[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39399-39402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 158
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0683; FRL-9965-54]
RIN 2070-AK41
Pesticides; Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for
Antimicrobial Pesticides
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a correction pertaining to the ``200 ppb
(parts per billion) level'' described in the antimicrobial pesticides
data requirements regulation to clarify that the 200 ppb level is based
on total estimated daily dietary intake for an individual and not on
the amount of residue present on a single food, as is incorrectly
implied by the current regulatory text. This change is intended to
enhance understanding of the data required to support an antimicrobial
pesticide registration and does not alter the burden or costs
associated with these previously-promulgated requirements. Through this
action, EPA is not proposing any new data requirements or any other
revisions (substantive or otherwise) to existing requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0683, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameo Smoot, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
(703) 305-5454; email address: [email protected].
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
producer or registrant of an antimicrobial pesticide product or device.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
NAICS code 325320, Pesticide and Other Agricultural
Chemical Manufacturing, e.g., pesticide manufacturers or formulators of
pesticide products, importers, exporters, or any person or company who
seeks to register a pesticide product or to obtain a tolerance for a
pesticide product.
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. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
This action is issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. and the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d).
C. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is proposing a single correction to the data requirements for
antimicrobial pesticide products that are codified in 40 CFR part 158,
subpart W. EPA is not proposing any other changes (substantive or
otherwise) or any new data requirements. The correction to the ``200
ppb level'' described in 40 CFR 158.2230(d) will clarify that the 200
ppb level is based on total estimated daily dietary intake for an
individual and not on the amount of residue present on a single food,
as is incorrectly implied by the current regulatory text.
D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
No new data requirements are proposed and this correction does not
result in any new burden or costs being imposed. The proposed change
represents a technical correction; therefore, registrants will not
submit more studies than they are currently submitting in their
application packages. As a result, this change will not cause any
increase in the cost to register an antimicrobial pesticide product.
EPA believes the correction should provide registrants with more
specific information such that it could reduce the number of
consultations (emails, phone calls, and meetings) registrants seek to
ensure that they are correctly interpreting the regulations before they
begin their testing programs. Applicants may save time and money by
better understanding when studies are needed and by not submitting
unneeded studies. Submission of all required studies at the time of
application may reduce potential delays in the registration process,
thereby allowing products to enter the market earlier. The clarity
derived from having more understandable data requirements may be
especially important to small firms and new firms entering the industry
who may have less experience with the pesticide registration program
than those firms that routinely work with the Agency.
Although we believe that the correction reduces uncertainty and
will result in a decrease in the number of inquiries registrants may
make to EPA seeking clarification on this particular point, EPA did not
attempt to determine whether or not, or the extent to which, the
correction might result in any cost savings for the registrants or for
EPA. Because EPA is not proposing any new data requirements and also
made sure not to increase the frequency at which the existing data are
required, EPA determined there is no need to perform an economic
analysis for this proposed rulemaking.
E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
[[Page 39400]]
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
II. Background
Under FIFRA, every pesticide product must be registered (or
specifically exempted from registration under FIFRA section 25(b)) by
EPA before the pesticide may be sold or distributed in the United
States. To obtain a registration, an applicant or registrant must
demonstrate to the Agency's satisfaction that, among other things, the
pesticide product, when used in accordance with widespread and commonly
recognized practice, will not cause ``unreasonable adverse effects'' to
humans or the environment.
Under FIFRA, anyone seeking to register a pesticide product is
required to provide information to EPA that demonstrates, among other
things, that the product can be used without posing unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment. The FFDCA section 408 dietary
safety factor is incorporated into FIFRA's definition of ``unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment.'' Moreover, EPA has authority under
FFDCA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the need for a
tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food, provided
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposures to the residues of the pesticide product, including all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information. EPA's data requirement regulations in 40 CFR
part 158 outline the kinds of data and related information typically
needed to register a pesticide product. The data requirements are
organized by major pesticide type (e.g., conventional, biochemical,
microbial, or antimicrobial), scientific discipline (e.g., toxicology
or residue chemistry) and major use sites (e.g., outdoor vs. indoor,
terrestrial, aquatic, or greenhouse).
The data requirements in 40 CFR part 158 were first promulgated in
1984 (49 FR 42856, October 24, 1984), and principally focused on the
data needed to register agricultural pesticide chemicals. In the
Federal Register of October 26, 2007, EPA promulgated a final rule to
revise and update the data requirements for conventional pesticides (72
FR 60934) (FRL-8106-5). Also on October 26, 2007, EPA promulgated a
rule to specifically describe the data requirements for biochemical and
microbial pesticides (72 FR 60988) (FRL-8109-8). In the Federal
Register of May 8, 2013, the data requirements specific to
antimicrobial pesticides were promulgated (78 FR 26936) (FRL-8886-5)
and became effective on July 8, 2013.
III. Legal Challenge to the 2013 Rule, Resulting Settlement Agreement,
and This Proposal
On July 3, 2013, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) filed a
petition for judicial review of the 2013 final rule, entitled ``Data
Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides'' (78 FR 26936, May 8, 2013),
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. (American Chemistry Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection
Agency, No.13-1207 (D.C. Cir.)). On July 8, 2013, the final rule became
effective.
EPA and ACC subsequently entered into a settlement agreement that
addressed ACC's petition for judicial review of the 40 CFR part 158,
subpart W data requirements rule. The settlement agreement, which
became effective on March 2, 2015, is available at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110-
0139. Under the settlement agreement with ACC, EPA agreed to propose by
September 2, 2017, a correction to the current language at 40 CFR
158.2230(d) referring to the 200 ppb level as ``the concentration of
the antimicrobial residues in or on the food item'' in order to make
the language consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) policy set forth in ``Guidance for Industry, Preparation of Food
Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology
Recommendations. Final Guidance. April 2002.'' A copy of the FDA
guidance has been placed in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
Accordingly, the proposal clarifies that the 200 ppb level established
in the rule is based on total estimated daily dietary intake, and not
on the amount of residue present on a single food item or commodity. As
part of its obligations under the settlement agreement, EPA previously
addressed this issue in interim guidance issued on April 30, 2015. This
guidance is available on EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/epa-data-requirements-registration-antimicrobial-pesticides-part-158w.
IV. Request for Comments
The Agency invites the public to provide its views and suggestions
for the proposed change in this document, and will formally respond to
any comments on this proposed change at the time of issuing a final
rule. EPA is particularly interested in comments and any suggestions
for better characterizing the benefits of burden reduction or savings
resulting from this correction.
V. FIFRA Review Requirements
In accordance with FIFRA sections 21 and 25(a), EPA submitted a
draft of this proposed rule to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), with copies to the appropriate Congressional
Committees (i.e., the Committee on Agriculture in the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry in the United States Senate). On June 1, 2017, USDA completed
their review of the draft proposed rule and informed EPA that they did
not have any comments. On July 17, 2017, HHS completed their review of
the draft proposed rule and provided two comments. First, with regard
to the section II. Background summary paragraph about FIFRA and FFDCA
authority, HHS submitted suggested text to avoid the suggestion that
the FFDCA contains provisions related to the registration of a
pesticide product, and also inserted language concerning ``aggregate''
exposures. EPA has addressed the comments submitted by HHS in the
proposed rule and has provided additional clarifying language. The
proposed rule now states that ``Under FIFRA, anyone seeking to register
a pesticide product is required to provide information to EPA that
demonstrates, among other things, that the product can be used without
posing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The FFDCA
section 408 dietary safety factor is incorporated into FIFRA's
definition of ``unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''
Moreover, EPA has authority under FFDCA to establish a tolerance or an
exemption from the need for a tolerance for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on food, provided there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposures to the residues of the
pesticide product, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' In the
second HHS comment, HHS suggested that we specifically identify the FDA
policy cited in the draft proposed rule. In
[[Page 39401]]
response, EPA has specifically identified the FDA policy and placed a
copy of the FDA's ``Guidance for Industry, Preparation of Food Contact
Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology Recommendations.
Final Guidance. April 2002,'' in the docket for this action.
Under FIFRA section 25(d), EPA also submitted a draft of this
proposed rule to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP
waived its review of the proposed rule on June 2, 2017, because the
proposed rule does not contain scientific issues that warrant review by
the Panel.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review; and Executive
Order 13777: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). In addition, since this
action does not contain a new requirement or impose any new burden or
costs, the burden reduction and controlling provisions in Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), do not apply. Although we
believe that the correction reduces uncertainty and will result in a
decrease in the number of inquiries registrants may make to EPA seeking
clarification on this particular point, EPA did not attempt to
determine whether or not, or the extent to which, the correction might
result in any cost savings for the registrants or for EPA.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection
requirements that would require additional review or approval by OMB
under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements associated with the submission of data under 40 CFR part
158 have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA and are
covered by the following existing Information Collection Requests
(ICRs):
The information collection activities associated with the
establishment of a tolerance are currently approved under OMB Control
No. 2070-0024 (EPA ICR No. 0597).
The information collection activities associated with the
application for a new or amended registration of a pesticide are
currently approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277).
The information collection activities associated with the
generation of data for registration review are currently approved under
OMB Control No. 2070-0174 (EPA ICR No. 2288).
The information collection activities associated with the
generation of data for experimental use permits are currently approved
under OMB Control No. 2070-0040 (EPA ICR No. 0276).
This proposed rule does not involve a change in information
collection activities associated with the generation of data for
antimicrobial pesticide products or devices. EPA believes no additional
burden for data submission would be imposed by the simple correction in
this proposed rule. The most that may be needed is for an applicant to
become familiar with the change. Although we believe that the
correction reduces uncertainty and will result in a decrease in the
number of inquiries registrants may make to EPA seeking clarification
on this particular point, EPA did not attempt to determine whether or
not, or the extent to which, the correction might result in any cost
savings for the registrants or for EPA. EPA is seeking comment on this
point in particular.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities directly regulated by this
proposed rule are small manufacturers of antimicrobial pesticide
products.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
There will not be significant adverse economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities by the simple correction proposed.
On the contrary, all registrants of pesticide products, regardless of
size, will benefit equally by receiving the clearer editorial and/or
technical direction, likely reduce the number of requests for further
clarification of data requirements, and likely enjoy a more streamlined
registration process.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
correction in this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments
on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded federal mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, this
action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will
not have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory
[[Page 39402]]
actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA
has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, nor does it affect energy supply, distribution
or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require the consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
This action does not involve special consideration of environmental
justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994), because this action does not address human
health or environmental risks or otherwise have any disproportionate
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income or indigenous populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 158
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 4, 2017.
Louise P. Wise,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 158 as follows:
PART 158--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; subpart U is also issued under 31
U.S.C. 9701.
0
2. In Sec. 158.2230, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 158.2230 Antimicrobial toxicology.
* * * * *
(d) 200 parts per billion (ppb). The 200 ppb level was originally
used by the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the
concentration of residues in or on food for tiering of data
requirements for indirect food use biocides. The Agency has also
adopted this same residue level for determining toxicology data
requirements for indirect food uses of antimicrobial pesticides. The
200 ppb level is the concentration of antimicrobial residues in the
total estimated daily dietary intake.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17339 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P