Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance
Posted Date: 2009-07-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 37605-37612]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29jy09-18]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710; FRL-8425-7]

 
Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the 
ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, or 30 moles; Exemption from 
the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement 
of a tolerance for residues of ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-
tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, 
or 30 moles, herein referred to in this document as ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols, when used as inert ingredients in pesticide 
formulations for pre-harvest and post-harvest uses under 40 CFR 
180.910, as well as for application to animals under 40 CFR 180.930. 
The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team Number 19, 
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum 
permissible level for residues of the ethoxylated acetylenic diols.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 29, 2009. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 28, 2009, 
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic 
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard 
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac 
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket 
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerry Leifer, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (703) 308-8811; e-mail address: leifer.kerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those 
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by 
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also 
be affected. The North American

[[Page 37606]]

Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to 
assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 
certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at 
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register 
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal 
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access 
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations 
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite 
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file 
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be 
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 
on or before September 28, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public 
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked 
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA 
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public 
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South 
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73640) (FRL-
8390-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 
8E7374) by The Joint Inerts Task Force, Cluster Support Team 19 (CST 
19), c/o CropLife America, 1156 15th Street, NW., Suite 400, 
Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 
CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement 
of a tolerance for residues of the inert ingredients ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols. That notice referenced a summary of the petition 
prepared by the Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team 
Number 19 (CST 19), the petitioner, which is available to the public in 
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received 
in response to the notice of filing.
    This petition was submitted in response to a final rule of August 
9, 2006, (71 FR 45415) (FRL-8084-1), in which the Agency revoked, under 
section 408(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 
the existing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for 
residues of certain inert ingredients because of insufficient data to 
make the determination of safety required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2). 
The expiration date for the tolerance exemptions subject to revocation 
was August 9, 2008, which was later extended to August 9, 2009 (73 FR 
45312) (FRL-8372-7), to allow for data to be submitted to support the 
establishment of tolerance exemptions for these inert ingredients prior 
to the effective date of the tolerance exemption revocation.

 III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active 
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not 
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a 
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and 
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing 
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; 
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply 
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. 
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a 
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert 
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an 
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a 
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that 
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines 
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm 
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, 
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for 
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through 
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include 
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the 
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure 
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to 
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue....''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the 
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide 
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as 
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors 
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to 
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for 
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the 
ethoxylated acetylenic diols when used as inert ingredients in 
pesticide formulations for pre-harvest and post-harvest uses, as well 
as for application to animals. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks 
associated with establishing tolerances follows.

[[Page 37607]]

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children.
    The available mammalian toxicology database includes acute, 
subchronic (rat and dog) repeat dose, and reproductive toxicity studies 
(rat) via the oral route for a representative ethoxylated compound for 
the series of polyethoxylated 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diols 
and the proposed major unethoxylated metabolite, and mutagenicity data 
for the unethoxylated compound. The available toxicology data are 
adequate to support the requested exemption from the requirement of 
tolerance when used in pesticide formulations for these ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols. In addition to concern for the parent compounds, the 
Agency has identified the unethoxylated metabolite, 2,4,7,9-
tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol, to be of concern. Unethoxylated and 
ethoxylated acetylenic diols are expected to follow a similar metabolic 
pathway. This would include hydrolytic or oxidative removal of the 
polyethoxylate chain to generate a common acetylenic diol primary 
metabolite and polyethoxylated moieties, which would vary in size 
depending on the extent of ethoxylation in the parent molecule. The 
primary acetylenic diol metabolite would be analogous to a related 
surfactant (CAS Reg. No. 126-86-3). Both the diol and polyethoxylate 
moieties would undergo rapid oxidative degradation and excretion likely 
as conjugates. The unethoxylated diol metabolite is of concern in food 
and water only. The Agency has concluded that the available data on the 
ethoxylated compound and unethoxylated metabolite (CAS Reg. Nos. 9014-
85-1 and 126-86-3) are representative of the chemicals in the 
polyethoxylated 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diols cluster. 
Further, the Agency has concluded that the currently available toxicity 
dataset is adequate to apply to the cluster and to characterize the 
potential toxic effects of these surfactants.
    The ethoxylated compounds are not acutely toxic by the oral, dermal 
and inhalation routes of exposure, but are slight to severe eye and 
mild skin irritants. The unethoxylated metabolite demonstrates low to 
medium acute toxicity by the oral and dermal routes of exposure, with 
the greatest concerns being eye and skin irritation. There is no 
evidence that the unethoxylated metabolite is mutagenic, and no 
increases in polyploidy or chromosome aberrations were observed in the 
presence and absence of metabolic activation.
    There is no clear target organ identified for the ethoxylated 
compound or the unethoxylated metabolite, although increased liver 
weight (without histopathology) was a consistent finding. Following 
subchronic exposure to the ethoxylated compound, no specific target 
organ toxicity or neurotoxicity was observed in rats and dogs. In a 1-
generation reproduction study, decreased pup body weights were observed 
at weaning following exposure to the ethoxylated and unethoxylated 
compounds at dose levels at and greater than the limit dose. Following 
subchronic exposure to the unethoxylated metabolite, compound-related 
neurological disturbances (convulsions and tremors) were observed in 
the dog. However, the concern for this finding is low based on the 
following considerations:
    1. The clinical signs were sporadic.
    2. There was no neuropathology at any dose.
    3. No neurotoxic clinical signs were seen following subchronic 
exposures to the parent compound.
    4. This endpoint is used as the point of departure in conjunction 
with highly conservative exposure inputs for assessing chronic dietary 
risks for the diol metabolite.
    5. There was no evidence with either the parent or metabolite of 
neurotoxicity in rats, the species of choice for conducting 
neurotoxicity studies.
    There was evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and 
post-natal exposures to rats for 1-generation where decreases in body 
weights of the offspring were seen at high doses (1,000 or 2,000 
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) that did not cause any parental/
systemic toxicity. It should be noted that the offspring effects were 
seen at and above the limit dose. Similarly, following exposure to the 
unethoxylated compound, there was a decrease in pup body weight at dose 
levels of 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg/day, whereas the parental animals 
displayed body-weight effects only at the 2,000 mg/kg/day dose level. 
Based on the fact that the effect (decreased body weight) was observed 
only at the limit dose and above and there is a clear NOAEL, there is 
no residual concern for this finding.
     There are no chronic toxicity studies available for this series of 
nonionic surfactants. The Agency used a qualitative structure activity 
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK Version 11, to determine if there 
were structural alerts suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural 
alerts were identified. Based on the negative response for 
mutagenicity, the fact that no specific target organs have been 
identified in the rat and dog subchronic studies at the limit dose, the 
lack of any alerts in model predictions, and SAR analysis, the Agency 
concluded that the ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts or their 
unethoxylated diol metabolite are not likely to be carcinogenic.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the 
adverse effects caused by ethoxylated acetylenic diols or the 
unethoxylated diol metabolite as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level 
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Ethoxylated Acetylenic Diols (JITF 
CST 19 Inert Ingredients). Human Health Risk Assessment to Support 
Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as 
Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations'', pages 10-15 and pages 
50-57 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no 
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is 
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk 
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no 
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study 
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a 
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of 
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach 
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) 
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties 
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and 
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population 
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic 
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the 
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic 
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by 
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term, 
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing 
food, water, and residential

[[Page 37608]]

exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure (MOE) called 
for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. This latter 
value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of 
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates 
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect 
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the 
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete 
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for ethoxylated acetylenic 
diols used for human health risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this 
unit.

 Table 1.--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for ethoxylated acetylenic diols for Use in Human Health
                                                 Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of Departure and
          Exposure/Scenario               Uncertainty/Safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for Risk  Study and Toxicological
                                               Factors                 Assessment                Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (all populations)             No appropriate endpoints were identified for acute dietary risk
 Parent and Diol Metabolite                                            assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (all populations)      NOAEL= 500 mg inert/kg/  Chronic RfD = 5 mg/kg/   1-generation
 Parent Compound                        day UFA = 10x UFH =      daycPAD = 5 mg/kg/day    reproduction/
                                        10x FQPA SF = 1x                                  subchronic oral
                                                                                          toxicity study - rat
                                                                                          (CAS Reg. No. 9014-85-
                                                                                          1) Offspring LOAEL =
                                                                                          1,000 mg/kg/day, based
                                                                                          on decreased pup body
                                                                                          weight (11% lower than
                                                                                          control) at weaning
                                                                                          (only time assessed);
                                                                                          BW decreased 21-22%
                                                                                          lower than control at
                                                                                          2,000 mg/dg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Dietary (all populations)      NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day    Chronic RfD = 2 mg/kg/   Subchronic oral
 Diol Metabolite                        UFA = 10x UFH = 10x      daycPAD = 2 mg/kg/day    toxicity study - dog
                                        FQPA SF = 1x                                      (CAS Reg. No. 126-86-
                                                                                          3) LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/
                                                                                          day, based on sporadic
                                                                                          compound-related
                                                                                          neurological
                                                                                          disturbances
                                                                                          (convulsions and
                                                                                          tremors; time of
                                                                                          occurrence unknown)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Oral Short- and             NOAEL= 500 mg/kg/day     Residential/             1-generation
 Intermediate Term Dermal and           UFA = 10 x UFH = 10 x    Occupational LOC for     reproduction/
 Inhalation (All Durations) Parent      FQPA SF = 1x (20%        MOE = 100                subchronic oral
 Compound                               Dermal absorption;                                toxicity study - rat
                                        inhalation and oral                               (CAS Reg. No. 9014-85-
                                        toxicity assumed                                  1) Offspring LOAEL =
                                        equivalent)                                       1,000 mg/kg/day, based
                                                                                          on decreased pup body
                                                                                          weight (11% lower than
                                                                                          control) at weaning
                                                                                          (only time assessed);
                                                                                          BW decreased 21-22%
                                                                                          lower than control at
                                                                                          2,000 mg/kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)      Classification: No animal toxicitydata available for an assessment. Based
 Parent and Diol Metabolite                  on SAR analysis, the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and the diol
                                                     metabolite are not expected to be carcinogenic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). PAD = population adjusted dose
  (a=acute, c=chronic). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC =
  level of concern. N/A = not applicable.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and the unethoxylated diol 
metabolite, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for exemptions 
from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures 
from ethoxylated acetylenic diols in food as follows:
     i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single 
exposure of ether the parent ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts or the 
unethoxylated diol metabolite were seen in the toxicity databases; 
Therefore, acute dietary risk assessments for the parent compound and 
the unethoxylated diol metabolite are not necessary.
     ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure 
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide 
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue 
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for the ethoxylated 
acetylenic diol inert ingredients or the unethoxylated diol metabolite. 
In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach 
which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure 
estimates for the subject inert ingredients. Upper bound exposure 
estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from 
a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete 
description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient 
risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum 
entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic 
Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk 
Assessments for the Inerts.'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be 
found at http://www.regulations.gov in

[[Page 37609]]

docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the 
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the 
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is 
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the 
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert 
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances 
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary 
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk 
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the 
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of 
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The 
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products is 
generally at least 50 percent of the product and often can be much 
higher. Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert 
ingredient; rather there is generally a combination of different inert 
ingredients used which additionally reduces the concentration of any 
single inert ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of 
the active ingredient. In the case of ethoxylated acetylenic diols, a 
conservative screening level chronic dietary (food and water) 
assessment was conducted for both the parent ethoxylated acetylenic 
diol inerts and for the 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol 
metabolite.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's 
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient 
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient 
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level. 
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly 
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single 
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level 
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity. 
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all 
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In 
other words, EPA assumed 100 percent of all foods are treated with the 
inert ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the 
highest residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, 
EPA chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert 
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the 
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that 
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to 
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though 
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one 
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when 
distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual 
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these 
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of 
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach 
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency used a qualitative structure activity 
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK11, to determine if there were 
structural alerts suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural alerts 
for carcinogenicity were identified. Based on the negative response for 
mutagenicity, the fact that no specific target organs have been 
identified in the rat and dog subchronic studies at the limit dose, the 
lack of any alerts in model predictions, and SAR analysis, the Agency 
concluded that the ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts or their 
unethoxylated diol metabolite are not likely to be carcinogenic. Since 
the Agency has not identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating 
to the ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts or their unethoxylated diol 
metabolite, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. 
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the 
dietary assessment for the ethoxylated acetylenic diols or their 
unethoxylated diol metabolite. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT 
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening 
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk 
assessment for the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated diol 
metabolite in drinking water. These simulation models take into account 
data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of 
the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated diol metabolite. 
Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in 
pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    A screening level drinking water analysis, based on the Pesticide 
Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) was 
performed to calculate the estimated drinking water concentrations 
(EDWCs) of the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated diol 
metabolite. Modeling runs on four surrogate inert ingredients using a 
range of physical chemical properties that would bracket those of the 
the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated diol metabolite were 
conducted. Modeled acute drinking water values ranged from 0.001 parts 
per billion (ppb) to 41 ppb. Modeled chronic drinking water values 
ranged from 0.0002 ppb to 19 ppb. Further details of this drinking 
water analysis can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document 
``Ethoxylated Acetylenic Diols (JITF CST 19 Inert Ingredients). Human 
Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the 
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in 
Pesticide'', at pages 15-16 and 59-61 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0710.
    For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to 
support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance for the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated diol 
metabolite, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 
ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the 
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments 
for the parent compounds and for the metabolite of concern. These 
values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, 
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). The ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols may be used in inert ingredients in pesticide products 
that are registered for specific uses that may result in both indoor 
and outdoor residential exposures. The ethoxylated acetylenic diol 
inerts are used in pesticide formulations that may be used around the 
home. In addition, these inerts may be used in pesticide products 
applied to pets as dust formulations and aerosol sprays intended for 
flea control on carpeted surfaces and bedding. Lastly, these inert 
surfactants may be present in home cleaning products. The ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols inerts do not have utility in personal care products. 
A screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was 
completed for products containing ethoxylated acetylenic diols as inert 
ingredients. In

[[Page 37610]]

this assessment, representative scenarios, based on end-use product 
application methods and labeled application rates, were selected. The 
Agency conducted an assessment to represent worst-case residential 
exposure by assessing ethoxylated acetylenic diols in pesticide 
formulations (Outdoor Scenarios); ethoxylated acetylenic diols in 
disinfectant-type uses; (Indoor Scenarios) and ethoxylated acetylenic 
diols in pet products; (Pet Product Scenarios). Further details of this 
residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled ``JITF Inert 
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment 
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk 
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a 
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations'', 
(D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0710.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative 
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances 
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found ethoxylated acetylenic diols to share a common 
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced 
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, 
therefore, EPA has assumed that ethoxylated acetylenic diols do not 
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For 
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a 
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of 
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA 
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants 
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal 
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity 
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a 
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This 
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety 
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default 
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when 
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different 
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicity database 
consists of a 1-generation reproductive toxicity study on the 
ethoxylated compound and a 1-generation reproductive toxicity study on 
the unethoxylated compound.
    The Agency performed a Degree of Concern Analysis because the rat 
reproduction studies provided evidence of increased susceptibility in 
the offspring relative to the parents. The purpose of the Degree of 
Concern analysis was:
    i. To determine the level of concern for the effects observed when 
considered in the context of all available toxicity data; and
    ii. Identify any residual uncertainties after establishing toxicity 
endpoints and traditional uncertainty factors to be used in the risk 
assessment.
    In the case of the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and unethoxylated 
diol metabolite, there was evidence of increased susceptibility in the 
1-generation reproduction toxicity studies in rats. Although there is 
some increased susceptibility in the rat reproductive toxicity studies 
(where the offspring NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day was lower than the paternal 
NOAELs of 1,000 and 2,000 mg/kg/day), the effects (decreased body 
weight) were observed only at the limit and twice the limit dose. The 
dose-response for this effect has been adequately characterized, and 
the NOAEL selected as a point of departure for the chronic dietary, 
dermal and inhalation risk assessment is protective of the adverse 
offspring effects. Thus, there are no residual concerns.
    There was some evidence of clinical signs indicative of 
neurotoxicity following subchronic exposures to the diol metabolite in 
dogs. However, the concern for this finding is low based on the 
following considerations:
    a. The clinical signs were sporadic;
    b. There was no neuropathology at any dose;
    c. No neurotoxic clinical signs were seen following subchronic 
exposures to the parent compound;
    d. This endpoint is used as the point of departure in conjunction 
with highly conservative exposure inputs for assessing chronic dietary 
risks for the diol metabolite; and
    e. There was no evidence with either the parent or metabolite of 
neurotoxicity in rats, the species of choice for conducting 
neurotoxicity studies. Therefore, additional neurotoxicity data, 
including developmental neurotoxicity studies are not required.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the 
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the 
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following 
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for the ethoxylated acetylenic diols and 
unethoxylated diol metabolite is considered adequate for assessing the 
risks to infants and children (the available studies are described in 
Unit IV.D.2.).
    ii. There are no concerns or residual uncertainties concerning pre- 
and postnatal toxicity for the reasons given in this Unit.
    iii. No additional neurotoxicity data are required.
    iv. While there is no chronic toxicity study, the Agency has 
concluded that based on the very conservative exposure assessment and 
the fact that the toxicity endpoint is also very conservative (effects 
were only seen at and above the limit dose), the 10X interspecies and 
10X intraspecies uncertainty factor would be adequately protective, and 
no additional uncertainty factor is needed for extrapolating from 
subchronic to chronic exposure.
     v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure 
databases. The food and drinking water assessment is not likely to 
underestimate exposure to any subpopulation, including those comprised 
of infants and children. The food exposure assessments are considered 
to be highly conservative as they are based on the use of the highest 
tolerance level from the surrogate pesticides for every food and 100 
PCT is assumed for all crops. EPA also made conservative (protective) 
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess 
exposure to the ethoxylated acetylenic diols or their diol metabolite 
in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to 
assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral 
exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the 
exposure and risks posed by the ethoxylated acetylenic diols.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are 
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. 
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into 
account all

[[Page 37611]]

appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD 
by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the 
probability of additional cancer cases given the estimated aggregate 
exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are 
evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and 
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for by 
the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    The Agency has conducted aggregate risk assessments to support the 
proposed uses of the ethoxylated acetylenic diols as inert ingredients 
in pesticide formulations. As noted previously, the ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols assessment includes not only parent compounds, but 
also 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol. The Agency notes that 
concern for this degradate is for residues in food and water only. 
Additionally, the Agency has selected endpoints and doses for risk 
assessment separately for the parent compound and diol metabolite. 
Therefore, separate parent compound and diol metabolite aggregate risk 
assessments are appropriate. The aggregate risk assessment for the diol 
metabolite includes residues in food and water only.
    1. Acute risk. There was no hazard attributable to a single dietary 
exposure seen in the toxicity database for the parent ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols or the unethoxylated diol metabolite. Therefore, the 
parent ethoxylated acetylenic diols or the unethoxylated diol 
metabolite are not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. A chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into 
account exposure estimates from chronic dietary consumption of food and 
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit 
for chronic exposure, the chronic dietary exposure from food and water 
to the parent ethoxylated acetylenic diol is 4% of the cPAD for the 
U.S. population and 13% of the cPAD for children 1-2 yrs old, the most 
highly exposed population subgroup. The chronic dietary (food and 
water) exposure for the unethoxylated diol metabolite resulted in a 
risk estimate of 10% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 31% of the 
cPAD for children 1-2 yrs old, the most highly exposured population 
subgroup.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into 
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food 
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts are used as inert ingredients in 
pesticide products that are currently registered for uses that could 
result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined 
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and 
water with short-term residential exposures to the ethoxylated 
acetylenic diols. Using the exposure assumptions described in this 
unit, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term aggregated food, 
water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 670, for 
both adult males and females, respectively. Adult residential exposure 
combines high end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from indoor 
hand wiping with a high end post application dermal exposure from 
contact with treated lawns. EPA has concluded the combined short-term 
aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an 
aggregate MOE of 600 for children. Children's residential exposure 
includes total exposures associated with contact with treated lawns 
(dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the LOC is for MOEs that are 
lower than 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure 
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic 
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure 
level).
    Ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts are used as inert ingredients in 
pesticide products that are currently registered for uses that could 
result in intermediate -term residential exposure and the Agency has 
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through 
food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to 
ethoxylated acetylenic diols. Using the exposure assumptions described 
in this unit, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term 
aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate 
MOEs of 2,500 for both adult males and females respectively. Adult 
residential exposure includes high end post application dermal exposure 
from contact with treated lawns. EPA has concluded that the combined 
intermediate-term aggregated food, water, and residential exposures 
result in an aggregate MOE of 690 for children. Children's residential 
exposure includes total exposures associated with contact with treated 
lawns (dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures). As the LOC is for MOEs that 
are lower than 100, these MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not 
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to the parent 
ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts or the degradate of concern.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA 
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result 
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate 
exposure to residues of the ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

     An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes 
since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for 
the ethoxylated acetylenic diol inerts nor have any CODEX Maximum 
Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is 
established for residues of Ethylene oxide adducts of 2,4,7,9-
tetramethyl-5-decynediol, the ethylene oxide content averages 3.5, 10, 
or 30 moles, when used as inert ingredients applied to crops pre-
harvest and post-harvest, or to animals.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of 
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from 
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been 
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any 
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any 
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 
Low-Income

[[Page 37612]]

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in 
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, 
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any 
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to 
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 21, 2009.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the 
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest and post-harvest; 
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert Ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
Ethylene oxide adducts of         ..................  Surfactants,
 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-                                related adjuvants
 decynediol, the ethylene oxide                        of surfactants
 content averages 3.5, 10 or 30
 moles (CAS Reg. No. 9014-85-1)
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. In Sec. 180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the 
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from 
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert Ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              * * * * * * *
Ethylene oxide adducts of         ..................  Surfactants,
 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-                                related adjuvants
 decynediol, the ethylene oxide                        of surfactants
 content averages 3.5, 10 or 30
 moles (CAS Reg. No. 9014-85-1)
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

I40[FR Doc. E9-17958 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S