to household dust.

C. Risk Assessment

    As the CPSIA directed, the CHAP considered risks of phthalates in 
combination and in isolation. The CHAP conducted a cumulative risk 
assessment to evaluate the effects of multiple phthalates, specifically 
phthalates known to cause MRDE and other adverse effects on male 
fertility. As explained in section III.C.3, the CHAP used information 
from toxicity studies concerning MRDE and human biomonitoring studies 
to determine a hazard quotient (HQ) for each phthalate and the hazard 
index (HI) for each individual in the two populations of interest 
(pregnant women and children). To assess risks of phthalates in 
isolation, the CHAP used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach.
    For reasons discussed in sections III.C.1 and IV.A.1. of this 
preamble, the CHAP and CPSC have focused on phthalates' association 
with MRDE. The CHAP's and CPSC's determination of risk associated with 
the use of phthalates in children's toys and child care articles is 
based on a cumulative risk assessment that considers the contribution 
that allowing antiandrogenic phthalates to be used in children's toys 
and child care articles would have on the overall cumulative risk from 
phthalates. Relying on this cumulative risk assessment, the Commission 
determines that, to meet the CPSIA's criteria of reasonable certainty 
of no harm and protection of the health of children, it is necessary to 
prohibit children's toys and child care articles containing 
concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of the phthalates that can 
cause MRDE (DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP). In this section, we 
discuss the cumulative risk assessment and related comments. We discuss 
each phthalate in section IV.D of this preamble.
1. Cumulative Risk Assessment
a. Summary
i. CHAP's Analysis and NPR
    A cumulative risk assessment estimates the potential risk following 
exposure to multiple ``stressors,'' in this case, multiple phthalates. 
As discussed in section III.C of this preamble, the CHAP found, and 
CPSC agrees, that certain phthalates cause male reproductive 
developmental effects and may appropriately be considered in a 
cumulative risk assessment. CPSC concludes that a cumulative risk 
assessment is appropriate here because evidence indicates that 
phthalates are ``dose additive.'' That is, for phthalates that cause 
MRDE, the chemicals will act together; the effects of one such 
phthalate will add to the effects of another such phthalate. As the 
CHAP report explained, experimental studies show the additive effects 
of phthalates on MRDE.\37\ The CHAP also demonstrated that the 
phthalates included in the CHAP's cumulative risk assessment share a 
common mechanism of action (primarily antiandrogenicity) and affect the 
same target organ (primarily the testes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Hannas et al. (2012); (2011); Howdeshell et al. (2007); 
(2016); (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is based on a cumulative risk assessment that uses the 
methodology employed by the CHAP, along with exposure data from the 
most recent NHANES data sets. The cumulative risk assessment follows a 
hazard index (HI) approach that is commonly used for cumulative risk 
assessments. The CHAP's cumulative risk assessment was consistent with 
the recommendations of a National Academy of Sciences report on 
cumulative risk assessment of phthalates. Cumulative risk assessment of 
chemical mixtures has been an established practice since the 1980s. The 
CHAP introduced a minor modification to the standard methodology: The 
CHAP calculated hazard indices for each individual sampled in NHANES 
rather than the more common HI approach of using population percentiles 
from exposure studies on a per-chemical basis. This allowed the CHAP to 
calculate hazard quotients (HQs) for each phthalate and an HI for each 
individual in each study. This avoids overestimating the risk for 
individuals with higher than average exposures, such as those at the 
90th and 95th percentiles.
    The CHAP calculated an HQ for each phthalate using three sets of 
``potency estimates of antiandrogenicity'' (PEAAs). The PEAA is an 
estimate of the exposure at which the risk of MRDE is negligible. The 
CHAP estimated a PEAA for each phthalate by dividing the MRDE 
``antiandrogenic'' point of departure (POD; toxicity endpoint) by an 
uncertainty factor (UF). The POD is the lowest dose level at which an 
adverse effect was seen. A UF is a quantitative factor that is used to 
account for uncertainties associated with available data (e.g., 
interspecies, intraspecies, database, and toxicity uncertainties). The 
CHAP stated that it used three sets of PEAAs to explore the effect of 
different methodology (e.g., different uncertainty factors and PODs) on 
cumulative risk estimates to ``determine the sensitivity of the results 
to the assumptions for PEAAs and the total impact on the HI approach.'' 
CHAP report at p. 4. Each case brings a different perspective to the 
risk assessment. The CHAP report discusses the three cases at pages 63-
64. Case 1 was based on published, peer-reviewed values using a study 
by Kortenkamp and Faust.\38\ Case 2 was based on a relative potency 
method with DEHP as the index chemical, using multiple-dose studies of 
in-vitro fetal testosterone production by Hannas et al. (2011).\39\ For 
Case 3, the CHAP derived new PEAA values after considering all the 
available literature, including studies such as Boberg et al. 
(2011).\40\ As explained in response to comments, CPSC staff concludes 
that each of the three cases has certain advantages, all three are 
appropriate, and the risks resulting from the three cases are quite 
similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Kortenkamp and Faust (2010).
    \39\ Hannas et al. (2011).
    \40\ Boberg et al. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CHAP calculated HQs for each phthalate by dividing the exposure 
by the PEAA. The CHAP then calculated the HI by summing the HQs for 
each phthalate. If the HI is greater than one, there may be concern for 
antiandrogenic effects in the exposed population due to cumulative 
effects of phthalates. As explained previously, the CHAP used 2005/2006 
NHANES data for exposure estimates for pregnant women and 1999-2005 SFF 
data for exposure estimates for mothers and infants. CPSC staff 
subsequently repeated the CHAP's analysis using more recent NHANES 
data. The CHAP found that pregnant women had median HIs of about 0.1 
(0.09 to 0.14), while the 95th percentile HIs were about 5, depending 
on which set of PEAAs was used. Roughly 10 percent of pregnant women 
had HIs greater than one. CHAP report at Table 2.16. Infants had median 
HIs about 0.2, while the 95th percentiles were between

[[Page 49958]]

0.5 and 1.0. About 5 percent of infants had HIs greater than one. Id.
    The CHAP characterized the distribution of the estimated HIs, by 
reporting the central tendency measure (statistical median \41\) and 
the upper percentiles (95th, and 99th). CHAP report at Table 2.16. The 
CHAP's analysis showed that the median HIs for NHANES pregnant women 
were less than one (HIs of 0.09 to 0.14), but the 95th percentile HIs 
were greater than one (HIs of 3.6 to 6.1). Staff notes that the CHAP 
emphasized that an HI greater than one is the metric that defines 
excess exposure, relative to the acceptable exposure level; the CHAP 
did not indicate that the 95th percentile, or any other part of the 
cumulative risk distribution, should be used to establish unacceptable 
risk for risk management purposes. The CHAP, having determined that an 
HI greater than one was necessary to identify the population at risk, 
then used the distribution of HIs to identify the percentage of the 
population with an estimated HI greater than one. Staff notes that, 
while the CHAP presented the distribution statistics, described above, 
the CHAP focused on the proportion of the population with HIs exceeding 
one, not on any particular percentile of the distribution. To repeat, 
the CHAP neither used nor suggested a specific percentile as a 
threshold for recommendations or regulatory proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The median is the midpoint of the distribution, where one-
half of the values are smaller than (i.e., below) the median value, 
and one-half of the values are larger than the median. The 95th 
percentile of the distribution is the value indicating 95 percent of 
values are smaller than this value, and 5 percent of values are 
larger. The median and 95th percentile values describe the data 
distribution, in this case the HI values estimated for the 
population of pregnant women or women of reproductive age who 
experience phthalate exposures. These values, by themselves, do not 
define acceptable risk levels. Rather, the acceptable risk level is 
a policy decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CHAP's HI approach is consistent with the CPSC's chronic hazard 
guidelines (Chronic Guidelines). The Chronic Guidelines discuss a 
safety factor approach to determine acceptable risk for a reproductive 
or developmental toxicant. 57 FR 46626, 46656 (Oct. 9, 1992). Under the 
safety factor approach, one determines the acceptable daily intake 
(ADI) for a substance by adding a safety factor to the lowest no 
observed effect level (NOEL) seen among relevant studies. The Chronic 
Guidelines state that if the hazard is ascertained from human data, a 
factor of 10 is applied to the NOEL, and if the hazard is ascertained 
from animal data, a factor of 100 is applied. Id. Staff states that the 
safety factor approach is similar to the HI approach that the CHAP 
followed. The CHAP's PEAA values are equivalent to an ADI, and the HI 
is the ratio of the daily exposure to the ADI. The Chronic Guidelines 
do not define the percentage of the population (i.e., number of 
individuals versus the sample population or entire population) that 
must have an HI less than one to ensure a ``reasonable certainty of no 
harm . . . with an adequate margin of safety.''
    As discussed in the NPR preamble, based on the CHAP report, the 
Commission proposed to prohibit children's toys and child care articles 
containing the antiandrogenic phthalates the CHAP had examined. The NPR 
stated that the Commission considers that an HI less than one is 
necessary to ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, 
pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with an adequate 
margin of safety and to protect the health of children. 79 FR at 78334. 
The NPR also stated that the Commission considers that an HI less than 
one is necessary to protect the health of children. Id. at 78335.
    In the NPR, the Commission stated the CHAP's determination that 
approximately 10 percent of pregnant women and 5 percent of infants had 
an HI greater than one. The Commission did not establish directly, 
however, that there was a specific proportion of the population that 
must have an HI less than or equal to one to ensure a ``reasonable 
certainty of no harm with an adequate margin of safety'' or to 
``protect the health of children.''
ii. Analysis Using Most Recent Data
    After publication of the NPR, CPSC staff analyzed NHANES data for 
WORA (from 2007 through 2014). CPSC staff reports for 2015 and 2017; 
TAB A of CPSC staff's briefing package: Staff's analysis shows that the 
risk to WORA, as indicated by HI, has decreased. Median and 95th 
percentile HIs for WORA are both less than one. Staff estimates that 
between 98.8 and 99.6 percent of WORA have HIs less than or equal to 
one. Out of a sample of 538 WORA in the 2013/2014 cycle, 99.5 percent 
of WORA have an HI less than or equal to one when considering PEAA Case 
1 and 99.6 percent when considering Case 3. For PEAA Case 2, an 
estimated 98.85 percent of WORA have an HI less than or equal to one in 
the same cycle. See Tab A of staff's briefing package. This means that 
some individual WORA in the NHANES sample have an HI greater than one 
for each PEAA case. Out of a sample of 538 WORA, for PEAA Case 1, three 
WORA had an HI greater than one; for PEAA Case 2, nine WORA had an HI 
greater than one; and for PEAA Case 3, two WORA had an HI greater than 
one. However, the national population projection for HI greater than 
one is not estimable at the upper percentiles of the distribution due 
to sampling variability. Thus, staff is unable to estimate the 
percentage of WORA with an HI greater than one in the population of 
approximately 60 million WORA in the United States.
    As noted in Tab A of the staff's briefing package, the decreases in 
HI are primarily due to decreases in DEHP exposures. The HQ for DINP is 
replacing the HQ for DEHP proportionally for contributions to the total 
HI. In each PEAA case, DINP has less potency than DEHP; thus, even 
though DINP's proportion of contribution to total HI is increasing, the 
values of HI have still decreased overall across cycles.
    CPSC does not have exposure data for infants that is more recent 
than the SFF data on which the CHAP relied. Because the risk to WORA 
has declined since 2005/2006, it is possible that exposures and risks 
to infants have also declined. However, because the routes of exposure 
(e.g., food, medicines, products) are different for each target 
population, it is not possible to quantify the changes in one 
population based on the other. As explained in section IV.B.1, infants' 
exposures generally are two- to threefold greater than adults. Thus, 
CPSC concludes that phthalate exposures and risks in WORA probably 
underestimate the risks to infants and children.
    CPSC's assessment of the risk (and the need for this rule) is also 
informed by the fact that, although the overall risk as portrayed in 
the cumulative risk assessment has decreased, DINP's contribution to 
the cumulative risk has greatly increased. It is not possible to 
quantify accurately the number of toys expected to have DINP or the 
effect of changes in DINP exposure on the percentage of the population 
(infants, pregnant women, or WORA) with HI less than or equal to one. 
However, any increase in exposure due to resumed or increased use of 
DINP in products is likely to decrease the percentage of the population 
with HI less than or equal to one. Allowing DINP to be re-introduced 
into children's toys and child care articles would open a pathway of 
exposure to a phthalate that studies have clearly demonstrated causes 
adverse effects on male reproductive development. Although DIBP, DPENP, 
DHEXP, and DCHP are not currently found in children's toys and child 
care articles (or only rarely), these phthalates

[[Page 49959]]

also cause MRDE and contribute to the cumulative risk.
b. Comments on Cumulative Risk
i. Appropriateness of Conducting a Cumulative Risk Assessment
    Comment: General acceptance of cumulative risk assessment. 
Commenters asserted that cumulative risk assessment is not a generally 
accepted approach. They stated that cumulative risk assessment is not 
appropriate as a basis for regulatory action, but only as a screening 
analysis. However, another commenter noted that ``when multiple 
phthalates act on a similar biologic target, it is critical to 
understand and regulate based on their combined effect on human 
health.'' (Comments 2.1 through 2.3).
    Response: Cumulative risk assessment is a well-established approach 
to evaluate risks posed by mixtures of multiple chemicals. EPA first 
issued guidelines for the risk assessment of chemical mixtures in 1986. 
Subsequently, ATSDR and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued 
guidance for cumulative risk assessment of chemical mixtures.\42\ EPA 
routinely uses cumulative risk assessment to assess risks from 
pesticides, as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. 
Additionally, EPA and ATSDR use cumulative risk assessment to assess 
risks under Superfund.\43\ EPA also has performed cumulative risk 
assessments, to assess phthalates.\44\ The CHAP followed guidance 
issued by the National Academy of Science for conducting cumulative 
risk assessments with the one modification, explained above, that 
allowed the CHAP to calculate HQs for each phthalate and an HI for each 
individual in the NHANES and SFF studies. Regarding the assertion that 
the CHAP's cumulative risk assessment was only a screening-level 
analysis, CPSC concludes that the CHAP's analysis is a refined 
assessment that could be considered tier 3, the highest tier, under the 
framework established by the WHO. The CHAP's CRA began with a 
comprehensive review of the toxicology and exposure literature. The 
primary exposure assessment for the CHAP report was based on 
measurements of phthalate metabolites in a statistically representative 
population (NHANES study) of actual people. As required for tier 3 
assessments under the WHO framework, the CHAP's analysis included 
probabilistic measurements of exposure and risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ EPA (1986). EPA (2000b), ATSDR (2004), and WHO (Meek et al. 
2011).
    \43\ ATSDR (2017; EPA (2017); Howdeshell et al. (2016).
    \44\ Christensen et al. (2014); Gallagher et al. (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Dose additivity. Several commenters asserted that there 
was not sufficient evidence of dose additivity, especially at low 
doses, to conduct a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates. Some 
commenters asserted that one needs a common mode or mechanism of action 
to support an assumption that phthalates are additive, and they stated 
that evidence of a common MOA was lacking. Commenters stated that the 
CHAP had not considered all the relevant papers on dose additivity. 
(Comments 2.4 through 2.8).
    Response: The CHAP did not need to present evidence of a common MOA 
or mechanism of action to justify performing a cumulative risk 
assessment because data from laboratory studies by Hannas and 
Howdeshell show that phthalate mixtures, in fact, act in a cumulative, 
additive fashion.\45\ Thus, the CHAP did not have to make any 
assumptions about additivity. In fact, one of the reasons that the CHAP 
chose MRDE as the health effect for its CRA is that MRDE is the only 
health endpoint that was extensively studied in phthalate mixtures. 
CHAP report at p. 2. Moreover, even without a common mechanism of 
action, chemicals can have cumulative effects in mixtures.\46\ 
Substances can act on the same process, but in different ways, to 
produce additive effects. In any event, CPSC concludes that evidence 
demonstrates that the phthalates in the CRA do have a common mechanism 
of action. As discussed, the phthalates all act on the male 
reproductive system. More specifically, they act by inhibiting 
testosterone production in the testis during a critical period in 
development by decreasing expression of genes involved in steroid 
synthesis.\47\ Additional factors, such as reduced expression of 
insulin-like hormone 3 gene (insl3), also are at work.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Hannas et al. (2012); (2011); Howdeshell et al. (2007); 
(2016); (2008).
    \46\ Axelstad et al. (2014); Christiansen et al. (2009); 
Howdeshell et al. (2016); Levin et al. (1987); Rider et al. (2008; 
2010; 2009).
    \47\ Foster et al. (2001); Gray et al. (2000); Mylchreest et al. 
(1998); Parks et al. (2000).
    \48\ Foster (2005); Howdeshell et al. (2016); NRC (2008); Wilson 
et al. (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding low doses, studies of phthalate mixtures at low doses do 
not exist, and the commenters did not present any evidence of a 
threshold for phthalate-induced MRDE. Although mixture studies at low 
(environmental) doses have not been performed, there are published 
studies in which the doses of the individual phthalates produced little 
or no effect, but the mixtures produced significant cumulative 
effects.\49\ In a recent study, rats were exposed to phthalates and 
other antiandrogens at doses well below the NOAEL. Although the 
individual phthalates had no observable effect, the mixture induced 
MRDE-related effects.\50\ Thus, additivity occurs even at doses where 
individual phthalates have no observable effect. As discussed in 
response to comments 2.6 and 2.7, CPSC concludes that the CHAP did 
consider all relevant papers and that dose addition is appropriate for 
assessing the cumulative effects of phthalates and other antiandrogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Axelstad et al. (2014); Christiansen et al. (2010); 
Hotchkiss et al. (2004); Howdeshell et al. (2007); (2016); Rider et 
al. (2010).
    \50\ Conley et al. (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Mode or mechanism of action. Commenters asserted that the 
mechanism of action by which phthalates affect male reproductive 
development is not clear. They argued that, in the absence of clarity 
that phthalates share a common mechanism of action, the CHAP should not 
conduct a cumulative risk assessment. Some commenters focused 
particularly on DINP, asserting that DINP does not have the same mode 
or mechanism of action as other phthalates. (Comments 1.21 through 
1.25).
    Response: Knowledge of the mode or mechanism of action can help 
inform the risk assessment process. However, a detailed understanding 
of the mode/mechanism of action is never required to perform a risk 
assessment. Several studies have shown that the phthalates act by 
inhibiting testosterone production in the testis during any critical 
period in development,\51\ by decreasing expression of genes involved 
in steroid synthesis. Reduced expression of insulin-like hormone 3 gene 
(insl3) is an additional pathway.\52\ Furthermore, all of the 
phthalates in the cumulative risk assessment induce a similar spectrum 
of effects, known as the ``phthalate syndrome,'' and which is also 
described as ``antiandrogenic'' effects. DINP has been clearly 
established by multiple studies as causing the same pattern of effects 
(phthalate syndrome) \53\ and by other studies as acting by the same 
MOA as other phthalates in the cumulative risk

[[Page 49960]]

assessment.\54\ Other experts agree that the phthalates in the CHAP's 
cumulative risk assessment act by the same mechanism of action.\55\ 
Staff also notes that mixtures studies including DINP show that the 
effects of DINP and other phthalates are additive.\56\ Therefore, a 
common mechanism of action is not necessary to include DINP in the 
cumulative risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Foster et al. (2001); Gray et al. (2000); Mylchreest et al. 
(1998); Parks et al. (2000).
    \52\ Foster (2005), Howdeshell et al. (2016), NRC (2008), and 
Wilson et al. (2004).
    \53\ Adamsson et al. (2009); Boberg et al. (2011); Clewell et 
al. (2013b); Gray et al. (2000); Hannas et al. (2011); Masutomi et 
al. (2003).
    \54\ Gray et al. (2000); Hannas et al. (2011).
    \55\ Foster (2005); Howdeshell et al. (2016); NRC (2008).
    \56\ Hannas et al. (2012); (2011); Howdeshell et al. (2007); 
(2016); (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Inclusion of permanently prohibited phthalates in CRA. 
Commenters asserted that it was not appropriate for the CHAP to include 
DEHP and other phthalates that are subject to CPSIA's permanent 
prohibition in the CHAP's cumulative risk assessment. Commenters 
asserted that nearly all of the risk in the CHAP's cumulative risk 
assessment is due to exposures to those phthalates, yet they can no 
longer contribute to the cumulative risk from exposure to children's 
products. At least one commenter stated that if the cumulative risk 
assessment excluded phthalates subject to the CPSIA's permanent 
prohibition, the HI would be less than one. The commenter reasoned 
that, therefore, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from the 
use of any other phthalates in children's products. Thus, the statutory 
requirement to ``ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, 
pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with an adequate 
margin of safety'' is satisfied without continuing the interim 
prohibition. Another commenter stated that a cumulative risk assessment 
is useful when exposure to each single substance is below the level of 
concern, but exposures to multiple chemicals with the same mechanism of 
action (or that affect the same endpoint) at the same time rise to 
levels of concern. However, the commenter asserted, with phthalates, 
only one chemical (DEHP) poses a risk in isolation. (Comments 2.9 and 
5.2).
    Response: In accordance with direction in the CPSIA, the CHAP 
examined phthalates in isolation and in combination with other 
phthalates. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(ii). Moreover, to accurately 
assess cumulative risk, it was appropriate for the CHAP to include DEHP 
(and other phthalate subject to CPSIA's permanent prohibition). 
Although DEHP is not allowed in children's toys and child care 
articles, it is permitted in other products. DEHP is found in drinking 
water, surface water, storm water, soil, and wildlife.\57\ It is found 
in indoor and outdoor air, household dust, and indoor surfaces. DEHP 
has been found in gloves, footwear, personal care products, medical 
devices, paints, adhesives, sealants, wallpaper, flooring and food. 
Thus, given the number and variety of sources of exposure, DEHP should 
be included in the cumulative risk assessment. The results of staff's 
cumulative risk assessment using more recent NHANES data, show that, 
even though exposure to DEHP is decreasing, phthalate exposures are 
still high enough that some women in the data sample have HIs exceeding 
one. The CHAP's and staff's analyses indicate that risk is not entirely 
driven by DEHP. Considering 2013/2014 NHANES data, DINP contributes 
approximately 6 to 51 percent (medians) or 18 to 76 percent (95th 
percentiles) of the overall risk. See TAB A of staff's briefing 
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Clark (2009); Versar (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. NHANES Data in the Cumulative Risk Assessment
    Comment: Using the CRA to assess individual's risk. Some commenters 
asserted that calculating risk using NHANES data (that uses spot urine 
sampling rather than measurements over time) is not an accurate 
indication of a person's real exposure to phthalates and thus the 
CHAP's HI calculations do not show true risk. They asserted it is 
inappropriate and not scientifically supportable to report results as a 
proportion of the population with an HI over one (because the 
individual spot urine samples are too variable and do not represent 
chronic exposures over time). For example, one commenter stated that an 
individual's HI from a spot urine sample ``has essentially no bearing 
on risk to the individual'' because it does not represent a repeat 
dose, longer term exposure is necessary to induce the adverse effects 
(phthalate syndrome) and that a few HIs (or HQs such as DINP) above one 
also are not representative of the population risk. Commenters thought 
that this approach was overly conservative and overestimated the risk. 
(Comments 3.11 through 3.13).
    Response: Staff concurs that spot urine samples are variable and 
are not representative of long-term exposures, but also notes that 
numerous studies in animals have demonstrated that MRDE and related 
effects can occur after one or a few doses.\58\ It is impossible to 
know whether a particular spot urine sample is overpredicting or 
underpredicting the actual exposure. HBM data are a direct measure of 
human exposure and, therefore, superior to alternatives such as modeled 
exposures. NHANES is a high quality study and provided exposure data 
that are representative of the U.S. population. Similar data with 24-
hour or longer sampling times are not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Creasy et al. (1987); Jones et al. (1993); Saitoh et al. 
(1997); Saillenfait et al. (1998); Gray et al. (1999); Parks et al. 
(2000); Li et al. (2000); Thompson et al. (2004); Carruthers and 
Foster (2005); Thompson et al. (2005); Ferrara et al. (2006); Hannas 
et al. (2011); Jobling et al. (2011); Spade et al. (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff concludes that it is statistically appropriate to portray the 
individual NHANES data as a proportion of the NHANES sample population 
with an HI less than or equal to one. Staff notes that in the 2013/2014 
NHANES sample of 538 WORA (of approximately 60 million WORA in the U.S. 
population), there were from two to nine individuals with a HI greater 
than one (i.e., at risk), depending on the PEAA case. As described in 
section 5.4 of TAB A of staff's briefing package, the 2013/2014 NHANES 
data set cannot be used to estimate how many WORA in the U.S. 
population have HIs greater than one.
    Comment: Impact of more recent NHANES data on CRA. Several 
commenters stated that CPSC staff's analysis of more recent NHANES data 
shows that the risk from phthalates has declined. Commenters noted that 
that even at the 95th percentile, the HI is uniformly less than one and 
has decreased further from the HI values calculated for the 2011/2012 
data cycle. They concluded that the CRA using current exposure data 
shows that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm. Thus, the 
statutory requirement is satisfied without Commission action. (Comment 
3.2).
    Response: The CRA using current exposure data indicates that at 
least some of the actual WORA in the NHANES data had HIs greater than 
one, showing that there is not a reasonable certainty of no harm with 
an adequate margin of safety. Moreover, the CHAP did not indicate that 
the 95th percentile, or any other part of the cumulative risk 
distribution, should be used to establish unacceptable risk. Therefore, 
discussions of acceptable risk should not be limited to the 95th or 
other percentile. Staff concurs with commenters that through the NHANES 
cycles, the population of WORA with an HI greater than one has 
decreased. In the 2013/14 NHANES sample of 538 WORA, there were from 
two to nine actual women from the NHANES sample with a HI greater than 
one (i.e., at risk), depending on the PEAA case.

[[Page 49961]]

The 2013/2014 NHANES data cannot be used to estimate how many WORA in 
the U.S. population have HIs greater than one.
    Comment: Use of values above the 95th percentile. A commenter on 
the 2017 staff report asserted that it is ``scientifically 
inappropriate to go above the 95th percentile in evaluating either 
individual or cumulative risks to the fetuses of women of reproductive 
age as indicated by the CRA.'' The commenter stated that going above 
the 95th percentile values are too unstable to provide a basis for 
regulatory decisions. The commenter noted that EPA's 2014 paper on five 
phthalates reported the 95th percentile from the calculations of HIs 
for three of the five phthalates (and the CHAP and CPSC's previous 
analyses used the 95th percentile). (Comment 3.21).
    Response: Neither the CHAP nor staff used the 95th percentile (or 
any other percentile) as a threshold for recommendations or regulatory 
proposals in evaluating individual or cumulative risks. The 95th 
percentile, as well as other measures such as the average, median, or 
99th percentile, is a commonly used metric, included by the CHAP, to 
help characterize the distribution of exposure and risk in a 
population. The rule is not based on any particular percentile, but on 
the observation that actual women from the NHANES sample have HIs 
greater than one.
    For its cumulative risk assessment, the CHAP addressed the range of 
HI in representative populations--including but not limited to the 50th 
percentile, 95th percentile, and 99th percentile. In all analyses of 
the updated NHANES data for WORA and in the rule, staff does not rely 
on any particular percentile as a threshold for recommendations or 
regulatory proposals, but on the fact that at least some of the actual 
WORA from the NHANES samples had HIs greater than one. Because at least 
some of the actual WORA from the NHANES samples had HIs greater than 
one in every NHANES data cycle analyzed, there is not a reasonable 
certainty of no harm with an adequate margin of safety. For example, 
for the 2013-14 NHANES data, between two and nine real women from the 
sample of 538 WORAs had an HI greater than one, depending on the case 
model used. The CHAP emphasized, and the Commission continues to agree, 
that an HI greater than one is the metric that defines excess exposure.
    CPSC disagrees with the blanket statement that it is scientifically 
inappropriate to go above the 95th percentile in interpreting a 
cumulative risk assessment. There is no scientific basis for an 
assertion that the 95th percentile of a distribution is the largest 
value that can be considered. The commenter specified that the values 
above the 95th percentile are unstable. In this case, staff agrees that 
the values associated with the upper tail of the distribution of HIs 
(e.g., above the 95th percentile) have large variance estimates, due to 
sample size (i.e., statistically unstable). The large variances mean 
that we are precluded from estimating the precise number of WORA with 
HIs greater than one in the larger population from which the sample was 
selected. However, as noted above, actual women with HIs greater than 
one were observed in every NHANES data cycle analyzed. As the commenter 
mentioned, EPA's paper (Christensen et al. (2014)) states, ``we present 
findings for the 95th percentile of estimated phthalate intake 
recognizing that there may be more variability in these values, because 
this information provides insight into the potential risk at the 
highest levels of exposure in a general population setting.'' Staff 
considers EPA's discussion to be consistent with the CHAP's and staff's 
presentation of results because the goal is to provide insight into the 
risks among the most highly exposed individuals. The CHAP's and staff's 
analyses are based on human biomonitoring, i.e., actual observations of 
people. These observations should be considered in risk management and 
decision-making.
iii. The Three Cases
    Comment: Criticism of the three cases (PEAAs) the CHAP used. 
Commenters raised concerns about all three of the CHAP's cases. Some 
commenters asserted that the cases inappropriately combined points of 
departure (PODs) for different types of endpoints (for example, reduced 
testosterone production, observation of MNGs, and retained nipples) for 
different effect measures. Commenters stated that the cases had treated 
transient, non-adverse biomarkers in the same way as adverse effects 
when selecting PODs. (Comments 4.1 through 4.3 and 4.6).
    Response: We discuss the major criticisms of the specific cases in 
the following comment/responses. As discussed in the section on MRDE, a 
wide variety of effects of different types and severities are included 
under the umbrella of phthalate syndrome. Staff disagrees with 
commenters' assertions that these effects cannot be considered equal 
when selecting PODs. Any observed effect related to the male 
reproductive system is a marker of biological activity that could lead 
to a broad range of effects in the organism. Thus, such markers should 
be given equal weight in quantifying the biological activity.
    Comment: Case 1. Commenters criticized the study that was the basis 
for Case 1 (Kortenkamp and Faust), which calculated a potency estimate 
based on a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) rather than a 
no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) which the commenters stated 
introduced greater uncertainties. Commenters also asserted that the 
publication of more robust studies since 2010 (e.g., Boberg) indicating 
that the Case 1 PEAAs were overstated by a factor of 4 made Case 1 
outdated. Commenters also criticized the use of larger uncertainty 
factors (UFs) for some phthalates. (Comments 4.7 and 4.8).
    Response: CPSC agrees that more recent literature has been 
published regarding the selection of PODs and UFs for phthalates that 
cause phthalate syndrome. However, this does not mean that Case 1 
should be excluded. Rather, alternate approaches (such as Case 1) to 
POD selection are useful to understand the potential effects of POD and 
UF selection on risk. Notably, the CHAP considered all relevant hazard 
studies (including those cited by the commenters) in its de novo review 
of the literature for Case 3.
    Comment: Case 2. Commenters criticized various aspects of Case 2 
and the study underlying it, (Hannas et al. (2011)). Several commenters 
asserted that CPSC should completely disregard Case 2. They asserted 
that Case 2 was based on a model that used a hypothetical NOEL for DINP 
and that the CHAP did not validate the assumptions in the model. The 
commenters stated that, because ``real world data'' exist that are more 
applicable and reliable, CPSC should not use Case 2. Commenters 
asserted that relative potency of DINP and DEHP was inappropriately 
estimated. For example, a commenter stated that an in vivo study (i.e., 
using live animals) by Gray et al. (2000) had previously estimated that 
DEHP is 10-20 times more active than DINP, so the CHAP should not have 
used Case 2's estimate that DEHP is 2.3 times more active than DINP. A 
commenter asserted that the study underlying Case 2 (Hannas et al. 
(2011)) has several flaws and limitations, such as the rats were 
obtained from different labs, dose-response curves for DINP and DEHP 
were different, and the study used a low number of animals per group. 
(Comments 4.9 through 4.13).

[[Page 49962]]

    Response: The CHAP established alternate approaches (such as Case 
2) to POD selection that are useful in understanding the potential 
effects of POD and UF selection on risk. By stating that Case 2 was 
based on a model, commenters imply that Hannas et al. (2011) was not an 
in vivo study. However, Hannas et al. did expose live animals to 
phthalates. Measurements of the rate of testosterone synthesis were, by 
necessity, made in a biochemical assay (in vitro study) using tissue 
obtained from the animals. The CHAP's use of a study that included 
observation of effects from exposure both to DINP and DEHP allowed a 
direct comparison of the relative potencies of different phthalates 
because multiple phthalates were tested in the same laboratory using 
the same methods. This is the unique advantage of Case 2. Staff 
considers the estimation of relative potency in Hannas et al. (2011) to 
be valid and notes that substantially similar methods have been used in 
the estimation of relative potency.\59\ Moreover, a 2009 review study 
estimated that DINP is 2.6 times less potent than DEHP.\60\ This 
estimate is closer to the Hannas et al study underlying Case 2 than to 
the Gray study mentioned by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Furr et al. (2014).
    \60\ Benson (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding other alleged flaws in the Hannas et al. study, staff 
agrees that the rats used to study DEHP and DINP were obtained from 
different suppliers (as noted by Hannas et al.) and that control 
testosterone production was different for each group of rats (also 
identified in the publication). However, the study adequately 
controlled for these differences. Staff also concludes that the number 
of animals per dose group was appropriate.
    Comment: Case 3. Commenters generally preferred Case 3. Some stated 
that the CHAP should have relied only on Case 3 in its cumulative risk 
assessment. However, some commenters had criticisms of Case 3. One 
commenter asserted that the POD for DINP was inadequately justified. A 
commenter characterized Case 3 as ``muddled'' and noted inconsistencies 
in how the CHAP discussed the NOEL for DINP. Comments questioned 
whether multi-nucleated gonocytes (MNGs), which are the basis of Case 
3's point of departure for DINP, are relevant to antiandrogenicity and 
whether MNGs are an adverse effect. A comment questioned the choice of 
50mg/kg/day as the POD for DINP, asserting that it is too conservative. 
(Comments 4.15 through 4.17).
    Response: For Case 3, the CHAP derived PEAAs for each phthalate 
based on the CHAP's own literature review considering all published 
peer reviewed studies on each phthalate. The CHAP considered studies by 
Clewell et al. (2013a, 2013b), Hannas et al. (2011), and Boberg et al. 
(2011) as most relevant and highest quality for identifying a NOAEL for 
DINP. CHAP report at pp. 97-98. The CHAP found that the lowest no 
effect level seen in these studies was 50 mg/kg-day based on observance 
of MNGs in the Clewell study. As the CHAP noted, this was a 
conservative estimate. It is common practice in risk assessment to 
select the most conservative health endpoint (from quality data sets) 
when performing a hazard assessment.\61\ Although MNG formation is not 
directly linked to changes in testosterone production, and not 
necessarily a direct antiandrogenic effect of phthalate exposure, MNGs 
are a characteristic effect routinely observed in phthalate 
syndrome.\62\ Thus, the observation of MNGs formed after DINP exposure 
is consistent with the occurrence of MNGs associated with exposure to 
other active phthalates and is a marker of phthalates' effects in the 
developing male reproductive system. Although MNGs might not be an 
adverse effect, finding MNGs following DINP exposure supports that DINP 
has a biological effect similar to the other active phthalates. Staff 
concludes that the CHAP's assignment of the NOAEL for DINP at 50 mg/kg-
day based on the observation of MNGs, is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Barnes and Dourson (1988); CPSC (1992); EPA (1991).
    \62\ NRC (2008), Howdeshell (2016), and Gaido (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Risk in Isolation
    In accordance with the CPSIA's direction, the CHAP also considered 
the risk of phthalates individually. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2)(B)(ii). As 
discussed in section III.C.3.b, to do this, the CHAP used an MOE 
approach. The CHAP chose this approach, in part, due to the 
recommendation of a NRC report on risk assessment methodology.\63\ Like 
the HI approach, the MOE is also widely accepted. Id. The MOE is the 
``no observed adverse effect level'' (NOAEL) of the most sensitive 
endpoint in animal studies divided by the estimated exposure in humans. 
Higher MOEs indicate lower risks. Generally, MoEs greater than 100 to 
1,000 are adequate to protect public health. CHAP report at pp. 20 and 
69. The MOE approach is conceptually similar to the CPSC staff's 
default approach in CPSC's Chronic Hazard Guidelines for assessing non-
cancer risks,\64\ and would lead to similar conclusions about risk. We 
discuss the MOE for each phthalate the CHAP examined in section IV.D of 
this preamble, and we discuss comments concerning risks in isolation in 
that section as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ NRC (2009).
    \64\ 57 FR 46626 (Oct. 9, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Assessments/Determination for Each Phthalate

    The CHAP assessed and made recommendations concerning each of the 
phthalates that it examined. CHAP report at pp. 82-121. Based on the 
CHAP report, CPSC staff's assessment, public comments on the NPR and 
staff's NHANES reports, the Commission issues this rule prohibiting 
children's toys and child care articles that contain concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP. The 
Commission concludes that, based on the best available scientific data, 
all of these phthalates cause MRDE and all contribute to the cumulative 
risk. Previous sections of this preamble have discussed the health 
effect of MRDE, exposure to phthalates, and the risk assessment for 
these phthalates. This section presents the Commission's evaluation of 
each of the phthalates covered under this regulation.
1. Phthalates Subject to the Interim Prohibition
    The CPSIA established an interim prohibition on children's toys 
that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles that 
contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DINP, DIDP, and 
DNOP. 15 U.S.C. 2057c (b)(1). The CPSIA directs the Commission to 
determine, based on the CHAP report, whether to continue in effect the 
interim prohibitions on children's toys that can be placed in a child's 
mouth and child care articles containing DINP, DIDP, and DNOP ``to 
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, 
or other susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety.'' 
Thus, for each of these phthalates, the Commission must decide whether 
it is appropriate to make the interim prohibitions permanent under the 
statutory criteria.
    As explained in the preamble to the NPR and above, for phthalates 
causing MRDE, the Commission considered the cumulative risk, which was 
based on the CHAP's HI estimates. Consistent with the CHAP report, the 
Commission considers that the acceptable risk is exceeded when the HI 
is greater than one. This is also consistent with the CPSC's chronic 
hazard guidelines. 57

[[Page 49963]]

FR 46626 (Oct. 9, 1992). The CPSC's chronic hazard guidelines consider 
the ``acceptable risk'' for a reproductive or developmental toxicant to 
be equivalent to an exposure equal to or less than the ``acceptable 
daily intake'' (ADI), that is, an HI \65\ of less than or equal to one 
for the population affected by the toxicant. Thus, the Commission 
considers that an HI less than or equal to one is necessary ``to ensure 
a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other 
susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety.'' The 
chronic hazard guidelines do not define the percentage of the 
population (i.e., number of individuals versus the sample population or 
entire population) that must have an HI less than one in order to 
ensure a ``reasonable certainty of no harm . . . with an adequate 
margin of safety.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ HI is the ratio of the daily exposure to the ADI. The 
CHAP's PEAA values are equivalent to an ADI, EPA reference dose 
(RfD), ATSDR minimal risk level (MRL), or similar terms used by 
other agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPR, the Commission proposed to prohibit children's toys and 
child care articles containing more than 0.1 percent of DINP, DCHP, 
DHEXP, and DPENP based on the CHAP's determination that approximately 
10 percent of pregnant women and 5 percent of infants had an HI greater 
than one. 79 FR at 78334-35. Thus, in issuing the NPR, the Commission 
concluded that the proportion of populations not affected by cumulative 
exposure to phthalates (at least 90 percent of pregnant women and 95 
percent of infants) did not meet the standard of ``a reasonable 
certainty of no harm with an adequate margin of safety.'' The 
Commission did not establish directly, however, that there was a 
specific proportion of the population that must have an HI less than or 
equal to one to ensure a ``reasonable certainty of no harm with an 
adequate margin of safety'' or to ``protect the health of children.''
    Staff's analysis of the most recent NHANES data showed that 
exposures to phthalates have changed. Using the CHAP's cumulative risk 
assessment methodology and the most recent NHANES data, staff has 
determined that between 98.8 and 99.6 percent of WORA (2013/2014 
NHANES) had an HI less than or equal to one. As in previous NHANES data 
cycles, some individuals in the 2013/2014 NHANES data set still have an 
HI greater than one. Depending on the PEAA case used for analysis, 
between two and nine of the approximately 538 WORA in the NHANES 2013/
2014 data sample had an HI of greater than one.\66\ Thus, a portion of 
WORA is exposed to phthalates at levels that can induce MRDE or other 
phthalate syndrome effects. For non-antiandrogenic phthalates (i.e., 
those that do not cause MRDE), the Commission considered the MOE, as 
estimated by the CHAP to assess risk. As mentioned previously, MOEs 
greater than 100-1,000 are generally considered adequate to protect 
human health. Thus, the Commission considers a MOE of 100 or greater to 
be necessary ``to ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, 
pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals with an adequate 
margin of safety'' or to ``protect the health of children.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The NHANES data was analyzed using 3 methods (Cases 1-3) 
For Case 1, three WORA had HIs greater than 1. For Case 2, nine WORA 
had HIs greater than 1. For Case 3, two WORA had HIs greater than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Diisononyl phthalate (DINP)
i. Summary
    The CHAP recommended that ``the interim prohibition on the use of 
DINP in children's toys and child care articles at levels greater than 
0.1 percent be made permanent.'' CHAP report at p. 99. The CHAP stated 
that it made this recommendation ``because DINP does induce 
antiandrogenic effects in animals, although at levels below that for 
other active phthalates, and therefore, can contribute to the 
cumulative risk from other antiandrogenic phthalates.'' Id. As 
discussed in section III.C.4.a. of this preamble, the CHAP cited 
multiple published studies that showed antiandrogenic effects after 
DINP exposure in rats. Id. at 96-97. DINP is less potent, by perhaps 
two- to 10-fold, than DEHP.\67\ However, DINP contributes to the 
cumulative risk from all antiandrogenic phthalates. The CHAP found that 
10 percent of pregnant women and up to 5 percent of infants have a HI 
greater than one based on data at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Gray et al. (2000); Hannas et al. (2011b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff examined more recent NHANES data than the dataset the 
CHAP considered. Using the CHAP's methodology and the 2013/2014 NHANES 
exposure data, CPSC staff determined that approximately 99 percent of 
WORA in the U.S. population now have an HI less than or equal to one 
(using the 2005/2006 NHANES data, 97 percent of WORA had an HI less 
than or equal to one). Additionally, CPSC staff's evaluation of recent 
NHANES data shows that exposure to DINP has increased approximately 
five-fold since 2005/2006. DINP now contributes as much to the 
cumulative risk as DEHP.
    As shown by the scenario-based exposure assessment included in 
Appendix E-1 of the CHAP report, lifting the interim prohibition on 
children's toys that can be placed in the mouth and child care articles 
containing more than 0.1 percent DINP could increase exposure to DINP 
from these products, compared to exposures if DINP is not allowed in 
these products. If DINP were used in all of the products that were 
included in the scenario-based exposure assessment, DINP exposure from 
children's toys and child care articles could account for up to about 
29 percent of infants' total DINP exposure from all evaluated sources. 
Staff does not know the extent to which manufacturers would return to 
using DINP in children's toys and child care articles if the interim 
prohibition were lifted. Staff is also unable to quantify the impact of 
increased DINP exposure on the percent of WORA or infants that have an 
HI less than or equal to one. However, staff notes that increased 
exposure will increase the MRDE risk to the population.
    The CHAP also assessed the risks of DINP in isolation and found 
that the MOEs ranged from 830 to 1,500. CHAP report at pp. 95-99. As 
discussed previously, MOEs of at least 100 are adequate to protect 
public health. CPSC agrees with the CHAP's analysis that the MOEs for 
DINP in isolation, did not present a risk. However, DINP exposure has 
been increasing since the CHAP completed its analysis. Current analysis 
suggests that DINP MOEs, in isolation, (e.g., the MOE is now 220 to 
14,000 at the 95th percentile) are below the upper limit, and are 
nearing the lower limit considered adequate for protecting public 
health. Based on the CHAP's analysis and staff's analysis of more 
recent NHANES data (and after consideration of the comments discussed 
below), the Commission determines that continuing the interim 
prohibition concerning DINP is necessary to ensure a reasonable 
certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible 
individuals with an adequate margin of safety.
    The Commission proposed to expand the scope of the restriction on 
DINP's use so that the rule would prohibit all children's toys and 
child care articles containing DINP rather than only children's toys 
that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles. 79 FR at 
78335. Likewise, the final rule prohibits all children's toys and child 
care articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of 
DINP. The

[[Page 49964]]

Commission determines that this expansion of scope is necessary to 
protect the health of children. Covering all children's toys means that 
the rule will protect against exposure to DINP through dermal contact 
(through the skin from handling toys), indirect oral exposure from 
children handling a toy and then placing their hands in their mouths, 
and all mouthing behavior. The CHAP's estimates of oral exposure from 
mouthing toys included any behavior in which the toy contacts the 
mouth. CHAP report at Appendix E. However, the interim prohibition 
covers only toys that can be placed in a child's mouth. The CPSIA 
provides the following definition of ``toy that can be placed in a 
child's mouth'':

    For purposes of this section a toy can be placed in a child's 
mouth if any part of the toy can actually be brought to the mouth 
and kept in the mouth by a child so that it can be sucked and 
chewed. If the children's product can only be licked, it is not 
regarded as able to be placed in the mouth. If a toy or part of a 
toy in one dimension is smaller than 5 centimeters, it can be placed 
in the mouth.

15 U.S.C. 2057c(g)(2)(B). Thus, continuing the interim prohibition with 
regard to DINP without expanding the scope would exclude toys that are 
5 centimeters or larger in one dimension (or have parts 5 centimeters 
or larger) even though children may be exposed to phthalates from 
licking or otherwise contacting the toy with the lips and tongue. 
Additionally, although staff does not have exposure estimates for 
indirect oral exposure from handling toys and normal hand-to-mouth 
behavior, staff concludes that exposures from handling toys will 
further contribute to the cumulative risk. Based on the analysis 
provided in Appendix E of the CHAP report, the Commission believes that 
the rule should encompass any behavior in which the toy contacts the 
mouth because this behavior provides a pathway of exposure to 
antiandrogenic phthalates.
ii. Comments Concerning DINP
    As noted in section IV.A, commenters presented numerous arguments 
questioning whether phthalates are antiandrogenic, i.e., cause MRDE, 
and about the cumulative risk assessment. This section discusses the 
comments that focused on DINP.
(a) Health Effects of DINP Exposure
    Comment: DINP and MRDE. Numerous commenters questioned whether DINP 
is antiandrogenic, that is, whether it causes MRDE. Commenters asserted 
that studies do not consistently show that DINP induces the effects 
associated with rat phthalate syndrome (e.g., decreased fetal 
testosterone, changes in anogenital distance, nipple retention, 
reproductive tract malformation, decreased sperm production). They 
cited numerous studies to support their assertions that DINP is not 
antiandrogenic and they stated that, for these reasons, the CHAP should 
not have included DINP in the cumulative risk assessment. However 
another commenter supported the inclusion of DINP in the cumulative 
risk assessment because DINP is antiandrogenic. (Comment 1.14).
    Response: The CHAP found, and CPSC agrees, that DINP-induced 
effects are consistent with phthalate syndrome in rats. Clewell et al. 
found changes in testosterone, nipple retention, and AGD, among other 
observations, by multiple laboratories, which indicate that DINP 
exposure is associated with outcomes similar to the effects of other 
phthalates such as DEHP and DBP that cause MRDE; these findings support 
the conclusion that DINP causes phthalate syndrome. CHAP report at pp. 
97-98. CPSC's conclusions are based on the weight of the evidence from 
review of multiple studies (discussed in comment responses 1.15 to 
1.20). Phthalate syndrome is a spectrum of effects and thus one does 
not expect to observe all phthalate syndrome effects in all studies. 
The CHAP noted that effects of the phthalates it evaluated were dose-
related. CHAP report at p. 2.
    Although DINP is less potent than other antiandrogenic phthalates, 
DINP can contribute to the cumulative risk from other phthalates. DINP 
has similar effects as other antiandrogenic phthalates, and thus is 
considered antiandrogenic in the context of the cumulative risk 
assessment. CPSC concludes that because DINP causes phthalate syndrome, 
it was appropriate for the CHAP to include DINP in its cumulative risk 
assessment and for the Commission to prohibit children's toys and child 
care articles containing DINP.
    Comment: DINP and effects on testosterone production. Some 
commenters stated that studies showed inconsistent results regarding 
the effect of DINP on the production of testosterone and that this 
indicates DINP does not induce rat phthalate syndrome. (Comment 1.15).
    Response: As the commenters recognize, some studies do show 
reductions in testosterone following DINP exposure.\68\ CPSC staff 
agrees that some studies (e.g., Clewell et al. (2013a);(2013b)) 
involving repeated measurements over time have not shown permanent or 
persistent changes in testosterone. Sometimes this was due to 
differences in study design. However, permanent or persistent changes 
in testosterone are not required to have an adverse impact on male 
reproductive development; rather, transient reductions in the rate of 
testosterone synthesis at the critical period of development do have 
permanent effects (e.g., structural, functional) on male reproductive 
organs.\69\ Furthermore, staff agrees with the study by Hannas et al., 
showing that the rate of testosterone synthesis, rather than plasma or 
testicular levels, is the most relevant measure of phthalate-induced 
effects on testosterone.\70\ Additionally, testosterone measurements 
made after dosing lab animals with DINP has ended do not account for 
the possible effects of ongoing exposure, as could be expected for 
humans with exposures occurring after birth from food, water, or 
contact with consumer products. Staff notes that its conclusions are 
consistent with findings from a recent NAS systematic review of the 
DINP scientific literature.\71\ In that review study, the authors 
asserted with high confidence that DINP could be considered a 
``presumed human hazard'' because of its potential to reduce 
testosterone in male fetal rats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Boberg et al. (2011); Borch et al. (2004); Clewell et al. 
(2013a); (2013b).
    \69\ Hannas et al. (2011).
    \70\ Hannas et al. (2011).
    \71\ NAS (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Effect of DINP on anogenital distance. Some commenters 
cited studies showing little or no effect on anogenital distance (AGD, 
i.e., the distance from the anus to the genitalia) after dosing with 
DINP. They asserted that these studies show DINP does not induce 
phthalate syndrome. A commenter questioned the results of one study 
where a significant decrease in AGD was observed, because of the very 
small differences between the treated and control groups. (Comment 
1.16).
    Response: Reduced AGD is one of the abnormalities that 
characterizes rat phthalate syndrome. CHAP report at pp. 1-2. The 
commenter questioned the AGD reductions observed in the Boberg et al. 
(2011) and Clewell et al. (2013b) studies; however, these results were 
actually larger than the magnitude considered by the commenter as 
unlikely to be biologically significant. Overall, the weight of 
evidence in the studies cited by the commenter demonstrates that DINP 
causes permanent effects on male reproduction. Thus, the commenter's 
contention regarding a transient nature of DINP's effects on AGD 
conflicts with the body

[[Page 49965]]

of evidence that DINP leads to phthalate syndrome. Furthermore, the 
animal studies, which involve short term exposures, do not reflect the 
continuous exposures that occur in humans.
    Comment: Nipple retention. Commenters questioned whether nipple 
retention is a relative endpoint when considering phthalates' effects 
on humans and questioned the results of studies by Boberg et al. (2011) 
and Gray et al. (2000). Commenters also noted that Clewell et al. 
(2013b) reported no significant difference in nipples in male rats 
exposed to DINP. (Comment 1.17).
    Response: The CHAP specifically discussed nipple retention as a 
relevant endpoint for antiandrogenic activity, and concluded that 
nipple retention in male animals is consistent with phthalate-induced 
reductions in testosterone levels. CHAP report at p. 16 and Appendix A-
2. Staff notes that nipple retention is sensitive to exposure of the 
developing animal during key windows of susceptibility. Studies cited 
by the commenters that indicate the dosing ends during gestation or 
within the early part of the postnatal period do not consider possible 
effects of ongoing exposure, as could be expected for humans with 
exposures occurring after birth, but within early life periods of 
vulnerability from food, water, or contact with consumer products. As 
noted previously, phthalate syndrome is a spectrum of effects; all 
effects will not be present in every study.\72\ Although nipple 
retention in animals may not correspond to a specific endpoint in 
humans, nipple retention is an antiandrogenic effect that could 
manifest in different ways in humans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Howdeshell et al. (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Reproductive tract malformations. Commenters noted that a 
number of animal studies involving DINP have not reported male 
reproductive tract malformations, such as cryptorchidism or 
hypospadias. For example, commenters stated that in the study by Gray 
et al. (2000), the significance of the changes after DINP exposure were 
unclear and questionable. (Comment 1.18).
    Response: Staff recognizes that the same specific male reproductive 
tract malformations have not been consistently observed following DINP 
exposure. As noted previously, phthalate syndrome is a spectrum of 
effects and not all effects will be observed in every study. As the 
CHAP recognized, the observation of effects depends on the dose level 
used in each study. CHAP report at p. 2. The three studies described by 
the commenter as ``definitive'' studies (Hellwig et al., Hushka et al., 
and Waterman et al.) were not designed or intended to detect phthalate 
syndrome effects. In fact, one of the ``definitive'' studies (Hushka et 
al.) was on DIDP, which does not cause phthalate syndrome. Staff 
acknowledges that the Clewell study demonstrates that DINP induces 
limited or no phthalate syndrome effects following dietary dosing to 
rats. In spite of this, the authors themselves conclude that DINP has 
less potency than DEHP or DBP, but more than DEP when considering 
effects on the male reproductive tract. They additionally state ``DINP 
is simply less potent than DBP and DEHP, i.e., it has lower potency in 
causing any adverse responses.'' Staff also notes that this study 
involved oral dosing via feed, which is different than oral dosing 
using a tube inserted into the stomach (gavage dosing), which is used 
in typical developmental toxicity studies for determining phthalate 
syndrome effects. Different dosing strategies may account for the lack 
of effects seen in the Clewell study. Staff responds to commenters' 
criticisms of other studies in comment/response 1.18 in Tab B of the 
staff's briefing package.
    Comment: DINP's effects on sperm. Several commenters asserted that 
there is no strong evidence that DINP adversely affects sperm 
production or quality. They discussed a number of studies regarding 
DINP's effects on sperm parameters, male mating behavior, and 
fertility. (Comment 1.19).
    Response: Three studies that commenters described as definitive 
were not actually designed or intended to detect phthalate syndrome 
effects. One of them was on DIDP, which does not cause phthalate 
syndrome. Inconsistencies could be due to study parameters or to the 
lower potency of DINP compared to other phthalates that have more 
consistent effects on sperm and fertility. Staff provides a more 
detailed response in comment/response 1.19 in Tab B of the staff's 
briefing package.
    Comment: Multi-nucleated gonocytes (MNGs). Several commenters 
disagreed with the CHAP's use of MNG formation as a phthalate syndrome 
endpoint, and asserted that MNG formation is not a consequence of 
exposure to DINP. Some commenters asserted that MNG induction should 
not be considered an adverse effect because the MNGs are eliminated 
within a few weeks after birth. (Comment 1.20).
    Response: Although MNG formation is not linked directly to changes 
in testosterone production, and not necessarily a direct antiandrogenic 
effect of phthalate exposure, MNGs are a characteristic effect 
routinely observed after dosing with phthalates.\73\ Thus, the 
observation of MNGs formed after DINP exposure is consistent with 
results after exposure to other active phthalates, such as DBP, and is 
a marker of phthalates' effects in the developing male reproductive 
system. Furthermore, one study suggests that the presence of MNGs may 
be linked to reduced fertility or testicular germ cell cancer in 
humans.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Spade et al. (2015).
    \74\ Ferrara et al. (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Human epidemiology data and DINP antiandrogenicity. One 
commenter asserted that the available epidemiology data do not support 
the assertion that DINP is associated with reproductive effects in 
humans. The commenter presented a review of four studies that evaluated 
DINP's association with adverse human reproductive effects.\75\ The 
review found lack of correlation or equivocal results in these studies. 
The commenter also found that a more recent study that reported slight 
reductions in AGD associated with DINP metabolites in mother's urine 
was equivocal.\76\ Another commenter noted that statistical chance may 
have been responsible for some of the epidemiology studies' positive 
association. The commenter concluded that the weight of the current 
information did not support that humans developed reproductive or 
developmental issues following exposure to phthalates. (Comment 7.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The studies were (Joensen et al. (2012); Jurewicz et al. 
(2013); Main et al. (2006); Mieritz et al. (2012).
    \76\ Bornehag et al. (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Of the four studies mentioned by the commenter, two were 
of adults and one was of boys aged 6-19 years. The CHAP concluded that 
studies in adult men were less relevant to the CHAP's work because 
exposures measured during adulthood cannot be used to infer childhood 
or early life exposure. Observational epidemiology studies control for 
the possibility of random chance, bias, or confounding in their study 
design and analysis. The primary studies that commenters mentioned 
discuss the studies' efforts to minimize these effects. Staff concludes 
that most of the studies cited by the commenters are not relevant to 
the current rulemaking on children's toys and child care articles 
because they involved adults or older children. Because humans are 
simultaneously exposed to multiple phthalates, it is difficult to 
distinguish the effects of different phthalates in epidemiology 
studies. Staff concludes that the overall

[[Page 49966]]

weight of the evidence demonstrates an association between prenatal 
phthalate exposure and MRDE effects in infants.
(b) DINP and Risk
    Comment: DINP's contribution to risk. Several commenters asserted 
that DINP contributes little to the cumulative risk. They noted that 
the CHAP's cumulative risk assessment showed that the estimated risks 
associated with phthalate exposure were driven by DEHP and DBP, and 
that DINP contributed only a small portion of the combined risk (less 
than one percent). A comment on CPSC staff's 2017 report stated that as 
DINP continues to replace DEHP, the risk will continue to fall, thus 
increased replacement of phthalates by DINP will lower the cumulative 
risk further than it currently is. Along these lines, the commenter 
asserted that lifting the interim prohibition regarding DINP would have 
only an ``inconsequential effect'' on cumulative risk. Some commenters 
asserted that, because DINP is less potent than DEHP, even if DINP 
entirely replaced DEHP, the 95th percentile HI would be far below one. 
(Comments 3.3, 3.4, and 5.1).
    Response: CPSC agrees that the median and 95th percentile HIs would 
be less than one if all CRA phthalate exposures were considered to be 
from DINP. However, a certain number of WORA in the 2013/2014 NHANES 
sample have HIs and DINP HQs greater than one. Any increase in DINP 
exposure could increase these individuals' risk. In addition, there are 
a number of individuals that have HIs and DINP HQs near one. Additional 
DINP exposure to these individuals could increase the risk to greater 
than an HI of one (see comment response 3.2 and TAB A). Based on the 
scenario-based exposure assessment, lifting the interim prohibition on 
children's toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care 
articles containing more than 0.1 percent of DINP could result in 
children's toys and child care articles accounting for up to about 29 
percent of total DINP exposure to infants. However, if DINP is not 
allowed in children's toys and child care articles, such products would 
not contribute to total DINP exposure. Staff is unable to quantify the 
impact of changes in DINP exposure on the percent of WORA or infants 
that have an HI less than or equal to one, although staff notes that an 
increased exposure will increase the MRDE risk to the population. Staff 
does not consider that increasing MRDE risk to the population is 
``inconsequential,'' particularly to those affected.
    As the commenter points out, in reality DINP would not replace all 
of the other phthalates because the differences in properties among the 
phthalates limit their use depending on the intended application. WORA 
with HQs greater than one were measured in each NHANES cycle despite 
the interim prohibition on children's toys that can be placed in a 
child's mouth and child care articles containing DINP. Any further 
increase in DINP exposure could increase the risk from DINP.
    Comment: ``Reasonable certainty of no harm'' and DINP. Some 
commenters asserted that the standard ``reasonable certainty of no 
harm'' is met without continuing the interim prohibition regarding 
DINP. They reasoned that, because the CPSIA permanently prohibited 
children's toys and child care articles containing DEHP, DBP and BBP, 
those phthalates cannot contribute to any cumulative risk from these 
children's products in the future; and without those phthalates, the HI 
clearly is less than one, so there is a reasonable certainty of no harm 
from use of DINP in these children's products. In contrast, other 
commenters asserted that it ``turns logic upside-down'' to suggest that 
``as DEHP is replaced by less toxic phthalates, there is a reasonable 
certainty of no harm from increasing exposures to the remaining 
phthalates,'' because the level of future replacement is unknown, but 
it is known that the replacement phthalates present hazards.
    Commenters on the staff's analysis of more recent NHANES data 
asserted that CPSC staff's analysis clearly demonstrates that the 
interim prohibition involving DINP can be lifted while meeting the 
``reasonable certainty of no harm'' standard set forth in the CPSIA 
because the NHANES 2013/2014 data show that cumulative risk for WORA 
continues to decline with the HI consistently below one for the 50th 
and 95th percentiles. (Comment 3.20).
    Response: As explained, studies show that DINP contributes to the 
cumulative risk. The CPSIA's permanent prohibition keeps DEHP, BBP, and 
DBP out of children's toys and child care articles; however these 
phthalates continue to be used in other products and thus they 
contribute to the cumulative risk. The CRA demonstrates that HIs 
greater than one were observed in actual WORA sampled, in all NHANES 
data cycles, including the most recent (2013/2014). Thus, male children 
born to these women could be at risk for MRDE. Because a portion of the 
potentially sensitive population is still near the level of concern (HI 
greater than 1), permanently prohibiting children's toys and child care 
articles containing DINP is still necessary to ``ensure a reasonable 
certainty of no harm'' to children and pregnant women with an 
``adequate margin of safety.''
    Comment: Diet as source of exposure to DINP. Several commenters 
noted that diet is the primary source of exposure for DINP, as well as 
other phthalates, in infants and children. They asserted that DINP 
contributes so little to the combined risk from exposure to phthalates 
from all sources that a permanent prohibition on DINP's use in 
children's toys and child care articles would have little effect on the 
overall risk and, thus, the prohibition is not supported. (Comment 
5.3).
    Response: The CHAP report does show that food, rather than 
children's toys or child care articles, provides the primary source of 
phthalate exposure to women and children. CHAP report at pp. 49-53. The 
other main contributors were soft plastic toys and teethers (via 
mouthing), and personal care products such as lotions, creams, oils, 
soaps, and shampoos via dermal contact. Id. Figure 2.1.
    The scenario-based exposure assessment included in the CHAP report 
shows that mouthing and dermal exposure to toys could contribute an 
average of 12.8 percent, 5.4 percent, and 1 percent of the overall DINP 
exposure to infants, toddlers, and children, respectively, if DINP were 
used in these products. Id. at Appendix E1, Tables E1-21, E1-22, and 
E1-23. Mouthing and handling soft plastic toys and teethers could 
contribute 12.8 percent (mean exposure) or 16.6 percent (95th 
percentile exposures) of total DINP exposure in infants. Id. at Table 
E1-21. Dermal contact with the evaluated toys and child care articles 
may contribute up to an additional 16.5 percent of exposures to 
infants. Id. Therefore, although infants' DINP exposure was primarily 
from diet, up to 29 percent may be due to the presence of DINP in the 
evaluated toys and child care articles. Id., Figure 2.1.
    Comment: DINP in isolation. Commenters asserted that the CHAP found 
no significant health risk from exposure to DINP by itself (considered 
in isolation), given the very large MOE estimates for median exposures, 
as well as for the 95th percentile of exposure. Commenters concluded 
that because of the high MOEs for DINP from all sources, the margins of 
safety must be even larger for the children's products' contribution to 
DINP exposure, and thus, there is no basis for a permanent prohibition 
on children's toys and child care articles containing DINP. A commenter 
also stated that replacement of DEHP by DINP would not be expected to 
increase the risk because of DINP's lower potency. A commenter

[[Page 49967]]

also asserted that even a doubling in DINP exposures would not increase 
the risk substantially, thus, restricting DINP's use is unwarranted. 
(Comment 5.5).
    Response: As discussed previously, the CHAP's recommendations and 
the Commission's rule are based on the cumulative risk from DINP in 
combination with other phthalates. We note, however, that due to the 
increased exposure to DINP (as seen in the 2013/2014 NHANES data), 
DINP's risk in isolation has increased. Thus, DINP alone may dominate 
the cumulative risk in the future, and DINP exposure in isolation may 
approach the level of concern, especially considering Case 2. Using the 
most recent NHANES data, the MOEs for WORA exposed to DINP range from 
2300 to 150,000 (median) and 220 to 14,000 (95th percentile) for all 
three cases.
    CPSC disagrees with the assertion that doubling the DINP exposure 
would not increase the risk substantially, and notes that currently, a 
certain proportion of actual WORA have a DINP HQ greater than one and a 
certain proportion of actual WORA have DINP HQs near one. Increasing 
exposure to DINP may increase the number of individuals with an HQ 
greater than one or may increase the HQs of individuals with an HQ 
greater than one. Furthermore, doubling DINP exposures would lower the 
MOE for DINP to 110 to 7000 (95th percentile). The CHAP noted that MOEs 
exceeding 100 to 1000 are typically ``considered adequate for 
protecting public health.'' CHAP report at p. 4. Current analysis 
suggests, therefore, that DINP MOEs, in isolation, (e.g., the MOE is 
220 for Case 2) are below the upper limit, and are nearing the lower 
limit considered adequate for protecting public health.
    Comment: Safety of DINP compared to alternatives. Numerous 
commenters expressed concern about prohibiting the use of DINP in 
children's toys and child care articles when not much is known about 
the toxicity and safety of alternative chemicals. Some commenters 
stated that the safety of alternative plasticizers should be thoroughly 
tested before placing restrictions on DINP. Commenters stated that DINP 
is well studied, has been used for over 50 years, and has been found 
safe for its intended uses. Commenters were concerned that prohibiting 
the use of DINP in children's toys and child care articles could 
potentially put people at greater risk as substitutes with uncertain 
safety are used instead. (Comment 10.5).
    Response: CPSC shares the commenters' concerns about the shift of 
chemical use from phthalates with known toxicity to phthalate 
alternatives with less toxicity or exposure information. The CHAP 
identified several data gaps for phthalate alternatives. CPSC agrees 
with the CHAP's recommendation that appropriate federal agencies should 
perform additional research and risk assessment activities on 
phthalates and phthalate alternatives to fill in data gaps. However, 
CPSC does not believe that the lack of data on alternative plasticizers 
means we should not take action regarding DINP. DINP has in fact been 
covered by the interim prohibition since February 2009. As explained in 
the NPR and throughout this document and the staff's briefing package, 
based on the CHAP report and staff's analysis, we conclude that DINP 
causes adverse effects on male reproductive development and contributes 
to the cumulative risk of these effects from other antiandrogenic 
phthalates. Thus, the Commission determines that prohibiting children's 
toys and child care articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 
percent of DINP is necessary to ensure a reasonable certainty of no 
harm and to protect the health of children.
(c) Scope of Prohibition Regarding DINP
    Comment: Support for expanding scope to all children's toys rather 
than those that can be placed in a child's mouth. Several commenters 
stated that the Commission lacked justification to expand the 
restriction on DINP from ``children's toys that can be placed in a 
child's mouth'' to all children's toys. One commenter noted that it is 
not clear the CHAP intended to recommend this expansion. Other 
commenters noted that because the MOEs for DINP show that it does not 
present a risk in isolation, there is no basis for expanding the 
interim prohibition to cover all children's toys. Commenters asserted 
that the Commission had little justification for the change and that it 
would have little effect on the risk. They noted that any risk comes 
primarily from mouthing. However, other commenters, citing evidence 
that DINP is associated with MRDE and the CHAP's CRA analysis, stated 
that the CRA clearly supported the proposed prohibition involving DINP 
and the proposed expansion of scope from toys that can be placed in a 
child's mouth to all children's toys. (Comments 6.1 and 6.2).
    Response: As discussed previously, this rule is based on the 
cumulative risk analysis demonstrating that DINP (and other 
antiandrogenic phthalates) causes MRDE and, and the most recent NHANES 
data that shows that there were from two to nine individuals with a HI 
greater than one in a sample of 538 WORA. Limiting the rule to 
children's toys that can be placed in a child's mouth would exclude 
toys that could also expose children to DINP through mouthing behaviors 
other than placing the toy in the mouth and through hand to mouth 
exposure (e.g., licking) as well as direct exposure through dermal 
contact. The 2013/2014 NHANES data indicate that exposure to DINP is 
increasing, even with the CPSIA's interim prohibition in effect. 
Covering all children's toys (rather than only those that can be placed 
in a child's mouth) will decrease exposure to DINP and thus reduce the 
risk of MRDE.
    Comment: Reliance on low cost and low dermal exposure as rationale 
in NPR. Commenters asserted that the NPR had provided faulty rationales 
for the expansion. A commenter asserted that the Commission had 
inappropriately based the expansion to all children's toys on 
consideration of testing costs rather than on risk. A commenter stated 
that the reasoning stated in the NPR in favor of expanding the rule to 
all children's toys was inconsistent with the reasons CPSC had stated 
for not expanding the prohibition to all children's products. The 
commenter understood that CPSC did not propose to cover all children's 
products because of negligible exposure due to the infrequency of 
mouthing of children's products (that are not children's toys or child 
care articles). The commenter asserted that this same rationale 
indicates that the rule should not be expanded beyond children's toys 
that can be placed in a child's mouth. (Comment 6.3 and 6.6).
    Response: The NPR mentioned that the proposed expansion would have 
little impact on testing costs. 79 FR 78335. However, the NPR merely 
noted this anticipated impact; the reason for the expansion is to 
reduce the risk of adverse health effects. Regarding any inconsistency 
between proposing to expand the interim prohibition to all children's 
toys and proposing not to cover additional children's products, we note 
that the proposal concerning all children's products was based 
primarily on a lack of information to assess the impact on children's 
health.
    Comment: Reliance on European assessment as rationale in NPR. 
Commenters objected to the NPR's discussion of the Europe Union's 
regulations on phthalates. Commenters noted that the NPR stated that 
the European Commission's 2005 directive on phthalates had 
distinguished between all children's toys and toys that

[[Page 49968]]

can be placed in the mouth due to uncertainties about DINP, DNOP and 
DIDP. The NPR suggested that, now that the CHAP had issued its report, 
these uncertainties no longer exist. Commenters objected to the NPR's 
reliance on this reasoning to support the expansion of the regulation 
of DINP. In addition, the EU submitted a related comment noting that 
the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) conducted an extensive review in 
2010 on DINP, DIDP and DNOP, and concluded that exposure other than 
mouthing did not present further risk. (Comments 6.4 and 6.5).
    Response: Regarding the ECHA's re-evaluation, that report did not 
specifically address the distinction between children's toys and toys 
that can be placed in a child's mouth. Additionally, the 2013 ECHA 
report used different health end points (liver toxicity) as the focus, 
rather than the MRDE focus used by the CHAP and CPSC. Moreover, the 
2013 ECHA report did not consider cumulative health risks from multiple 
phthalates.
b. Di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP)
    The CHAP concluded that DNOP does not lead to male developmental 
reproductive toxicity in animals and, therefore, does not contribute to 
the cumulative risk. Although DNOP does cause other developmental 
(supernumerary ribs) and systemic effects (liver, thyroid, immune 
system, and kidney), the MOEs in humans are very high. Therefore, the 
CHAP recommended that the current prohibition involving DNOP be lifted. 
CHAP report at pp. 91-95. The NPR noted that DNOP levels in people are 
so low that they are not detectable in about 90 percent of humans, and 
that DNOP is not antiandrogenic, and, therefore, does not contribute to 
the cumulative risk. 79 FR 78334. Based on the CHAP report and staff's 
analysis, the Commission concludes that continuing the prohibition of 
children's toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and child care 
articles containing more than 0.1 percent of DNOP is not necessary to 
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, 
or other susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety.
c. Diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP)
    The CHAP concluded that DIDP does not lead to male developmental 
reproductive toxicity in animals and, therefore, does not contribute to 
the cumulative risk. The CHAP considered the risk of DIDP in isolation 
and found that DIDP does cause other developmental (supernumerary ribs) 
and systemic effects (liver, and kidney). However, because the MOEs in 
humans are sufficiently high (range from 2,500 to 10,000 for median 
DIDP exposures and 586 to 3,300 for upper-bound exposures), the CHAP 
recommended that the interim prohibition involving DIDP be lifted. CHAP 
report at pp. 100-105. As noted in the NPR, DIDP exposure would need to 
increase by more than 250 times to exceed an acceptable level. 79 FR 
78334. Based on the CHAP report and staff's analysis, the Commission 
concludes that continuing the prohibition of children's toys that can 
be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles containing more 
than 0.1 percent of DIDP is not necessary to ensure a reasonable 
certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible 
individuals with an adequate margin of safety.
d. Comments Concerning DNOP and DIDP
    Comment: Prohibition concerning DNOP and DIDP should be made 
permanent. Some commenters asked the Commission to make the interim 
prohibition regarding DNOP and DIDP permanent. Commenters reiterated 
the CHAP's conclusions that DNOP is a potential developmental toxicant, 
causing supernumerary ribs, and a potential systemic toxicant, causing 
adverse effects on the liver, thyroid, immune system, and kidney. They 
noted that the CHAP stated that DIDP was a `probable toxicant' based on 
reproductive and developmental effects, and adverse systemic effects on 
the liver and kidney. A commenter suggested that ``there could be a 
cumulative impact from exposures to a mixture of DINP, DNOP and DIDP, 
which would enhance the concern about harm.'' Commenters asserted that 
without enough data to conduct a robust risk assessment, lifting the 
prohibition involving DNOP and DIDP will lead to elevated exposure to 
these two phthalates when others are covered by prohibitions. (Comments 
5.8 and 5.9).
    Response: The CHAP concluded that DIDP and DNOP do not appear to 
possess antiandrogenic potential and therefore the CHAP did not include 
them in the cumulative risk assessment. As discussed above, the CHAP's 
analysis of DIDP and DNOP in isolation showed high MOEs (greater than 
1,000 for all populations) that are sufficient to protect human health. 
The CHAP found that DNOP exposure levels are so low that one of the 
metabolites, MNOP, was not detectable in about 90 percent of humans. 
CHAP report at Table 2.6. Exposures would have to increase by a large 
measure before the acceptable levels of exposure would be exceeded. 
Thus, the CHAP report and staff's analysis do not support a conclusion 
that prohibiting the use of DNOP or DIDP in children's toys that can be 
placed in a child's mouth and child care articles is necessary to 
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, 
or other susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety.
    Comment: ``Reasonable certainty of no harm'' and DNOP and DIDP. 
Some commenters asserted that lifting the interim prohibition 
concerning DNOP and DIDP while banning other phthalates would raise 
questions about whether such action meets the ``reasonable certainty of 
no harm'' standard. They noted that the CHAP report found exposure to 
these chemicals from toys and child care articles and that the CHAP 
reported developmental and systemic toxic effects caused by these 
chemicals in animal studies. (Comment 5.9).
    Response: The CHAP concluded that DIDP and DNOP do not appear to 
possess antiandrogenic potential and therefore the CHAP did not include 
these two phthalates in the cumulative risk assessment. Assessing these 
chemicals in isolation, the CHAP found that the margins of exposure 
were sufficiently high to protect human health. Therefore, staff 
concludes that there is no justification to continue the prohibition 
involving DNOP or DIDP.
    2. Phthalates Subject to the Rule But Not Currently Prohibited 
Under the CPSIA. In addition to determining what action to take 
regarding the interim prohibition, the CPSIA directed the Commission to 
``evaluate the findings and recommendations of the Chronic Hazard 
Advisory Panel and declare any children's product containing any 
phthalates to be a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057), as the Commission 
determines necessary to protect the health of children.'' 15 U.S.C. 
2057c(b)(3)(B).
    In the absence of a definition or other guidance on the meaning of 
the phrase ``necessary to protect the health of children,'' CPSC 
interprets the phrase in the context of the CHAP report and CPSC's 
chronic hazard guidelines,\77\ which consider that an HI less than or 
equal to one is necessary to protect the health of children. As 
explained in the CHAP report, the four additional phthalates all cause 
male reproductive developmental effects and would contribute to the 
cumulative risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 57 FR 46626 (Oct. 9, 1992).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 49969]]

    The CHAP reviewed the potential health risks associated with eight 
phthalates that were not prohibited by the CPSIA, and it recommended 
that four additional phthalates (DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP) be 
prohibited from use in children's toys and child care articles. The 
CHAP found that these four phthalates are associated with adverse 
effects on male reproductive development and contribute to the 
cumulative risk from antiandrogenic phthalates. CPSC staff has reviewed 
the CHAP's assessment and agrees with the recommendation. Based on the 
CHAP's evaluation and the staff's assessment, the Commission proposed 
to prohibit children's toys and child care articles containing more 
than 0.1 percent of DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and/or DCHP. 79 FR 78335-78337. 
The Commission determines that prohibiting children's toys and child 
care articles that contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of 
DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and/or DCHP is necessary to protect the health of 
children and issues this final rule to establish this prohibition.
    Although current exposures to these four phthalates are low, these 
phthalates could be used as substitutes for the phthalates subject to 
prohibition, thus increasing human exposures from MRDE phthalates. All 
of these four phthalates are capable of contributing to the cumulative 
risk. A 2014 study demonstrated that three of these four phthalates 
(DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP) had much greater potency than DEHP which the 
CPSIA permanently prohibits from use in children's toys and child care 
articles.\78\ The potency of the fourth (DIBP) was slightly less or 
similar to DEHP.\79\ In addition, these four phthalates may have a 
greater potential for exposure than DINP, because lower molecular 
weight plasticizers generally have higher migration rates.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Furr et al. (2014).
    \79\ Furr et al. (2014); Hannas et al. (2011).
    \80\ Dreyfus and Babich (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Diisobutyl Phthalate (DIBP)
    The CHAP recommended prohibiting the use of diisobutyl phthalate 
(DIBP) in children's toys and child care articles. CHAP report at pp. 
110-113. DIBP is associated with adverse effects on male reproductive 
development and contributes to the cumulative risk from antiandrogenic 
phthalates. Furthermore, as noted in the NPR, DIBP has been found in 
some toys and child care articles during compliance testing by CPSC. 
The CHAP estimated that DIBP contributes up to 5 percent of the 
cumulative risk in infants from all products and sources. CHAP report 
at Table 2.16. More recent biomonitoring data show that DIBP exposures 
and risks have increased by about 50%. TAB A of staff briefing package.
    DIBP is similar in toxicity to DBP, which is one of the phthalates 
subject to the CPSIA's permanent prohibition. DIBP was shown to be 
antiandrogenic in numerous studies and it acts in concert with other 
antiandrogenic phthalates. The CHAP found that current exposures to 
DIBP are low. When considered in isolation, DIBP has a MOE of 3,600 or 
more. CHAP report at pp. 24, 110-111. DIBP contributes roughly 1 to 2 
percent of the cumulative risk from phthalate exposure to pregnant 
women and 1 percent to 5 percent in infants. However, the CHAP based 
its recommendation on cumulative risk.
    Based on evaluation of the CHAP report and staff's review, the 
Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that 
DIBP is antiandrogenic and contributes to the cumulative risk. The 
Commission also concludes that, applying the CPSC chronic hazard 
guidelines, this phthalate is considered ``probably toxic'' to humans 
based on sufficient evidence in animal studies. As discussed 
previously, the Commission considers that a HI less than or equal to 
one is necessary ``to protect the health of children.'' Using the most 
recent biomonitoring data, some WORA in the sample have an HI that 
exceeds one. For PEAA Case 1, three WORA had an HI greater than one; 
for PEAA Case 2, nine WORA had an HI greater than one; and for PEAA 
Case 3, two WORA had an HI greater than one. In addition, CPSC staff 
has identified DIBP in a small portion of toys and child care articles 
during routine compliance testing. Therefore, the rule prohibits 
children's toys and child care articles containing concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of DIBP. The Commission concludes that this 
action is necessary to protect the health of children because it would 
prevent current and future use of this antiandrogenic phthalate in 
children's toys and child care articles.
b. Di-n-pentyl Phthalate (DPENP)
    The CHAP recommended prohibiting the use of DPENP in children's 
toys and child care articles. CHAP report at pp. 112-113. DPENP is 
associated with adverse effects on male reproductive development and 
contributes to the cumulative risk from antiandrogenic phthalates. 
Furthermore, DPENP is the most potent of the antiandrogenic phthalates. 
Prohibiting the use of DPENP would prevent its use as a substitute for 
other banned phthalates. The Commission agrees with the CHAP's 
recommendation for DPENP. Based on the CHAP report and previous 
toxicity reviews by CPSC staff and a contractor,\81\ the Commission 
concludes that there is sufficient evidence that DPENP is 
antiandrogenic and contributes to the cumulative risk. For example, the 
CHAP noted studies by Howdeshell et al. and Hannas et al., which found 
that exposure to DPENP reduced fetal testicular testosterone 
production. Id. at p. 112. The Commission also concludes that, applying 
the CPSC chronic hazard guidelines, this phthalate is considered 
``probably toxic'' to humans, based on sufficient evidence in animal 
studies. Furthermore, DPENP is roughly two- to three-fold more potent 
than DEHP.\82\ Although CPSC staff has not detected DPENP in children's 
toys or child care articles, metabolites of DPENP have been detected in 
humans,\83\ indicating that some exposure to DPENP does occur. In the 
CHAP's analysis, up to five percent of infants and up to 10 percent of 
pregnant women exceed the negligible risk level (HI greater than one). 
Using the most recent biomonitoring data, some WORA in the sample have 
an HI greater than one. Allowing the use of DPENP in children's toys 
and child care articles would further increase the cumulative risk. As 
discussed previously, the Commission considers that a HI less than or 
equal to one is necessary ``to protect the health of children.'' 
Therefore, the rule prohibits children's toys and child care articles 
containing concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DPENP. The 
Commission concludes that this action is necessary to protect the 
health of children because it would prevent current and future use of 
this antiandrogenic phthalate in toys and child care articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Patton, (2010).
    \82\ Hannas et al. (2011a).
    \83\ Silva et al. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Di-n-hexyl Phthalate (DHEXP)
    The CHAP recommended prohibiting the use of DHEXP in children's 
toys and child care articles. CHAP report at pp. 114-116. DHEXP is 
associated with adverse effects on male reproductive development and 
may contribute to the cumulative risk from antiandrogenic phthalates. 
The Commission agrees with the CHAP's recommendation for DHEXP. Based 
on the CHAP report and previous review by CPSC staff and a 
contractor,\84\ the Commission concludes that there is sufficient 
evidence that DHEXP is antiandrogenic and contributes to the cumulative 
risk. The

[[Page 49970]]

CHAP report noted a 1980 study by Foster et al. that found severe 
testicular atrophy in rats, among other effects. Id. at p. 114. The 
Commission also concludes that, by applying the CPSC chronic hazard 
guidelines, this phthalate may be considered ``probably toxic'' to 
humans based on sufficient evidence in animal studies. The CHAP found 
that up to five percent of infants and up to 10 percent of pregnant 
women exceed the negligible risk level (HI greater than one). Using the 
most recent biomonitoring data, some WORA in the sample have an HI that 
exceeds one. Allowing the use of DHEXP in children's toys and child 
care articles would further increase the cumulative risk. As discussed 
previously, the Commission considers that a HI less than or equal to 
one is necessary ``to protect the health of children.'' Although CPSC 
staff has not detected DHEXP in toys and child care articles during 
routine compliance testing thus far, prohibiting children's toys and 
child care articles containing DHEXP would prevent its use in these 
products as a substitute for other banned phthalates. Therefore, the 
rule prohibits children's toys and child care articles containing 
concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DHEXP. The Commission 
concludes that this action is necessary to protect the health of 
children because it would prevent future use of this antiandrogenic 
phthalate in toys and child care articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Patton (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Dicyclohexyl Phthalate (DCHP)
    The CHAP recommended prohibiting the use of DCHP in children's toys 
and child care articles. CHAP report at pp. 116-118. DCHP is associated 
with adverse effects on male development and contributes to the 
cumulative risk from antiandrogenic phthalates.
    The Commission agrees with the CHAP's recommendation for DCHP. 
Based on the CHAP report and previous reviews by CPSC staff and a 
contractor,\85\ the Commission concludes that there is sufficient 
evidence that DCHP is antiandrogenic and contributes to the cumulative 
risk. For example, the CHAP noted two studies that found such effects 
as reduced AGD and nipple retention in rats exposed to DCHP. Id. at p. 
116. The Commission also concludes that, by applying the CPSC chronic 
hazard guidelines, this phthalate is considered ``probably toxic'' to 
humans based on sufficient evidence in animal studies. 57 FR 46626 
(Oct. 9, 1992). The CHAP found that up to five percent of infants and 
up to 10 percent of pregnant women exceed the negligible risk level (HI 
greater than one). Using the most recent biomonitoring data, some WORA 
in the sample have an HI that exceeds one. Allowing the use of DCHP in 
children's toys and child care articles would further increase the 
cumulative risk. As discussed previously, the Commission considers that 
a HI less than or equal to one is necessary ``to protect the health of 
children.'' Although the CPSC staff has not detected DCHP in toys and 
child care articles during routine compliance testing thus far, 
prohibiting the use of DCHP would prevent its use as a substitute for 
other banned phthalates. Therefore, the rule prohibits children's toys 
and child care articles containing concentrations of more than 0.1 
percent of DCHP. The Commission concludes that this action is necessary 
to protect the health of children because it would prevent future use 
of this antiandrogenic phthalate in toys and child care articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Versar/SRC (2010b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Comments Concerning Phthalates Subject to the Rule But Not Currently 
Prohibited Under the CPSIA
    Comment: Regulating DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, DCHP. One commenter stated 
that DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP are not widely used in children's toys 
and child care articles and are not prohibited in the European Union. 
The commenter stated that the proposed rule ``inevitably will extend 
inspection range, add cost to manufacturers and exporters and result in 
an unnecessary trade barrier.'' (Comment 5.7).
    Response: CPSC agrees that DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP are not 
widely used in children's toys and child care articles. However, as 
explained above, studies demonstrate that these four phthalates all 
cause MRDE and they are as, or more, potent than DEHP. Regarding the 
commenter's assertion that the prohibition of children's toys and child 
care articles containing these four phthalates would add costs and 
result in a trade barrier, because these phthalates are not widely used 
in children's toys and child care articles, the cost to manufacturers 
to reformulate the few products that might contain these phthalates 
should be small. Moreover, third party testing is already required for 
children's toys and child care articles containing prohibited 
phthalates and the incremental cost of adding the additional phthalates 
to the analysis is expected to be very small. Staff estimates that the 
additional materials needed would cost $0.35 per test or about 0.1 
percent of a typical $300 phthalates test for a component part or 
material. The data analysis procedure would need to be modified to 
include the new phthalates, but staff does not expect this would 
additional burdens to qualified laboratories.
f. Children's Products
    The scope of this rule covers children's toys and child care 
articles. The CPSIA authorizes the Commission to ``declare any 
children's product containing any phthalates to be a banned hazardous 
product'' if such action is necessary to protect the health of 
children. 15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(3)(B). As explained in the NPR, the 
Commission is not expanding the rule to cover other children's 
products. 79 FR 78337-78338. Only limited data on exposure to 
phthalates from other children's products exist. The general 
information available does not support a determination that prohibiting 
any products other than children's toys and child care articles is 
necessary. Toys are more likely than many other children's products to 
be made of materials that could be plasticized with phthalates. Toys 
and child care articles are more likely than other children's products 
to provide a pathway of exposure to phthalates both through oral 
exposure (from direct contact with the mouth and indirect contact when 
children place their hands in their mouths) and dermal exposure. We 
received few comments in response to the NPR that addressed expansion 
of the scope of the regulation to all children's products.
    Comment: Expanding the scope to all children's products. One 
commenter expressed disappointment that CPSC is not expanding the scope 
of the provisions involving phthalates to include other children's 
items such as raincoats, footwear, backpacks, school supplies, and 
clothes. The commenter asserted that a lack of data does not mean CPSC 
should assume there is no problem. (Comment 6.6).
    Response: Staff has not found new information that would change the 
basis underlying the Commission's decision not to propose expanding the 
scope of the rule to all children's products. There is not enough 
information to adequately assess the health impact of children's 
products other than children's toys and child care articles. In 
contrast to children's products in general, a wealth of information 
regarding use exists for children's toys and child care articles from 
other agencies, such as EPA, and in scientific publications. The 
general information available indicates that exposure from children's 
products is comparatively less than that from children's toys and 
childcare articles.

[[Page 49971]]

g. Other Phthalates Not Included in the Rule
    The CHAP examined 14 phthalates: The three subject to the CPSIA's 
permanent prohibition, the three subject to the CPSIA's interim 
prohibition, and eight additional phthalates. Of the eight additional 
phthalates, the CHAP recommended that four be prohibited from use in 
children's toys and child care articles, that three (Dimethyl Phthalate 
(DMP), Diethyl Phthalate (DEP), Di(2-propylheptyl) Phthalate DPHP) be 
free of any restriction, and the one (Diisooctyl Phthalate (DIOP)) be 
subject to an interim prohibition. CHAP report at pp. 1118-119. As 
discussed in the NPR, DIOP has a chemical structure consistent with 
other antiandrogenic phthalates. However, the CHAP concluded that there 
is not sufficient evidence to support a permanent prohibition. 79 FR 
78337. The CPSIA did not provide for an interim prohibition as an 
option for the Commission's rule under section 108, and as the CHAP 
explained, insufficient data exists to determine that a permanent 
prohibition of DIOP is necessary to protect the health of children. We 
received a few comments concerning phthalates that the CHAP assessed 
but are not covered by CPSC's rule.
    Comment: DIOP. Some commenters suggested that the CPSC permanently 
prohibit children's toys and child care articles containing DIOP. They 
stated that the CHAP had noted DIOP's structural similarity to 
antiandrogenic phthalates and they concluded that CPSC should not 
assume that it would meet the CPSIA criteria when hazard and exposure 
data are lacking. (Comment 5.10).
    Response: Although the CHAP recognized that the structure of DIOP 
suggests that it may be associated with antiandrogenic effects, no 
experimental data exist that would support a conclusion that DIOP 
causes MRDE. Additionally, potency and exposure data are lacking. Thus, 
there is no basis for regulatory action on DIOP at this time.
    Comment: Prohibitions involving other phthalates. Some commenters 
asserted that ``The CHAP's lack of recommendations for additional 
regulatory action on phthalates like DIOP, DMP, DEP, DPHP or many of 
the alternatives evaluated is not an endorsement of their safety'' 
because of the lack of sufficient hazard and exposure data on these 
chemicals. The commenters suggested that CPSC continue to review and 
monitor these phthalates and to recommend that other federal agencies 
take appropriate actions. (Comment 10.4).
    Response: CPSC staff participates in several interagency 
collaborations to discuss issues of mutual interest, including 
phthalates. CPSC will continue these cooperative activities.

E. The Concentration Limit

    For both the permanent and interim prohibitions, the CPSIA 
established a concentration limit of 0.1 percent. The CHAP stated:

    When used as plasticizers for polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 
phthalates are typically used at levels greater than 10%. Thus, the 
0.1% limit prohibits the intentional use of phthalates as 
plasticizers in children's toys and child care articles but allows 
trace amounts of phthalates that might be present unintentionally. 
There is no compelling reason to apply a different limit to other 
phthalates that might be added to the current list of phthalates 
permanently prohibited from use in children's toys and child care 
articles.

CHAP report at p. 79. As discussed in the NPR, this concentration limit 
is not based on risk, and the Commission found no risk-based 
justification to change the limit from the 0.1 percent specified in the 
CPSIA. Thus, the Commission proposed to maintain this concentration 
limit. 79 FR 78338. We did not receive any comments concerning the 
concentration limit. The final rule retains the 0.1 percent 
concentration limit.

F. International and Other Countries' Requirements for Children's Toys 
and Child Care Articles Containing Phthalates

1. Summary of Requirements
    Other countries have restrictions concerning the use of various 
phthalates in children's toys and child care articles. The requirements 
vary, but the following countries have some regulatory restrictions on 
phthalates that can be used in children's toys and child care articles: 
The European Union (EU), Denmark, Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, 
Argentina, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The requirements differ on the 
phthalates restricted and products covered. Unlike CPSC's rule, these 
restrictions are based on evaluations of phthalate exposures in 
isolation, not in combination with other phthalates. There is no 
international standard that establishes substantive requirements for 
phthalates in children's toys and child care articles. International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 8124-6:2014 specifies a method 
for testing toys and children's products to determine if they contain 
phthalates; it does not establish any content limits. We provide a 
summary of other countries' requirements concerning phthalates in 
children's toys and child care articles:
    DINP:
    <bullet> Denmark: Prohibits all phthalates at concentrations above 
0.05 percent in toys and child care articles intended for children 
under 3 years old.
    <bullet> EU: Limits the use of DINP (as well as DIDP and DNOP) 
individually or as mixtures in toys and child care articles which can 
be placed in the mouth by children to no greater than 0.1 percent by 
weight of the plasticized material.
    <bullet> Canada: Limits use in the vinyl in any part of a toy or 
child care article that can be placed in the mouth of a child under 
four years of age to no greater than 0.1 percent of DINP, DIDP or DNOP.
    <bullet> Japan: For toys that are intended to come in contact with 
the mouth (excluding pacifiers and teething rings), parts made from 
plasticized materials that are intended to come in contact with the 
mouth must not contain more than 0.1 percent DINP (or DIDP or DNOP); 
PVC parts not intended to come in contact with mouth must not use DINP 
as a raw material.
    <bullet> Brazil: Limits use of DINP in plastic materials in all 
kinds of toys for children under three to no greater than 0.1 percent.
    <bullet> Argentina: Limits use of DINP in toys and child care 
articles made of plastic material that can be placed in the mouth to no 
greater than 0.1 percent.
    <bullet> Taiwan: Limits DINP use in toys and child care articles to 
no greater than 0.1 percent individually or in combination with DEHP, 
DBP, BBP, DIDP, or DNOP.
    <bullet> Hong Kong: Limits the combination of DINP, DIDP and DNOP 
to no greater than 0.1 percent of the total weight of the plasticized 
materials in toys or children's products any part of which can be 
placed in the mouth of a child under four years of age.
    <bullet> Australia: Considered but rejected limiting DINP in 
children's toys and child care articles.
Other Phthalates Covered by CPSC's Rule (DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, DCHP)
    <bullet> Denmark: In 2009 instituted a national prohibition on all 
phthalates at concentrations above 0.05 percent in toys and child care 
articles intended for children under 3 years old. This covers all four 
phthalates: DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, DCHP.
    <bullet> No restrictions concerning DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, DCHP in 
children's toys and child care articles in other countries.
    As this summary demonstrates, requirements concerning DINP in

[[Page 49972]]

children's toys and child care articles vary across different 
countries. However, even if the precise requirements differ, numerous 
countries have some limitation on the use of DINP in children's toys 
and child care articles, and one other country restricts the use of 
DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP in children's toys and child care 
articles.
2. Comments Concerning Other Countries' and International Requirements
    Comment: Differences between CPSC's proposed rule and other 
countries' requirements. Some commenters observed that CPSC's NPR 
differed from restrictions in other countries. These comments focused 
on CPSC's expansion of the interim prohibition regarding DINP to cover 
all children's toys. Commenters noted the inconsistency between the 
EU's requirements concerning DINP and the CPSC's proposed rule. Two 
commenters stated that the CPSC's rule is consistent with the EU. A 
commenter expressed concerns that the rule might be a barrier to 
international trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) due to the differences between 
CPSC's rule and other countries' approaches. (Comment 5.6).
    Response: As discussed above, CPSC's rule concerning DINP differs 
from other countries' restrictions. However, there is variation among 
these countries; no uniform consensus on regulation of DINP in 
children's toys and child care articles exists. Regarding the TBT, we 
note that there is no international standard establishing restrictions 
on phthalates in toys. ISO 8124-6:2014 only specifies a test method to 
determine if toys and children's products contain phthalates. Rather, 
countries have established their own technical regulations. The TBT 
states that technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive 
than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective. CPSC's rule would not 
be a barrier to trade because it will apply equally to both domestic 
manufacturers and importers. We also note that the TBT recognizes that 
protection of human health or safety is a legitimate objective.

G. Description of the Final Rule

    The text of the final rule is the same as the proposed rule with 
one exception. For clarity, we have added language from section 108(c) 
of the CPSIA (as amended by Pub. L. 112-28) regarding the application 
of the rule. This addition does not change the substance of the rule 
because the statutory provision applies regardless of whether it is 
stated in the rule. Section 108(c) of the CPSIA states that the 
permanent and interim phthalate prohibitions, and any phthalates rule 
the Commission issues under section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, ``shall 
apply to any plasticized component part of a children's toy or child 
care article or any other component part of a children's toy or child 
care article that is made of other materials that may contain 
phthalates.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(c).
    The Commission received comments on various aspects of the 
substance of the proposed rule. These comments and responses to them 
are summarized throughout this document. More detailed comment 
summaries and responses are at Tab B of staff's briefing package.
Section 1307.1--Scope and Application
    Section 1307.1 describes the actions that the rule prohibits. This 
provision tracks the language in section 108(a) of the CPSIA regarding 
the permanent prohibition and prohibits the same activities: 
Manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or 
importation into the United States of a children's toy or child care 
article that contains any of the prohibited phthalates.
Section 1307.2--Definitions
    Section 1307.2 provides the same definitions of ``children's toy'' 
and ``child care article'' found in section 108(g) of the CPSIA. 
``Children's toy'' means a consumer product designed or intended by the 
manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the 
child when the child plays. ``Child care article'' means a consumer 
product designed or intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or 
the feeding of children age 3 and younger, or to help such children 
with sucking or teething. Although these definitions are stated in the 
CPSIA, the rule text restates them for convenience. We did not receive 
comments on these definitions, which re-state statutory definitions.
Section 1307.3--Prohibition on Children's Toys and Child Care Articles 
Containing Specified Phthalates
    Section 1307.3(a) states the products the rule prohibits. For 
convenience, this section provides both the items that are subject to 
the CPSIA's existing permanent prohibition and the items that are 
subject to prohibition under the rule. Stating all prohibitions in this 
section will allow a reader of the CFR to be aware of all the CPSC's 
restrictions concerning phthalates, both statutory and regulatory.
    Paragraph (a) sets out the CPSIA's existing permanent prohibition 
which makes it unlawful to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 
distribute in commerce, or import into the United States any children's 
toy or child care article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 
percent of DEHP, DBP, or BBP. The restriction on these products was 
established by section 108(a) of the CPSIA. This statutory prohibition 
is not affected by the rule, but is merely restated in the regulatory 
text.
    Paragraph (b) prohibits the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 
distribution in commerce, or importation into the United States of any 
children's toy or child care article that contains concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP. As 
explained above, in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the CPSIA, the 
Commission appointed a CHAP that considered the effects on children's 
health of phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's 
toys and child care articles and presented the Commission with a report 
of its findings and recommendations. After reviewing the CHAP's report, 
the most recent exposure data, and public comments, the Commission is 
finalizing this rule in accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA.
    For the reasons explained in this preamble, the Commission 
concludes that prohibiting children's toys and child care articles that 
contain concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of DINP would ensure a 
reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other 
susceptible individuals with an adequate margin of safety. DINP is 
currently subject to the CPSIA's interim prohibition. 15 U.S.C. 
2057c(b)(1). Section 1307.3(b) changes the scope of regulation of DINP 
from the current interim scope of ``any children's toy that can be 
placed in a child's mouth'' \86\ (and child care articles) to include 
all children's toys. Based on the recommendations in the CHAP report, 
the Commission is not continuing the interim prohibitions on DIDP and 
DNOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Section 108(g)(2)(B) of the CPSIA states that ``a toy can 
be placed in a child's mouth if any part of the toy can actually be 
brought to the mouth and kept in the mouth by a child so that it can 
be sucked and chewed. If the children's product can only be licked, 
it is not regarded as able to be placed in the mouth. If a toy or 
part of a toy in one dimension is smaller than 5 centimeters, it can 
be placed in the mouth.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Sec.  1307.3(b) prohibits children's toys and child 
care articles

[[Page 49973]]

containing four phthalates that are not currently subject to 
restrictions under the CPSIA: DIBP, DPENP, DEXP, and DCHP. For the 
reasons explained previously, the Commission concludes that prohibiting 
children's toys and child care articles containing concentrations of 
more than 0.1 percent of DIBP, DPENP, DEXP, or DCHP is necessary to 
protect the health of children.
    The final rule adds paragraph (c) to Sec.  1307.3 to clarify the 
application of the rule. Section 108(c), as amended by Public Law 112-
28 (August 12, 2011), addresses the application of the Commission's 
phthalates rule. For convenience and clarity, we are restating that 
statutory provision in Sec.  1307.3 (c).

H. Effective Date

    The APA generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at 
least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The 
Commission proposed an effective date of 180 days after publication of 
the final rule in the Federal Register. The final rule provides a 180-
day effective date. As discussed in the NPR and in section V. of this 
preamble, the Commission expects that this rule will have a minimal 
impact on manufacturers, and that changes to testing procedures to 
include children's toys and child care articles containing the four 
additional prohibited phthalates would require minimal effort by 
testing laboratories. 79 FR 78339. In accordance with the CPSIA, 
restrictions on the use of certain phthalates in children's toys and 
child care articles are currently in effect. This rule does not affect 
the permanent prohibition on children's toys and child care articles 
containing more than 0.1 percent of DEHP, BBP, and DBP. The CPSIA's 
interim prohibition currently applies to children's toys that can be 
placed in a child's mouth and child care articles containing DINP. 
Thus, with regard to DINP, the impact from the rule would be only on 
children's toys that cannot be placed in a child's mouth. CPSC expects 
that a relatively small percentage of children's toys that cannot be 
placed in a child's mouth would need to be reformulated to remove DINP. 
Because the four additional phthalates (DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP) 
are not widely used in children's toys and child care articles, few 
manufacturers will need to reformulate products to comply with this 
aspect of the rule. Regarding third party testing, testing laboratories 
are already testing children's toys and child care articles for the 
permanently prohibited phthalates and are testing children's toys that 
can be placed in a child's mouth and child care articles for DINP. 
Testing laboratories can expand their procedures to include the four 
additional phthalates with minimal effort. CPSC received a few 
comments, summarized below, concerning the effective date.
    Comment: Effective date. Two commenters stated that the Commission 
should set an effective date of at least 1 year from finalizing the 
rule. They asserted that DIDP and DINP are difficult to differentiate 
through testing, and that if the interim prohibition concerning DIDP 
was lifted while DINP continues to be restricted, laboratories would 
need additional time to address the technical testing difficulties. 
Another commenter urged the Commission to shorten the proposed 180-day 
effective date based on the minimal impact CPSC anticipates to ``ensure 
that there is no gap in the protections from DINP.'' Another commenter 
asked for clarification that the rule would not be retroactive (back to 
2011). (Comment 5.11).
    Response: CPSC acknowledges that differentiating DINP and DIDP may 
be difficult. However, laboratories can differentiate DINP and DIDP 
using currently available equipment and methods. Manufacturers can 
maintain current formulations while they address any perceived 
challenges differentiating DINP and DIDP. As explained above, CPSC 
expects that the rule will require minimal changes for manufacturers 
and testing laboratories. Therefore 180 days from publication in the 
Federal Register should be sufficient time for the rule to take effect. 
We see no need to shorten the effective date. The interim prohibition 
established by section 108(b)(1) remains in effect until this rule 
becomes effective. We confirm that the rule is prospective and will 
apply to products manufactured and imported on or after the effective 
date. As mentioned, however, the interim prohibition remains in place 
until the final rule takes effect.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Certification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare 
a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 
or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rulemaking 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
The Commission certified in the NPR that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant 
to section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) in the NPR. 79 FR 78324, 
78339-41. Some comments expressed general concerns about the economic 
impact of the proposed rule, but none provided information or evidence 
that the rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Summaries of these comments and CPSC's responses are 
provided below. More detailed summaries and responses are in Tab B of 
the staff's briefing package. None of the comments received by the 
Commission changes the basis for the certification, nor has Commission 
staff received any other information that would require a change or 
revision the Commission's previous analysis of the impact of the rule 
on small entities. Therefore, the certification of no significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities is still appropriate.
    As explained in greater detail in the NPR, the certification is 
based on CPSC's determination that:
    (1) Few, if any, manufacturers would need to alter their 
formulations to comply with the rule because:
    <bullet> Children's toys that can be placed in a child's mouth and 
child care articles containing DINP have been prohibited since 2009. 
Thus, no manufacturer would have to reformulate any products in these 
categories.
    <bullet> Only children's toys that cannot be placed in a child's 
mouth (no dimension of the toy is less than 5 cm) containing DINP would 
have to be reformulated. Thus, only a small subset of children's toys 
that cannot be placed in a child's mouth would be affected by the rule.
    <bullet> DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP are not widely used in 
children's toys and child care articles. Therefore, relatively few 
manufacturers would have to reformulate products to eliminate these 
phthalates due to the rule.
    (2) The rule would have a small marginal impact on the cost of 
third party testing because:
    <bullet> All children's toys and child care articles are already 
subject to third party testing for DEHP, DBP, and BBP.
    <bullet> Currently, children's toys that can be placed in a child's 
mouth and child care articles must also be tested for the presence of 
DINP.
    <bullet> Laboratory equipment and methods are already in place for 
testing the prohibited phthalates, therefore the additional cost of 
testing for DIBP,

[[Page 49974]]

DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP would be very low.
    <bullet> Identification and quantification protocols for prohibited 
phthalates would need minimal modification to include DIBP, DPENP, 
DHEXP, and DCHP because each of these phthalates can be isolated at 
unique elution times by gas chromatography. Thus, the additional cost 
of analysis would be very low.
    <bullet> The additional cost of laboratory materials would be very 
low. Chemical standards for testing would be required for the four 
additional phthalates, but the standards for DNOP and DIDP would no 
longer be required. Therefore, the number of chemical standards needed 
would increase by two which CPSC expects would increase the cost of 
third party testing for phthalates by less than 35 cents per test, 
which is relatively small compared to current cost of phthalate testing 
(approximately $300 per product or component part).

B. Comments Concerning Impact on Small Business

    Comment: Testing costs. Two commenters agreed with CPSC that the 
rule will have a small impact on testing costs. One commenter asked for 
CPSC to clarify how testing of technical mixtures of DINP and DIDP 
would be performed, noting that when DINP is detected in a sample, 
additional analytical steps are needed (at additional cost) to 
determine if the DINP is present as a `pure' chemical or if the DINP is 
part of a technical mixture. Some commenters asked the Commission to 
take action to reduce testing costs. (Comment 9.1).
    Response: For the reasons explained above, CPSC expects that the 
additional burden associated with the rule is small, with no 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Regarding 
testing of mixtures of DINP and DIDP, the restriction on DINP applies 
whether DINP is in the product intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, 
laboratories will not need to undertake any additional effort to 
determine the source of DINP found in a children's toy or child care 
article. Regarding steps to reduce testing burdens, the Commission has 
recently issued determinations that will lower testing costs for some 
children's toys and child care article manufacturers. 82 FR 41163 
(August 30, 2017). The determinations rule went into effect on 
September 29, 2017.
    Comment: Costs and benefits of NPR. Regarding the NPR's 
determination that the proposed rule's economic impact would be 
minimal, one commenter stated CPSC had not considered the effect on 
consumers or the possibility that smaller manufacturers would be 
burdened by the rule in the future, ``which offers no demonstrated 
public health benefits in exchange for even `minimal' costs.'' The 
commenter asserted that the rule would take a ``safe and useful 
chemical'' away from consumers. (Comment 9.4).
    Response: Because CPSC followed the rulemaking requirements stated 
in section 108 of the CPSIA, which differ from rulemaking requirements 
under the CPSA and the FHSA, CPSC did not prepare a regulatory analysis 
of the costs and benefits of the rule. However, as discussed above, 
CPSC did conduct an analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities. The commenter did not explain how future small 
manufacturers would be burdened. For the reasons explained above and in 
the NPR, CPSC expects the costs for small businesses subject to this 
rule would be small.

VI. Notice of Requirements

    The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification 
and testing. Children's products subject to a children's product safety 
rule under the CPSA must be certified as complying with all applicable 
CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of 
children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be 
based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity 
assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must publish a notice 
of requirements (NOR) for the accreditation of third party conformity 
assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a 
children's product safety rule to which a children's product is 
subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). The final rule for 16 CFR part 1307, 
``Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 
Specified Phthalates,'' is a children's product safety rule that 
requires the issuance of an NOR. The Commission previously published in 
the Federal Register an NOR for the phthalate-containing products 
prohibited by the permanent and interim prohibitions state in section 
108 on August 10, 2011. (76 FR 49286). The codified listing for the NOR 
can be found at 16 CFR 1112.15(b)(31). In this same issue of the 
Federal Register the Commission is publishing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that would update the existing NOR for the phthalate-
containing products prohibited by this final rule.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final rule does not include any information collection 
requirements. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

VIII. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a 
``consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA)]'' is in effect and applies to a product, no state or 
political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in 
effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the 
state requirement is identical to the federal standard. (Section 26(c) 
of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of 
states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this 
preemption under certain circumstances.) Section 108(f) of the CPSIA is 
entitled ``Treatment as Consumer Product Safety Standards; Effect on 
State Laws.'' That provision states that the permanent and interim 
prohibitions and any rule promulgated under section 108(b)(3) ``shall 
be considered consumer product safety standards under the Consumer 
Product Safety Act.'' That section further states: ``Nothing in this 
section of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) 
shall be construed to preempt or otherwise affect any State requirement 
with respect to any phthalate alternative not specifically regulated in 
a consumer product safety standard under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act.'' 15 U.S.C. 2057c(f). This provision indicates that the preemptive 
effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA will apply to the final rule.

IX. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for 
the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement because they ``have 
little or no potential for affecting the human environment.'' 16 CFR 
1021.5(c)(2). Because this rule falls within the categorical exclusion, 
no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is 
required.

X. List of References

    This section provides a list of the documents referenced in this 
preamble and in the staff's briefing package.

Adamsson A, Salonen V, Paranko J, Toppari J. (2009) Effects of 
maternal exposure to di-isononylphthalate (DINP) and 1,1-dichloro-
2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (p,p'-DDE) on steroidogenesis in the 
fetal rat testis and adrenal gland. Reprod Toxicol 28(1):66-74.

[[Page 49975]]

Adibi JJ, Lee MK, Naimi AI, et al. (2015) Human Chorionic 
Gonadotropin Partially Mediates Phthalate Association With Male and 
Female Anogenital Distance. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and 
Metabolism 100:E1216-1224.
Allen BC, Crump KS, Shipp AM (1988) Correlation between carcinogenic 
potency of chemicals in animals and humans. Risk Analysis 8:531-544.
Andrade AJ, Grande SW, Talsness CE, et al. (2006) A dose response 
study following in utero and lactational exposure to di-(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP): Reproductive effects on adult male 
offspring rats. Toxicology 228(1):85-97.
Arbuckle, TE, Davis, K, Marro, L, Fisher, M, Legrand, M, LeBlanc, A, 
Gaudreau, E, Foster, WG, Choeurng, V, Fraser, WD, and the MIREC 
Study Group. 2014. Phthalate and bisphenol A exposure among pregnant 
women in Canada--Results from the MIREC study. Environment 
International. 68. 55-65.
Ashworth M, Cressey P. (2014) Health risk assessment of selected 
phthalates in children's toys. New Zealand Ministry of Health. 
Client Report FW 14054. October 2014. https://www.esr.cri.nz/assets/HEALTH-CONTENT/MoH-reports/FW14054-Phthalates-in-childrens-toys.pdf.
ATSDR (2004) Guidance Manual for the Assessment of Joint Toxic 
Action of Chemical Mixtures. May 2004. In: U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services PHS, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry, Division of Toxicology (ed). U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services, Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (2017) Interaction Profiles for Toxic Substances. In: Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Accessed January 12, 2017. 
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/index.asp.
Axelsson J, Rylander L, Rignell-Hydbom A, Jonsson BA, Lindh CH, 
Giwercman A (2015) Phthalate exposure and reproductive parameters in 
young men from the general Swedish population. Environ Int 85:54-60.
Axelstad M, Christiansen S, Boberg J, et al. (2014) Mixtures of 
endocrine-disrupting contaminants induce adverse developmental 
effects in preweaning rats. Reproduction 147(4):489-501.
Aylward LL, Lorber M, Hays SM (2011) Urinary DEHP metabolites and 
fasting time in NHANES. Journal of Exposure Science and 
Environmental Epidemiology (2011) 21, 615-624 21:615-624.
Banks K, Tuazon E, Berhane K, et al. (2012) Cryptorchidism and 
testicular germ cell tumors: Comprehensive meta-analysis reveals 
that association between these conditions diminished over time and 
is modified by clinical characteristics. Frontiers in endocrinology 
3:182.
Barnes DG, Dourson M (1988) Reference dose (RfD): Description and 
use in health risk assessments. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 8(4):471-86.
Baru[scaron]i[cacute] L, Gali[cacute] A, Bo[scaron]nir J, et al. 
(2015) Phthalate in children's toys and childcare articles in 
Croatia. Current science 109(8):1480-1486.
Bellinger DC (2013) Prenatal Exposures to Environmental Chemicals 
and Children's Neurodevelopment: An Update. Safety and health at 
work 4(1):1-11.
Benson R (2009a) Hazard to the developing male reproductive system 
from cululative exposure to phthalate esters--dibuty phthalate, 
diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, 
dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Regul Toxicol 
Pharmacol 53:90-101.
Benson R (2009b) Hazard to the developing male reproductive system 
from cumulative exposure to phthalate esters--dibutyl phthalate, 
diisobutyl phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, 
dipentyl phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Regulatory toxicology 
and pharmacology: RTP 53(2):90-101.
Biedermann-Brem S, Biedermann M, Pfenninger S, et al. (2008) 
Plasticizers in PVC Toys and Childcare Products: What Succeeds the 
Phthalates? Market Survey 2007. Chromatographia 68(3):227-234.
Boberg J, Christiansen S, Axelstad M, et al. (2011) Reproductive and 
behavioral effects of diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in perinatally 
exposed rats. Reprod Toxicol 31(2):200-9.
Borch J, Ladefoged O, Hass U, Vinggaard AM (2004) Steroidogenesis in 
fetal male rats is reduced by DEHP and DINP, but endocrine effects 
of DEHP are not modulated by DEHA in fetal, prepubertal and adult 
male rats. Reprod Toxicol 18(1):53-61.
Borgert CJ, Baker SP, Matthews JC (2013) Potency matters: Thresholds 
govern endocrine acivity. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 
(67):83-88.
Borgert CJ, Sargent EV, Casella G, Dietrich DR, McCarty LS, Golden 
RJ (2012) The human relevant potency threshold: Reducing uncertainty 
by human calibration of cumulative risk assessments. Regulatory 
Toxicology and Pharmacology 62:313-328.
Bornehag CG, Carlstedt F, J[ouml]nsson BA, et al. (2015) Prenatal 
phthalate exposures and anogenital distance in Swedish boys. 
Environmental Health Perspectives 123:101-107.
Braun JM, Sathyanarayana S, Hauser R (2013) Phthalate exposure and 
children's health. Current opinion in pediatrics 25(2):247-54.
Calafat AM, Needham LL, Silva MJ, Lambert G (2004) Exposure to di-
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate among premature neonates in a neonatal 
intensive care unit. Pediatrics 113(5):e429-34.
Calafat AM, Wong LY, Silva MJ, et al. (2011) Selecting adequate 
exposure biomarkers of diisononyl and diisodecyl phthalates: Data 
from the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 
Environ Health Perspect 119(1):50-5.
Carlson KR, Patton LE, Versar (2010) Toxicity review of dicyclohexyl 
phthalate (DCHP). U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission, Bethesda, 
MD 20814. October 24, 2010. https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/125779/dchp.pdf.
Carruthers CM, Foster PMD (2005) Critical window of male 
reproductive tract development in rats following gestational 
exposure to din-n-butyl phthalate. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod 
Toxicol 74:277-285.
CDC (2012) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data. 
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services. 
Hyattsville, MD.
CDC (2017) Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental 
Chemicals. Updated Tables, Updated Tables, January 2017, Volume One. 
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlana, GA. January 2017. 
https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_UpdatedTables_Volume1_Jan2017.pdf.
Chakraborty TR, Alicea E, Chakraborty S (2012) Relationships between 
urinary biomarkers of phytoestrogens, phthalates, phenols, and 
pubertal stages in girls. Adolescent health, medicine and 
therapeutics 3:17-26.
Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH (2013) Infertility and Impaired 
Fecundity in the United States, 1982-2010: Data From the National 
Survey of Family Growth. Center for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC), National Center for Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD. 
National health statistics reports; no. 67. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr067.pdf.
CHAP (2001) Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by 
the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP). 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. June 2001. 
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/dinp.pdf.
CHAP (2014) Report to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by 
the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Phthalates and Phthalate 
Alternatives. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. 
July 2014. http://www.cpsc.gov/chap.
Chevrier C, Petit C, Philippat C, et al. (2012) Maternal urinary 
phthalates and phenols and male genital anomalies. Epidemiology 
23(2):353-6.
Chou K, Wright RO (2006) Phthalates in food and medical devices. 
Journal of medical toxicology: Official journal of the American 
College of Medical Toxicology 2(3):126-35.
Christensen KL, Makris SL, Lorber M (2014) Generation of hazard 
indices for cumulative exposure to phthalates for use in cumulative 
risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 69(3):380-9.
Christiansen S, Boberg J, Axelstad M, et al. (2010) Low-dose 
perinatal exposure to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate induces anti-
androgenic effects in male rats. Reprod Toxicol 30(2):313-21.
Christiansen S, Scholze M, Dalgaard M, et al. (2009) Synergistic 
disruption of external

[[Page 49976]]

male sex organ development by a mixture of four antiandrogens. 
Environ Health Perspect 117(12):1839-46.
Clark K (2009) Phthalate ester concentration database. Prepared for 
the Phthalate Esters Panel, American Chemistry Council, Washington, 
DC. Transmitted by Steve Risotto, ACC May 28, 2010. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Risotto%20052810.pdf. (Data base files are 
at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/phthalateMono2009.pdf; https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/phthalateRef2009.pdf; https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/otherPEs2009.pdf; https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/DEPH2009.pdf).
Clewell RA, Edwards K, Campbell J, Clewell H, Andersen M (2011) 
Determining structural determinants of phthalate antiandrogenic 
potency in vitro using rat and mouse Leydig tumor cells. The 
Toxicologist:2370.
Clewell RA, Sochaski M, Edwards K, Creasy DM, Willson G, Andersen ME 
(2013a) Disposition of diiosononyl phthalate and its effects on 
sexual development of the male fetus following repeated dosing in 
pregnant rats. Reproductive Toxicology 35:56-69.
Clewell RA, Thomas A, Willson G, Creasy DM, Andersen ME (2013b) A 
dose response study to assess effects after dietary administration 
of diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in gestation and lactation on male 
rat sexual development. Reproductive Toxicology 35:70-80.
Cohen SM, Meek MEB, Klaunig JE, Patton DE, Fenner-Crisp PA (2003) 
The human relevance of information on carcinogenic modes of action: 
Overview. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 33:581-589.
Colon I, Caro D, Bourdony CJ, Rosario O (2000) Identification of 
phthalate esters in the serum of young Puerto Rican girls with 
premature breast development. Environ Health Perspect 108(9):895-
900.
Conley JM, Lambright CR, Evans N, Cardon MC, Wilson VS, Gray LE 
(2017) A Mixture of 18 Anti-Androgens at Concentrations below 
Individual Chemical Effect Levels Produces Reproductive Tract 
Malformations in the Male Rat. The Toxicologist 150(1):1645.
CPSC (1992) Labeling requirements for art materials presenting 
chronic hazards; guidelines for determining chronic toxicity of 
products subject to the FHSA; supplementary definition of ``toxic'' 
under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act; final rules. Federal 
Register 57:46626-46674.
CPSC (1995) Report on the Cancer Risk from Exposure to Polycyclic 
Aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) in Indoor Air Emissions from EPA-
Certified (Phase II) Wood Stoves. U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Bethesda, MD. June 30, 1995.
CPSC (2002) Response to petition HP 99-1. Request to ban PVC in toys 
and other products intended for children five years of age and 
under. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. August 
2002. http://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/FOIA/Commission-Briefing-Packages/2002/.
CPSC (2014a) Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles 
Containing Specified Phthalates. Federal Register 79(249):78324-
78343. December 30, 2014.
CPSC (2014b) Staff Briefing Package. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
Prohibition of Children's Toys and Child Care Articles Containing 
Specified Phthalates. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
Bethesda, MD. November 24, 2014 https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_Briefing-Package-Proposed-Rule-on-Prohibition-of-Childrens-Toys-and-Child-Care-Articles-Containing-Specified-Phthalates.
CPSC (2015) Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Pregnant Women 
and Women of Reproductive Age as Assessed Using Four NHANES 
Biomonitoring Data Sets (2005/2006, 2007/2008, 2009/2010, 2011/
2012). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Rockville, MD 20850. 
June 2015 https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/NHANES-Biomonitoring-analysis-for-Commission.pdf.
CPSC (2017) Estimated Phthalate Exposure and Risk to Women of 
Reproductive Age as Assessed Using 2013/2014 NHANES Biomonitoring 
Data. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Rockville, MD. 
February 2017. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Estimated%20Phthalate%20Exposure%20and%20Risk%20to%20Women%20of%20Reproductive%20Age%20as%20Assessed%20Using%202013%202014%20NHANES%20Biomonitoring%20Data.pdf.
Creasy DM, Beech LM, Gray TJ, Butler WH (1987) The ultrastructural 
effects of di-n-pentyl phthalate on the testis of the mature rat. 
Exp Mol Pathol 46(3):357-71.
Crump KS (2014) An attempt to estimate an exposure threshold is not 
a scientific exercise-example of silicosis from exposure to quartz 
dust. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 
56(10):e104.
Crump KS, Hoel DG, Langley CH, Peto R (1976) Fundamental 
carcinogenic processes and their implications for low dose risk 
assessment. Cancer research 36(9 pt.1):2973-9.
Dankovic DA, Naumann BD, Maier A, Dourson ML, Levy LS (2015) The 
Scientific Basis of Uncertainty Factors Used in Setting Occupational 
Exposure Limits. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene 
12 Suppl 1:S55-68.
Desdoits-Lethimonier C, Albert O, Le Bizec B, et al. (2012) Human 
testis steroidogenesis is inhibited by phthalates. Human 
Reproduction 27:1451-1459.
Ding NA, Rahman I, Huhtaniemi T, Zacharewski TR (2011) Mono- and di-
ester phthalates alter testosterone production in mouse bltk1 murine 
Leydig tumor cells. The Toxicologist:1039.
Doyle TJ, Bowman JL, Windell VL, McLean DJ, Kim KH (2013) 
Transgenerational effects of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate on 
testicular germ cell associations and spermatogonial stem cells in 
mice. Biol Reprod 88(5):112.
Dreyfus M (2010) Phthalates and Phthalate Substitutes in Children's 
Toys. CPSC 2002. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, 
MD. March 2010. http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/126545/phthallab.pdf.
Dreyfus MA, Babich MA (2011) Plasticizer migration from toys and 
child care articles. The Toxicologist 120:266.
Durmaz E, Ozmert EN, Erkekoglu P, et al. (2010) Plasma phthalate 
levels in pubertal gynecomastia. Pediatrics 125(1):e122-9.
Duty SM, Singh NP, Silva MJ, et al. (2003) The relationship between 
environmental exposures to phthalates and DNA damage in human sperm 
using the neutral comet assay. Environ Health Perspect 111(9):1164-
9.
EC (2005) DIRECTIVE 2005/84/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL of 14 December 2005 amending for the 22nd time Council 
Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to 
restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous 
substances and preparations (phthalates in toys and childcare 
articles). Official Journal of the European Union http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005L0084&from=EN 
(December 27, 2005):4-043.
EC (2006) REGULATION (EC) No 1907/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND OF THE COUNCIL. Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, 
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a 
European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and 
repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC 
and Commission Directives 1/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/
21/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L396 (December 30, 
2006):396-849.
ECETOC (2003) Derivation of Assessment Factors for Human Health Risk 
Assessment. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of 
Chemicals, Brussels, Belgium. Technical Report No. 86. February 2003 
http://www.ecetoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ECETOC-TR-086.pdf.
ECHA (2010) Evaluation of new scientific evidence concerning the 
restrictions contained in annex xvii to regulation (ec) no 1907/2006 
(reach) review of new available information for di-`isononyl' 
phthalate (DINP) CAS NO 28553-12-0 AND 68515-48-0 EINECS NO 249-079-
5 AND 271-090-9. Review Report. European Chemicals Agency. July 
2010. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13641/dinp_echa_review_report_2010_6_en.pdf.
ECHA (2013) Evaluation of new scientific evidence concerning DINP 
and DIDP in

[[Page 49977]]

relation to entry 52 of Annex XVII to REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/
2006. European Chemicals Agency. Helsinki, Finland. ECHA-13-R-07-EN. 
August 2013. ISBN: 978-92-9244-001-5. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/31b4067e-de40-4044-93e8-9c9ff1960715.
Eisenberg ML, Hsieh MH, Walters RC, Krasnow R, Lipshultz LI (2011) 
The relationship between anogenital distance, fatherhood, and 
fertility in adult men. PLoS One 6(5):e18973.
Eisenberg ML, Shy M, Walters RC, Lipshultz LI (2012a) The 
relationship between anogenital distance and azoospermia in adult 
men. Asian Journal of Aandrology 35:726-730.
Eisenberg ML, T.K. J, Walters RC, Skakkebaek NE., Lipshultz LI 
(2012b) The relationship between anogenital distance and 
reproductive hormone levels in adult men. Journal of Urology 
187:594-598.
EPA (1986) Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 
Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC. September 1986. EPA/630/R-98/002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/chem_mix_1986.pdf.
EPA (1991) Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk Assessment. 
Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC. December 1991. EPA/600/FR-91/001.
EPA (1993) Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of 
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Office of Research and 
Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/
600/R-93/089. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=466885.
EPA (2000a) Choosing a Percentile of Acute Dietary Exposure as a 
Threshold of Regulatory Concern. Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. March 16, 
2000. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/trac2b054_0.pdf.
EPA (2000b) Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. August 2000. 
EPA/630/R-00/002. http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=4486.
EPA (2002a) Consideration of the FQPA Safety Factor and Other 
Uncertainty Factors in Cumulative Risk Assessment off Chemicals 
Sharing a Common Mechanism of Toxicity. Office of Pesticide 
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 
February 28, 2002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/apps-10x-sf-for-cra.pdf.
EPA (2002b) Guidance on Cumulative Risk Assessment of Pesticide 
Chemicals That Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity. Office of 
Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, 
DC 20460 January 14, 2002. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/guidance_on_common_mechanism.pdf.
EPA (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk 
Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA. 
Washington, DC. March 2005. EPA/630/P-03/001F. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf.
EPA (2006) Organophosphorus Cumulative Risk Assessment: 2006 Update. 
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
July 31, 2006.
EPA (2008) Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. 
Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-06/096F. September 2008.
EPA (2010) Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human 
Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 
Dioxin-Like Compounds. Risk Assessment Forum, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. December 2010. EPA/100/R-10/005. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/hhtef_draft_090109.pdf.
EPA (2011) Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, 
Washington, DC 20460. EPA/600/R-090/052F. September 2011. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252.
EPA (2012a) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk Assessment 
Forum, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/100/R-
12/001. June 2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf.
EPA (2012b) Guidance for Considering and Using Open Literature 
Toxicity Studies to Support Human Health Risk Assessment. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 
August 28, 2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/lit-studies.pdf.
EPA (2013) America's Children and the Environment. Third Edition. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. January 2013. 
EPA 240-R-13-001. Pages 176-179, p 176-179.
EPA (2015a) Advancing Systematic Review Workshop. In: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. EPA (2015) 
Advancing Systematic Review Workshop. December 2015. https://www.epa.gov/iris/advancing-systematic-review-workshop-december-2015.
EPA (2015b) Cumulative Assessment of Risk from Pesticides In: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.
EPA (2015c) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Ziram; PC Code: 
034805 Case: 2180. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed 
December 14, 2015. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-034805_12-Jul-04.pdf .
EPA (2017) Superfund Risk Assessment. In: National Center for 
Environmental Assessment. Office of Research and Development, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. Accessed 
January 12, 2017. https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment.
FDA (2009) Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for Submission of 
Chemical and Technological Data for Direct Food Additive Petitions. 
Office of Food Additive Safety, Division of Petition Review, Center 
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration. 
March 2006; Revised March 2009. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/ucm124917.htm.
Ferrara D, Hallmark N, Scott H, et al. (2006) Acute and long-term 
effects of in utero exposure of rats to di(n-butyl) phthalate on 
testicular germ cell development and proliferation. Endocrinology 
147(11):5352-62.
Fisher JS (2004) Environmental anti-androgens and male reproductive 
health: focus on phthalates and testicular dysgenesis syndrome. 
Reproduction 127(3):305-15.
Foster PM (2006) Disruption of reproductive development in male rat 
offspring following in utero exposure to phthalate esters. Int J 
Androl 29(1):140-7; discussion 181-5.
Foster PM, McIntyre BS, Gray LE (2002) Response to comments of 
Richard H. McKee, Toxicol Pathol 30(6): 755-756. Toxicologic 
Pathology 30(6):757.
Foster PMD (2005) Mode of action: Impaired fetal Leydig cell 
function--Effects on male reproductive development produced by 
certain phthalate esters. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 35:713-719.
Foster PMD, McIntyre BS (2002) Endocrine active agents: Implications 
of adverse and non-adverse changes. Toxicologic Pathology 30:59-65.
Foster PMD, Mylchreest E, Gaido KW, Sar M (2001) Effects of 
phthalate esters on the developing reproductive tract of male rats. 
Human Reproduction Update 7:231-235.
Frederiksen H, Sorensen K, Mouritsen A, et al. (2012) High urinary 
phthalate concentration associated with delayed pubarche in girls. 
Int J Androl 35(3):216-26.
Furr JR, Lambright CS, Wilson VS, Foster PM, Gray LE, Jr. (2014) A 
short-term in vivo screen using fetal testosterone production, a key 
event in the phthalate adverse outcome pathway, to predict 
disruption of sexual differentiation. Toxicol Sci 140(2):403-24.
Gaido KW, Hensley JB, Liu D, et al. (2007) Fetal mouse phthalate 
exposure shows

[[Page 49978]]

that gonocyte multinucleation is not associated with decreased 
testicular testosterone. Toxicol Sci 97(2):491-503.
Gallagher SS, Rice GE, Scarano LJ, Teuschler LK, Bollweg G, Martin L 
(2015) Cumulative risk assessment lessons learned: A review of case 
studies and issue papers. Chemosphere 120:697-205.
Gallinger ZR, Nguyen GC (2013) Presence of phthalates in 
gastrointestinal medications: is there a hidden danger? World 
journal of gastroenterology 19(41):7042-7.
Ge J, Han BS, Hu H, Liu J, Liu Y (2015) Epigallocatechin-3-)-gallate 
protects against hepatic damage and tesicular toxicity in male mice 
exposed to di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Journal of Medicinal Food 
18:753-761.
Goen T, Dobler L, Koschorreck J, et al. (2011) Trends of the 
internal phthalate exposure of young adults in Germany--follow-up of 
a retrospective human biomonitoring study. Int J Hyg Environ Health 
215(1):36-45.
Gold LS, Slone TH, Manley NB, Garfinkel GB, Hudes ES, Ames BN (1991) 
The carcinogenic potency database: Analyses of 4000 chronic animal 
cancer experiments published in the general literature and by the 
U.S. National Cancer Institute/National Toxicology Program. 
Envionmental Health Perspectives 96:11-15.
Grady R, Sathyanarayana S (2012) An update on phthalates and male 
reproductive development and function. Curr Urol Rep 13(4):307-10.
Gray LE, Jr., Kelce WR (1996) Latent effects of pesticides and toxic 
substances on sexual differentiation of rodents. Toxicol Ind Health 
12(3-4):515-31.
Gray LE, Jr., Ostby J, Furr J, Price M, Veeramachaneni DN, Parks L 
(2000) Perinatal exposure to the phthalates DEHP, BBP, and DINP, but 
not DEP, DMP, or DOTP, alters sexual differentiation of the male 
rat. Toxicol Sci 58(2):350-65.
Gray LE, Jr., Ostby J, Monosson E, Kelce WR (1999) Environmental 
antiandrogens: low doses of the fungicide vinclozolin alter sexual 
differentiation of the male rat. Toxicol Ind Health 15(1-2):48-64.
Gray TJ, Rowland IR, Foster PM, Gangolli SD (1982) Species 
differences in the testicular toxicity of phthalate esters. Toxicol 
Lett 11(1-2):141-7.
Greene MA (2002) Mouthing times from the observational study. CPSC 
2002. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD. In, 
CPSC 2002. June 17, 2002.
Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M (2001) Cancer 
statistics, 2001. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 51(1):15-36.
Groot ME, Lekkerkerk MC, Steenbekkers LPA (1998) Mouthing Behaviour 
of Young Children: An Observational Study. Wageningen: Agricultural 
University, Waginen, The Netherlands. Household and Consumer Studies 
report #3. September 1998. ISBN 90-6754-548-1.
Habert R, Muczynski V, Grisin T, et al. (2014) Concerns about the 
widespread use of rodent models for human risk assessments of 
endocrine disruptors. Reproduction 147(R119-R129).
Hallmark N, Walker M, McKinnell C, et al. (2007) Effects of 
monobutyl and di(n-butyl) phthalate in vitro on steroidogenesis and 
Leydig cell aggregation in fetal testis explants from the rat: 
comparison with effects in vivo in the fetal rat and neonatal 
marmoset and in vitro in the human. Environ Health Perspect 
115(3):390-6.
Hannas BR, Lambright C, Furr J, et al. (2012) Evaluation of genomic 
biomarkers and relative potency of phthalate-induced male 
reproductive developmental toxicity using a targeted RTPCR array 
approach. Toxicologist 126:2338.
Hannas BR, Lambright CS, Furr J, Howdeshell KL, Wilson VS, Gray LE, 
Jr. (2011) Dose-response assessment of fetal testosterone production 
and gene expression levels in rat testes following in utero exposure 
to diethylhexyl phthalate, diisobutyl phthalate, diisoheptyl 
phthalate, and diisononyl phthalate. Toxicol Sci 123(1):206-16.
Hatch EE, Nelson JW, Stahlhut RW, Webster TF (2010) Association of 
endocrine disruptors and obesity: perspectives from epidemiological 
studies. Int J Androl 33(2):324-32.
Hattis D, Banati P, Goble R, D.E. B (1999) Human interindividual 
variability in parameters related to health risks. Risk Analysis 
19:711-726.
Heger NE., Hall SJ, Sandrof MA, et al. (2012) Human fetal testis 
xenografts are resistant to phthalate-induced endocrine disruption. 
Environ Health Perspect In press.
Hellwig J, Freudenberger H, Jackh R (1997) Differential prenatal 
toxicity of branched phthalate esters in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 
35(5):501-12.
Higuchi TT, Palmer JS, Gray LE, Jr., Veeramachaneni DN (2003) 
Effects of dibutyl phthalate in male rabbits following in utero, 
adolescent, or postpubertal exposure. Toxicol Sci 72(2):301-13.
Hotchkiss AK, Parks-Saldutti LG, Ostby JS, et al. (2004) A mixture 
of the ``antiandrogens'' linuron and butyl benzyl phthalate alters 
sexual differentiation of the male rat in a cumulative fashion. Biol 
Reprod 71(6):1852-61.
Howdeshell KL, Furr J, Lambright CR, Rider CV, Wilson VS, Gray LE, 
Jr. (2007) Cumulative effects of dibutyl phthalate and diethylhexyl 
phthalate on male rat reproductive tract development: altered fetal 
steroid hormones and genes. Toxicol Sci 99(1):190-202.
Howdeshell KL, Hotchkiss AK, Gray LE, Jr. (2016) Cumulative effects 
of antiandrogenic chemical mixtures and their relevance to human 
health risk assessment. International Journal of Hygiene and 
Environmental Health http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.11.007.
Howdeshell KL, Wilson VS, Furr J, et al. (2008) A mixture of five 
phthalate esters inhibits fetal testicular testosterone production 
in the sprague-dawley rat in a cumulative, dose-additive manner. 
Toxicol Sci 105(1):153-65.
Huang PC, Kuo PL, Chou YY, Lin SJ, Lee CC (2009) Association between 
prenatal exposure to phthalates and the health of newborns. Environ 
Int 35(1):14-20.
Hushka LJ, Waterman SJ, Keller LH, et al. (2001) Two-generation 
reproduction studies in Rats fed di-isodecyl phthalate. Reprod 
Toxicol 15(2):153-69.
Huyghe E, Matsuda T, Thonneau P (2003) Increasing incidence of 
testicular cancer worldwide: a review. J Urol 170(1):5-11.
IARC (2002) Preamble. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of 
carcinogenic risks to humans 81:9-31S.
Jaeger RJ, Weiss AL, Brown K (2005) Infusion of di-2-
ethylhexylphthalate for neonates: a review of potential health risk. 
Journal of infusion nursing: the official publication of the 
Infusion Nurses Society 28(1):54-60.
Jain VG, Singal AK (2013) Shorter anogenital distance correlates 
with undescended testis: a detailed genital anthropometric analysis 
in human newborns. Hum Reprod 28(9):2343-9.
James-Todd TM, Meeker JD, Huang T, et al. (2017) Racial and ethnic 
variations in phthalate metabolite concentration changes across 
full-term pregnancies. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27(2):160-166.
Jobling MS, Hutchison GR, van den Driesche S, Sharpe RM (2011) 
Effects of di(n-butyl) phthalate exposure on foetal rat germ-cell 
number and differentiation: identification of age-specific windows 
of vulnerability. Int J Androl 34(5 Pt 2):e386-96.
Joensen UN, Frederiksen H, Blomberg Jensen M, et al. (2012) 
Phthalate excretion pattern and testicular function: a study of 881 
healthy Danish men. Environ Health Perspect 120(10):1397-403.
Johnson K, Heger N, Boekelheide K (2012) Of mice and men (and rats): 
phthalate-induced fetal testis endocrine disruption is species-
dependent. Toxicological Sciences 129:235-248.
Jones HB, Garside DA, Liu R, Roberts JC (1993) The influence of 
phthalate esters on Leydig cell structure and function in vitro and 
in vivo. Exp Mol Pathol 58(3):179-93.
Juberg DR, Alfano K, Coughlin RJ, Thompson KM (2001) An 
observational study of object mouthing behavior by young children. 
Pediatrics 107(1):135-42.
Jurewicz J, Hanke W (2011) Exposure to phthalates: reproductive 
outcome and children health. A review of epidemiological studies. 
International journal of occupational medicine and environmental 
health 24(2):115-41.
Jurewicz J, Radwan M, Sobala W, et al. (2013) Human urinary 
phthalate metabolites level and main semen parameters, sperm 
chromatin structure, sperm aneuploidy and reproductive hormones. 
Reprod Toxicol 42:232-41.
Kamrin MA (2009) Phthalate risks, phthalate regulation, and public 
health: a review. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 12(2):157-74.

[[Page 49979]]

Kay VR, Chambers C, Foster WG (2013) Reproductive and developmental 
effects of phthalate diesters in females. Crit Rev Toxicol 
43(3):200-19.
Kiss C (2002) A Mouthing Observation Study of Children Under 6 
Years. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814. 
June 14, 2002.
Klaassen CD, ed. (2001) Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. The Basic 
Science of Poisons. Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill.
Klaunig JE, Babich MA, Baetcke KP, et al. (2003) PPARalpha agonist-
induced rodent tumors: modes of action and human relevance. Crit Rev 
Toxicol 33(6):655-780.
Koch HM, Angerer J (2007) Di-iso-nonylphthalate (DINP) metabolites 
in human urine after a single oral dose of deuterium-labelled DINP. 
Int J Hyg Environ Health 210(1):9-19.
Koch HM, Bolt HM, Preuss R, Angerer J (2005) New metabolites of 
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in human urine and serum after 
single oral doses of deuterium-labelled DEHP. Arch Toxicol 
79(7):367-76.
Koch HM, Drexler H, Angerer J (2004) Internal exposure of nursery-
school children and their parents and teachers to di(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). International Journal of Hygiene and 
Environmental Health 207:15-22.
Koch HM, Lorber M, Christensen KL, Palmke C, Koslitz S, Bruning T 
(2013) Identifying sources of phthalate exposure with human 
biomonitoring: results of a 48h fasting study with urine collection 
and personal activity patterns. Int J Hyg Environ Health 216(6):672-
81.
Kolon TF, Herndon CD, Baker LA, et al. (2014) Evaluation and 
treatment of cryptorchidism: AUA guideline. J Urol 192(2):337-45.
Kortenkamp A, Faust M (2010) Combined exposures to anti-androgenic 
chemicals: steps towards cumulative risk assessment. Int J Androl 
33(2):463-74.
Krausz C (2011) Male infertility: pathogenesis and clinical 
diagnosis. Best practice & research Clinical endocrinology & 
metabolism 25(2):271-85.
Krewski D, Gaylor DW, Lutz WK (1995) Additivity to background and 
linear extrapolation. In: Olin S, Park C, Farland W, et al. (eds) 
Low-Dose Extrapolation of Cancer Risks Issues and Perspectives. 
International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC., p 105-121.
Kwack SJ, Kim KB, Kim HS, Lee BM (2009) Comparative toxicological 
evaluation of phthalate diesters and metabolites in Sprague-Dawley 
male rats for risk assessment. J Toxicol Environ Health A 72:1446-
1454.
Lake BG, Brantom PG, Gangolli SD, Butterworth KR, Grasso P (1976) 
Studies on the effects of orally administered di-(2-ethylhexyl) 
phthalate in the ferret. Toxicology 6:341-356.
Lambright CS, Furr J, Cardon M, et al. (2011) Fetal phthalate 
screen: Assessment of several phthalate esters (PE) on fetal rodent 
testosterone (T) production and gene expression following in utero 
exposure. The Toxicologist 120:1022.
Lambrot R, Muczynski V, L[eacute]cureuil C, et al. (2009) Phthalates 
impair germ cell development in the human fetal testis in vitro 
without change in testosterone production. Environ Health Perspect 
117:32-37.
Latini G, De Felice C, Verrotti A (2004) Plasticizers, infant 
nutrition and reproductive health. Reprod Toxicol 19(1):27-33.
Laursen SE., Hansen J, Dr[oslash]jdahl A, et al. (2003) Survey of 
chemical compounds in textile fabrics. Danish Environmental 
Protection Agency. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Survey of 
chemicals in consumer products no. 23. 2003.
Lee BM, Koo HJ (2007) Hershberger assay for antiandrogenic effects 
of phthalates. ournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part A 
70:1336-1370.
Lee HC, Ko YG, Im GS, et al. (2006a) Effects of phthalate/adipate 
ester exposure during perinatal period on reproductive function 
after maturation in rats. Journal of Animal Science and Technology 
48:651-662.
Lee HC, Yamanouchi K, Nishihara M (2006b) Effects of perinatal 
exposure to phthalate/adipate esters on hypothalamic gene expression 
and sexual behavior in rats. J Reprod Dev 52(3):343-52.
Lehraiki A, Racine C, Krust A, Habert R, Levacher C (2009) 
Phthalates impair germ cell number in the mouse fetal testis by an 
androgen- and estrogen-independent mechanism. Toxicological Sciences 
111:372-383.
Levin BC, Paabo M, Gurman JL, Harris SE (1987) Effects of exposure 
to single or multiple combinations of the predominant toxic gases 
and low oxygen atmospheres produced in fires. Fundamental and 
Applied Toxicology 9:236-250.
Li L, Bu T, Su H, Chen Z, Liang Y, Zhang G, Zhu D, Shan Y, Xu R, Hu 
Y, Li J, Hu G, Lian Q, Ge RS (2015) In utero exposure to diisononyl 
phthalate caused testicular dysgenesis of rat fetal testis. Toxicol. 
Lett. 232(2):466-474.
Li LH, Jester WF, Jr., Laslett AL, Orth JM (2000) A single dose of 
Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in neonatal rats alters gonocytes, 
reduces sertoli cell proliferation, and decreases cyclin D2 
expression. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 166(3):222-9.
Lin LC, Wang SL, Chang YC, et al. (2011) Associations between 
maternal phthalate exposure and cord sex hormones in human infants. 
Chemosphere 83(8):1192-9.
Lomenick JP, Calafat AM, Melguizo Castro MS, et al. (2009) Phthalate 
exposure and precocious puberty in females. J Pediatr 156(2):221-5.
Lotti F, Maggi M (2015) Ultrasound of the male genital tract in 
relation to male reproductive health. Hum Reprod Update 21(1):56-83.
Lottrup G, Andersson AM, Leffers H, et al. (2006) Possible impact of 
phthalates on infant reproductive health. Int J Androl 29(1):172-80; 
discussion 181-5.
Lutz WK (1990) Dose-response relationship and low dose extrapolation 
in chemical carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 11(8):1243-7.
Lutz WK (2001) Susceptibility differences in chemical carcinogenesis 
linearize the dose-response relationship: threshold doses can be 
defined only for individuals. Mutation research 482(1-2):71-6.
Lyche JL, Gutleb AC, Bergman A, et al. (2009) Reproductive and 
developmental toxicity of phthalates. J Toxicol Environ Health B 
Crit Rev 12(4):225-49.
Mai CT, Isenburg J, Langlois PH, et al. (2015) Population-based 
birth defects data in the United States, 2008 to 2012: Presentation 
of state-specific data and descriptive brief on variability of 
prevalence. Birth defects research Part A, Clinical and molecular 
teratology 103(11):972-93.
Main KM (2008) Phthalate monoesters and infant reproductive health. 
Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen 
Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) 70 Suppl 1:S46-8.
Main KM, Mortensen GK, Kaleva MM, et al. (2006) Human breast milk 
contamination with phthalates and alterations of endogenous 
reproductive hormones in infants three months of age. Environ Health 
Perspect 114(2):270-6.
Mage, D.T., Allen, R.H., and A. Dodali. 2008. Creatinine corrections 
for estimating children's and adult's pesticide intake doses in 
equilibrium with urinary pesticide and creatinine concentrations. 
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 18. 360-
368.
Martino-Andrade AJ, Chahoud I (2010) Reproductive toxicity of 
phthalate esters. Mol Nutr Food Res 54(1):148-57.
Masutomi N, Shibutani M, Takagi H, Uneyama C, Takahashi N, Hirose M 
(2003) Impact of dietary exposure to methoxychlor, genistein, or 
diisononyl phthalate during the perinatal period on the development 
of the rat endocrine/reproductive systems in later life. Toxicology 
192(2-3):149-70.
Masutomi N, Shibutani M, Takigami S, Uneyama C, Lee K-Y, Hirose M 
(2004) Alteration of pituitary hormone-immunoreactive cell 
populations in rat offspring after maternal dietary exposure to 
endocrine-active chemicals. Archives of Toxicology 78:232-240.
Matsumoto M, Hirata-Koizumi M, Ema M (2008) Potential adverse 
effects of phthalic acid esters on human health: A review of recent 
studies on reproduction. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50(1):37-49.
McEwen GNJ, Renner G (2006) Validity of anogenital distance as a 
marker of in utero phthalate exposure. Environmental Health 
Perspectives 114:A19-A20.
McKinnell C, Mitchell RT, Walker M, et al. (2009) Effect of fetal or 
neonatal exposure to monobutyl phthalate (MBP) on testicular 
development and function in the marmoset. Hum Reprod 24(9):2244-54.
Meek ME, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Van Raaij M, Vickers C 
(2011) Risk assessment of combined

[[Page 49980]]

exposure to multiple chemicals: A WHO/IPCS framework. Regulatory 
Toxicology and Pharmacology 60(2 Suppl 1):S1-S14.
Mendiola J, Stahlhut RW, Jorgensen N, Liu F, Swan SH (2011) Shorter 
anogenital distance predicts poorer semen quality in young men in 
Rochester, New York. Environ Health Perspect 119(7):958-63.
Mieritz MG, Frederiksen H, Sorensen K, et al. (2012) Urinary 
phthalate excretion in 555 healthy Danish boys with and without 
pubertal gynaecomastia. Int J Androl 35(3):227-35.
Mitchell RT, Childs AJ, Anderson RA, et al. (2012) Do phthalates 
affect steroidogenesis by the human fetal testis? Exposure of human 
fetal testis xenografts to di-n-butyl phthalate. J Clin Endocrinol 
Metab 97(3):E341-8.
Moody S, Goh H, Bielanowicz A, Rippon P, Loveland KL, Itman C (2013) 
Prepubertal mouse testis growth and maturation and androgen 
production are acutely sensitive to di-n-butyl phthalate. 
Endocrinology 154(9):3460-75.
Mylchreest E, Cattley RC, Foster PM (1998) Male reproductive tract 
malformations in rats following gestational and lactational exposure 
to Di(n-butyl) phthalate: An antiandrogenic mechanism? Toxicol Sci 
43(1):47-60.
NAS (2017) Application of Systematic Review Methods in an Overall 
Strategy for Evaluating Low-Dose Toxicity from Endocrine Active 
Chemicals. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine, National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National 
Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24758.
NCHS, 2012. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 
Sample Design, 1999-2006, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, 
Number 155. May 2012. Download from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_155.pdf on January 15, 2015.
NCHS (2013a) The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 
Estimation Procedures, 2007-2010, Vital and Health Statistics, 
Series 2, Number 159. National Center for Health Statistics. August 
2013. Download from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_159.pdf on January 15, 2015.
NCHS (2013b) The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 
Sample Design, 2007-2010, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, 
Number 160. National Center for Health Statistics. August 2013. 
Download from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_160.pdf 
on January 15, 2015.
NCHS, (2013c) The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 
Analytic Guidelines, 1999-2010, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 
2, Number 161. September 2013 Download from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_161.pdf on January 15, 2015.
NCHS, 2014. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: 
Sample Design, 2011-2014. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, 
Number 162. March 2014. Download from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_162.pdf on January 15, 2015.
NICNAS (2012) Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report No. 35. 
Diisononyl Phthalate. Australian Government, Department of Health, 
National Industrial Chemicals Notificatin and Assessment Scheme 
(NICNAS), Sydney, Australia. September 2012. https://www.nicnas.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0008/34838/PEC35-DINP.docx.
NLM (2017) PubMed Database. In: National Library of Medicine (NLM), 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. Accessed March 2017 2017.
NRC (2008) Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment. The Task 
Ahead. Committee on the Health Risks of Phthalates, National 
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (2009) Science and Decisions. Advancing Risk Assessment. 
Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches used by the U.S. 
EPA, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, 
DC.
NTP (2015) Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health 
Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence 
Integration. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 
2015. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/pubs/handbookjan2015_508.pdf.
NTP (2016) Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition. National 
Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Public Health Service. Research Triangle Park, NC: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/index-1.html.
O'Leary, P.O., Boyne, P., Flett, P., Beilby, J., and I. James. 1991. 
Longitudinal assessment of changes in reproductive hormones during 
normal pregnancy. Clinical Chemistry. 37(5). 667-672.
OMB (2004) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the 
President, Washington, DC. December 16, 2004 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2005/m05-03.pdf.
Pak VM, McCauley LA, Pinto-Martin J (2011) Phthalate exposures and 
human health concerns: A review and implications for practice. AAOHN 
journal: Official journal of the American Association of 
Occupational Health Nurses 59(5):228-33; quiz 234-5.
Parks LG, Ostby JS, Lambright CR, et al. (2000) The plasticizer 
diethylhexyl phthalate induces malformations by decreasing fetal 
testosterone synthesis during sexual differentiation in the male 
rat. Toxicol Sci 58(2):339-49.
Patton DE (2010) CPSC Staff Toxicity Review of 17 Phthalates for 
Consideration by the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel--2010. U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814 https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/126213/toxreview.pdf.
Picciano, M.F. Pregnancy and lactation: Physiological adjustments, 
nutritional requirements and the role of dietary supplements. 
Journal of Nutrition. 133. 1997S-2002S.
Pohl HR, Abadin HG (1995) Utilizing uncertainty factors in minimal 
risk levels derivation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 22(2):180-8.
Polanska K, Jurewicz J, Hanke W (2012) Exposure to environmental and 
lifestyle factors and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in 
children--a review of epidemiological studies. International journal 
of occupational medicine and environmental health 25(4):330-55.
Preau JL, Jr., Wong LY, Silva MJ, Needham LL, Calafat AM (2010) 
Variability over 1 week in the urinary concentrations of metabolites 
of diethyl phthalate and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate among eight 
adults: An observational study. Environ Health Perspect 
118(12):1748-54.
Rais-Bahrami K, Nunez S, Revenis ME, Luban NL, Short BL (2004) 
Follow-up study of adolescents exposed to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 
(DEHP) as neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) 
support. Environ Health Perspect 112(13):1339-40.
Renwick AG, Lazarus NR (1998) An Analysis of the Default Uncertainty 
Factor. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 27(3-29).
Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Haber LT, et al. (2011) Linear low-dose 
extrapolation for noncancer heath effects is the exception, not the 
rule. Crit Rev Toxicol 41(1):1-19.
Rider CV, Furr J, Wilson VS, Gray LE, Jr. (2008) A mixture of seven 
antiandrogens induces reproductive malformations in rats. Int J 
Androl 31(2):249-62.
Rider CV, Furr JR, Wilson VS, Gray LE, Jr. (2010) Cumulative effects 
of in utero administration of mixtures of reproductive toxicants 
that disrupt common target tissues via diverse mechanisms of 
toxicity. Int J Androl 33(2):443-62.
Rider CV, Wilson VS, Howdeshell KL, et al. (2009) Cumulative effects 
of in utero administration of mixtures of ``antiandrogens'' on male 
rat reproductive development. Toxicol Pathol 37(1):100-13.
RIVM (1998) Phthalate Release from Soft PVC Baby Toys, Report from 
the Dutch Consensus Group. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgesondheid en 
Milieu (National Institute of Public Health and Environment) (RIVM, 
1998). K[ouml]nemann W.H. ed. RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. RIVM 
report 61 3320 002. September 1998.
Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA (2014) 
Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based 
environmental health science assessments. Environmental Health 
Perspectives 122:711-718.
Saillenfait AM, Payan JP, Fabry JP, et al. (1998) Assessment of the 
developmental toxicity, metabolism, and placental transfer of di-n-
butyl phthalate administered to pregnant rats. Toxicol Sci 
45(2):212-24.
Saitoh Y, Usumi K, Nagata T, Marumo H, Imai K, Masanobu K (1997) 
Early

[[Page 49981]]

changes in the rat testis induced by di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and 
2,5-hexanedione--Ultrastructure and lanthanum trace study. Journal 
of Toxicologic Pathology 10:51-57.
Sargent E, Golden R, Dietrich D, Casella G, Borgert C (2011) The 
human-relevant-potency-threshold: uncertainty analysis and human 
calibration for cumulative risk assessments. The Toxicologist 
120(2):47.
Sathyanarayana S (2008) Phthalates and children's health. Current 
problems in pediatric and adolescent health care 38(2):34-49.
Sathyanarayana S, Calafat AM, Liu F, Swan SH (2008a) Maternal and 
infant urinary phthalate metabolite concentrations: Are they 
related? Environ Res 108(3):413-8.
Sathyanarayana S, Karr CJ, Lozano P, et al. (2008b) Baby care 
products: possible sources of infant phthalate exposure. Pediatrics 
121(2):e260-8.
Sathyanarayana S, Grady R, Redmon JB, et al. (2015) Anogenital 
distance and penile width measurements in The Infant Development and 
the Environment Study (TIDES): Methods and predictors. Journal of 
Pediatric Urology 11:76.e1-76.e6.
Sathyanarayana S, Grady R, Barrett ES, et al. (2016) First trimester 
phthalate exposure and male newborn genital anomalies. Environ Res 
151:777-782.
Scott HM, GR H, Mahood IK, et al. (2007) Role of androgens in fetal 
testis development and dysgenesis. Endocrinology 148:2027-2036.
Scott HM, Mason JI, Sharpe RM (2009) Steroidogenesis in the fetal 
testis and its susceptibility to disruption by exongenous compounds. 
Endocrine Reviews 30:883-925.
Shea KM (2003) Pediatric exposure and potential toxicity of 
phthalate plasticizers. Pediatrics 111(6 Pt 1):1467-74.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA: a 
cancer journal for clinicians 67(1):7-30.
Skakkebaek NE., Rajpert-De Meyts E, Main KM (2001) Testicular 
dysgenesis syndrome: an increasingly common developmental disorder 
with environmental aspects. Hum Reprod 16(5):972-8.
Spade DJ, Hall SJ, Saffarini CM, Huse SM, McDonnell EV, Boekelheide 
K (2014) Differential response to abiraterone acetate and di-n-butyl 
phthalate in an androgen-sensitive human fetal testis xenograft 
bioassay. Toxicol Sci 138(1):148-60.
Spade DJ, Hall SJ, Wilson S, Boekelheide K (2015) Di-n-butyl 
phthalate induces multinucleated germ cells in the rat fetal testis 
through a nonproliferative mechanism. Biol Reprod 93(5):110.
Suzuki Y, Yoshinaga J, Mizumoto Y, Serizawa S, Shiraishi H (2012) 
Foetal exposure to phthalate esters and anogenital distance in male 
newborns. Int J Androl 35(3):236-44.
Swan SH (2008) Environmental phthalate exposure in relation to 
reproductive outcomes and other health endpoints in humans. Environ 
Res 108(2):177-84.
Swan SH, Main KM, Liu F, et al. (2005) Decrease in anogenital 
distance among male infants with prenatal phthalate exposure. 
Environ Health Perspect 113(8):1056-61.
Swan SH, Sathyanarayana S, Barrett ES, et al. (2015) First trimester 
phthalate exposure and anogenital distance in newborns. Human 
Reproduction 30:963-972.
Talsness CE, Andrade AJ, Kuriyama SN, Taylor JA, vom Saal FS (2009) 
Components of plastic: experimental studies in animals and relevance 
for human health. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364(1526):2079-
96.
TERA (2013) Peer Review of the CHAP Draft Report on Phthalates and 
Phthalate Substances. Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment 
(TERA). Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission. August 13, 2013. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Peer-Review-Report-Comments.pdf.
TERA (2016) Exposure Assessment: Potential for the Presence of 
Phthalates and Other Specified Elements in Undyed Manufactured 
Fibers and their Colorants. Toxicology Excellence For Risk 
Assessment (TERA). Task Order 17, Contract Number CPSC-D-12-0001. 
September 20, 2016. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/TERA%20Task17%20Report%20Phthalates%20and%20ASTM%20Elements%20in%20Manufactured%20Fibers.pdf.
Teuschler LK, Hertzberg RC (1995) Current and future risk assessment 
guidelines, policy, and methods development for chemical mixtures. 
Toxicology 105(2-3):137-44.
Thankamony A, Lek N, Carroll D, et al. (2014) Anogenital distance 
and penile length in infants with hypospadias or cryptorchidism: 
comparison with normative data. Environ Health Perspect 122(2):207-
11.
Thompson CJ, Ross SM, Gaido KW (2004) Di(n-butyl) phthalate impairs 
cholesterol transport and steroidogenesis in the fetal rat testis 
through a rapid and reversible mechanism. Endocrinology 145(3):1227-
37.
Thompson CJ, Ross SM, Hensley J, et al. (2005) Differential 
steroidogenic gene expression in the fetal adrenal gland versus the 
testis and rapid and dynamic response of the fetal testis to di(n-
butyl) phthalate. Biol Reprod 73(5):908-17.
Ting KC, Gill M, Garbin O (2009) GC/MS screening method for 
phthalate esters in children's toys. Journal of AOAC International 
92(3):951-8.
T[oslash]nning K, Jacobsen E, Pedersen E, Nilsson NH (2010a) 
Phthalates in products that children are in direct contact with. 
Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Danish Ministry of the 
Environment. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 
109.
T[oslash]nning K, Jacobsen E, Pedersen E, Nilsson NH (2010b) 
Phthalates in products with large surfaces. Danish Environmental 
Protection Agency. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Survey of 
Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 108.
T[oslash]nning K, Jacobsen E, Pedersen E, et al. (2009) Survey and 
Health Assessment of the exposure of 2 year-olds to chemical 
substances in Consumer Products. Danish Environmental Protection 
Agency. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Survey of Chemical 
Substances in Consumer Products, No. 102.
T[oslash]nning K, Malmgren-Hansen B, Jacobsen E, Pedersen E, Nilsson 
NH (2010c) Phthalates in plastic sandals. Danish Environmental 
Protection Agency. Danish Ministry of the Environment. Survey of 
Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 107.
Verbeke, W. and I. De Bourdeaudhuij. 2007. Dietary behavior of 
pregnant versus non-pregnant women. Appetite. 48. 78-86.
Veeramachaneni DNR, Klinefelter GR (2014) Phthalate-induced 
pathology in the foetal testis involves more than decreased 
testosterone production. Reproduction 147:435-442.
Versar (2010) Review of Exposure Data and Assessments for Select 
Dialkyl Ortho-Phthalates. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA. February 
24, 2010. Contract no. CPSC-D-06-0006.
Ward JM, Peters JM, Perella CM, Gonzalez FJ (1998) Receptor and 
nonreceptor-mediated organ-specific toxicity of di(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) in peroxisome proliferator-activated 
receptor alpha-null mice. Toxicol Pathol 26(2):240-6.
Waterman SJ, Ambroso JL, Keller LH, Trimmer GW, Nikiforov AI, Harris 
SB (1999) Developmental toxicity of di-isodecyl and di-isononyl 
phthalates in rats. Reprod Toxicol 13(2):131-6.
Waterman SJ, Keller LH, Trimmer GW, et al. (2000) Two-generation 
reproduction study in rats given di-isononyl phthalate in the diet. 
Reprod Toxicol 14(1):21-36.
Weiss B (2006) Anogenital distance: defining ``normal''. 
Environmental Health Perspectives 114:A399.
White PD, Spassova MA, Subramaniam RP, Kopylev L (2011) Non-
threshold biological processed and the assumption of low-dose 
linearity: consideration of receptor-mediated events in risk 
assessment. The Toxicologist 102(2):475.
WHO (2000) Evaluation and Use of Epidemiological Evidence for 
Environmental Health Risk Assessment World Health Organization 
(WHO), Copenhagen, Denmark. EUR/00/5020369. E68940. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/74733/E68940.pdf.
Wigle DT, Arbuckle TE, Turner MC, et al. (2008) Epidemiologic 
evidence of relationships between reproductive and child health 
outcomes and environmental chemical contaminants. J Toxicol Environ 
Health B Crit Rev 11(5-6):373-517.
Wilson VS, Lambright C, Furr J, et al. (2004) Phthalate ester-
induced gubernacular lesions are associated with reduced insl3 gene 
expression in the fetal rat testis. Toxicol Lett 146(3):207-15.

[[Page 49982]]

Won Han S, Lee H, Han SY, et al. (2009) An exposure assessment of 
di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) in 
human semen. J Toxicol Environ Health A 72(21-22):1463-9.
Woodruff TJ, Zota AR, Schwartz JM (2011) Environmental Chemicals in 
Pregnant Women in the US: NHANES 2003-2004. Environmental Health 
Perspectives 119:878-885.
Wormuth M, Scheringer M, Vollenweider M, Hungerbuhler K (2006) What 
are the sources of exposure to eight frequently used phthalic acid 
esters in Europeans? Risk Anal 26(3):803-24.
Xie M, Wu Y, Little JC, Marr LC (2016) Phthalates and alternative 
plasticizers and potential for contact exposure from children's 
backpacks and toys. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 26(1):119-24.
Yen TH, Lin-Tan DT, Lin JL (2011) Food safety involving ingestion of 
foods and beverages prepared with phthalate-plasticizer-containing 
clouding agents. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = 
Taiwan yi zhi 110(11):671-84.
Yiee JH, Baskin LS (2010) Environmental factors in genitourinary 
development. J Urol 184(1):34-41.
Zota AR, Calafat AM, Woodruff TJ (2014) Temporal trends in phthalate 
exposures: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey, 2001-2010. Environmental Health Perspectives 
122:235-241.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1307

    Consumer protection, Imports, Infants and children, Law 
enforcement, Toys.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends title 
16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1307 to read as 
follows:

PART 1307--PROHIBITION OF CHILDREN'S TOYS AND CHILD CARE ARTICLES 
CONTAINING SPECIFIED PHTHALATES

Sec.
1307.1 Scope and application.
1307.2 Definitions.
1307.3 Prohibition on children's toys and child care articles 
containing specified phthalates.

    Authority: Sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 
2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).


Sec.  1307.1   Scope and application.

    This part prohibits the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 
distribution in commerce or importation into the United States of any 
children's toy or child care article containing any of the phthalates 
specified in Sec.  1307.3.


Sec.  1307.2   Definitions.

    The definitions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) (15 
U.S.C. 2052(a)) and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(CPSIA) (Pub. L. 110-314, sec. 108(g)) apply to this part. 
Specifically, as defined in the CPSIA:
    (a) Children's toy means a consumer product designed or intended by 
the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the 
child when the child plays.
    (b) Child care article means a consumer product designed or 
intended by the manufacturer to facilitate sleep or the feeding of 
children age 3 and younger, or to help such children with sucking or 
teething.


Sec.  1307.3   Prohibition of children's toys and child care articles 
containing specified phthalates.

    (a) As provided in section 108(a) of the CPSIA, the manufacture for 
sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation into the 
United States of any children's toy or child care article that contains 
concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of di-(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate 
(DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) is 
prohibited.
    (b) In accordance with section 108(b)(3) of the CPSIA, the 
manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or 
importation into the United States of any children's toy or child care 
article that contains concentrations of more than 0.1 percent of 
diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), di-n-pentyl 
phthalate (DPENP), di-n-hexyl phthalate (DHEXP), and dicyclohexly 
phthalate (DCHP) is prohibited.
    (c) In accordance with section 108(c) of the CPSIA, the 
restrictions stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to 
any plasticized component part of a children's toy or child care 
article or any other component part of a children's toy or child care 
article that is made of other materials that may contain phthalates.

Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-23267 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>