Declaration of Prion as a Pest Under FIFRA; Related Amendments; and Availability of Final Test Guidelines, 13501-13507 [2013-04613]
Download as PDF
13501
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian
country, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by April 29, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file any comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: February 12, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart RR—Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by
revising entries in Table 3 for ‘‘Sections
25.0 and 46.0’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
TABLE 3—EPA APPROVED KNOX COUNTY, REGULATIONS
State effective
date
State section
Title/Subject
*
*
Section 25.0 ...............................
*
Permits .......................................
*
*
*
Section 46.0 ...............................
*
Regulation of Volatile Organic
Compounds.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–04412 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am]
EPA Approval date
*
*
2/28/13 [Insert first page of publication].
*
10/10/2012
*
*
2/28/13 [Insert first page of publication].
*
8/12/2009
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
40 CFR Parts 152, 158 and 161
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0427; FRL–9372–7]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
RIN 2070–AJ26
Declaration of Prion as a Pest Under
FIFRA; Related Amendments; and
Availability of Final Test Guidelines
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
With this final rule EPA
declares a prion (i.e., proteinaceous
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Explanation
Sfmt 4700
*
*
infectious particle) to be a ‘‘pest’’ under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and amends
the regulations to expressly include
prion within the regulatory definition of
pest. This final rule also amends
existing pesticide product performance
data requirements to clarify that efficacy
data are required for pesticide products
with prion-related claims. In addition,
EPA is announcing the availability of
final test guidelines on generating the
product performance data for prionrelated pesticide products.
This final rule is effective April
29, 2013.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
13502
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0427, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the OPP Docket in the
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in the
EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460–0001. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. In
addition to being available in the
docket, a copy of the final test
guidelines titled ‘‘Product Performance
Test Guidelines, OCSPP 810.2700:
Products with Prion-Related Claims’’ is
available online at https://epa.gov/ocspp/
pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melba Morrow, Antimicrobials Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–2716; fax number: (703) 308–
6467; email address:
morrow.melba@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you apply for or own
pesticide registrations. 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 might
apply to them. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited
to:
• Producers of pesticide products
(NAICS code 32532).
• Producers of antimicrobial
pesticides (NAICS code 32561).
• Veterinary testing laboratories
(NAICS code 541940).
• Medical pathology laboratories
(NAICS code 621511).
• Taxidermists, independent (NAICS
code 711510).
• Surgeons (NAICS code 621111).
• Dental surgeons (NAICS code
621210).
C. What action is the agency taking?
EPA declares a prion (i.e.,
proteinaceous infectious particle) to be
a ‘‘pest’’ under FIFRA, and amends its
regulations to expressly include prion
within the regulatory definition of pest.
Since 2003, EPA has considered a prion
to be a pest under FIFRA, so a product
intended to reduce the infectivity of any
prion on inanimate surfaces (i.e., a
‘‘prion-related product’’) is considered
to be a pesticide and regulated as such.
Any company seeking to distribute or
sell a pesticide product regulated under
FIFRA must, subject to some possible
exceptions, obtain a section 3
registration, section 24(c) registration, or
a section 18 emergency exemption
before it can be distributed or sold in
the United States. This rule codifies the
Agency’s current interpretation of
FIFRA with respect to prions. The
amendment of the definition of ‘‘pest’’
in EPA’s regulations, together with the
formal declaration under FIFRA section
25(c)(1) that a prion is a pest, eliminates
any confusion about the status of prionrelated products under FIFRA.
Regulating prion-related products under
FIFRA is appropriate for protecting
human health and the environment
against unreasonable adverse effects and
ensuring that such products are
effective.
EPA is also amending its product
performance data requirements to
clarify that efficacy data are required for
all products with prion-related claims.
The existing product performance data
requirements already require efficacy
data to be submitted when the
‘‘pesticide product bears a claim to
control pest microorganisms that pose a
threat to human health and whose
presence cannot readily be observed by
the user including, but not limited to,
microorganisms infectious to man in
any area of the inanimate environment
* * * .’’ Since this general product
performance data requirement applies to
products with prion-related claims, EPA
is amending the regulation to
specifically identify the efficacy data
that are required for products with
prion-related claims. In addition, EPA is
announcing the availability of final test
guidelines concerning the generation of
product performance data for prionrelated products.
B. What is the agency’s authority for
taking this action?
This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2 through 34 of
D. What are the incremental costs and
benefits of this action?
This final rule will: (a) Codify the
Agency’s current interpretation of
I. Executive Summary
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136–136y). In
particular, the final rule is issued
pursuant to FIFRA section 25(a) (7
U.S.C. 136w(a)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FIFRA by adding ‘‘prion’’ to the list of
pests in 40 CFR 152.5, and (b) amend
the pesticide data requirement
regulations to clarify that efficacy data
are required to support the registration
of all end-use products which bear label
claims to reduce the infectivity of
prions. The qualitative benefits of this
final rule relate to the protection of
human health and the environment by
subjecting prion-related products to
regulation under FIFRA, including all
data and labeling requirements. The
incremental costs of this rule are
estimated to range from $424,000 to
$4.72 million per pesticide registration
action. See also Unit VI.A.
II. Background
A. What is a prion?
Prions (proteinaceous infectious
particles) may occur in the central
nervous system tissues of animals as an
abnormal (misfolded), infectious form of
prion protein.
Prion protein in its normal form, or
conformation, can be designated PrPc
(cellular isoform) while abnormal
conformations of prion proteins are
generally called prions. Different types
of prions are commonly designated by
the type of diseases they produce, such
as PrPSc (prions associated with scrapie)
and PrPBSE (prions associated with
bovine spongiform encephalopathy—
mad cow disease).
In the disease process, prions (such as
PrPsc) recruit normal prion proteins
(PrPc) and convert them into prions
(e.g., another copy of PrPSc). This
recruitment and conversion process
results in the progressive accumulation
of disease-producing prions. When this
process takes place in the brain, it
causes disease that slowly progresses
from neuronal dysfunction and
degeneration to death. These
neurodegenerative prion diseases are
known collectively as transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSE).
TSEs include scrapie disease in sheep,
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) in cattle, chronic wasting disease
(CWD) in deer and elk, kuru and variant
Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in
humans, and similar diseases in other
animals. EPA and other agencies are
concerned that animal-related prions
may spread to other animals (e.g.,
scrapie among sheep, CWD among
cervids) or to humans (e.g., BSE), and
that human-related prions may be
passed to other humans (e.g., kuru or
vCJD). These diseases are always fatal in
humans and animals alike, and there are
no known treatments or cures.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
B. Regulatory History of Products With
Prion-Related Claims
On September 10, 2003, EPA
determined that a prion should be
considered to be a ‘‘pest’’ under the
FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and that
products intended to inactivate prions
(i.e., ‘‘prion-related products’’) should
be regulated under FIFRA (Ref. 1).
In the Federal Register issue of
January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4602) (FRL–
8850–4), to eliminate any confusion
about the status of prion-related
products under FIFRA, EPA issued a
proposed rule that, when finalized,
would declare a prion a ‘‘pest’’ under
FIFRA pursuant to the authority of
FIFRA section 25(c)(1), and amend
EPA’s regulations to expressly include
prion within the regulatory definition of
pest. EPA currently considers a prion to
be a pest under FIFRA; in addition, a
product intended to reduce the
infectivity of any prion on inanimate
surfaces (i.e., a ‘‘prion-related product’’)
is considered to be a pesticide and
regulated as such. Subject to some
exceptions, any pesticide product must
be registered or exempted under FIFRA
sections 3, 24(c), or 18 before the
product may be distributed or sold in
the United States.
In the Federal Register issue of
November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71294) (FRL–
8886–1), as a supplement to the
proposed rule to declare a prion (i.e.,
proteinaceous infectious particle) a
‘‘pest’’ under FIFRA, and to amend its
regulations to expressly include prion
with the regulatory definition of pest
(January 26, 2011; 76 FR 4602), EPA
proposed to amend its product
performance data requirements in 40
CFR parts 158 and 161 to clarify that
efficacy data are required for all
products with prion-related claims. The
existing product performance data
requirements already require efficacy
data to be submitted when the
‘‘pesticide product bears a claim to
control pest microorganisms that pose a
threat to human health and whose
presence cannot readily be observed by
the user including, but not limited to,
microorganisms infectious to man in
any area of the inanimate environment
* * * .’’ Since this general product
performance data requirement applies to
products with prion-related claims, EPA
proposed to amend the regulation to
specifically identify the efficacy data
required for products with prion-related
claims. In addition, EPA announced the
availability for public review and
comment of draft test guidelines
concerning the generation of product
performance data for prion-related
products.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
C. Data Requirements for Pesticides
First promulgated in 1984, EPA’s
pesticide data requirements outline the
kinds of data and related information
typically needed to register a pesticide.
Since there is much variety in pesticide
chemistry, exposure and hazard, the
requirements are designed to be flexible.
Test notes to the data requirements
tables and other information in the
regulation explain the conditions under
which data are typically needed.
Essentially, the data requirements
identify the questions that the applicant
will need to answer regarding a
pesticide product before the Agency can
consider it for registration.
At this time, the data requirements for
conventional, biochemical, and
microbial pesticides are codified in 40
CFR part 158, and data requirements for
antimicrobial pesticides are codified in
40 CFR part 161. In addition, part 158
contains general provisions concerning
data for the pesticides covered by the
regulation (subpart A), instructions on
how to use the data tables in the
regulation (subpart B), and a series of
data tables that identify data
requirements tailored to specific kinds
of pesticides, i.e., conventional
pesticides (subparts D–O), biochemical
pesticides (subpart U), microbial
pesticides (subpart V), and several
reserved subparts as placeholders for
future tailoring of the data requirements
that is underway to facilitate the utility
of the data tables for pesticide
registrants, such as reserved subpart W
for antimicrobials.
On October 26, 2007, EPA revised the
structure of part 158 and the data
requirements for conventional
pesticides (72 FR 60934), and
biochemical pesticides and microbial
pesticides (72 FR 60988). In conjunction
with those revisions, EPA also
transferred intact the original 1984
pesticide data requirements that had
been in part 158 into a new part 161,
titled ‘‘Data Requirements for
Antimicrobial Pesticides’’ (72 FR 60251,
October 24, 2007). In essence, part 161
is intended to be transitional by
preserving the existing data
requirements applicable to
antimicrobial pesticides until a new
final regulation that tailors the data
requirements for antimicrobial
pesticides is promulgated. On October
8, 2008 (73 FR 59382), EPA proposed to
establish data requirements specific to
antimicrobial pesticide chemicals in 40
CFR part 158, subpart W and to remove
40 CFR part 161. To date, these
proposed changes have not been
promulgated.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13503
D. Test Guidelines Used To Develop
Data for Submission to EPA
EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) has
issued a series of harmonized test
guidelines for use in the testing of
pesticides and toxic substances, and the
development of test data for submission
to the Agency. The OCSPP test
guidelines are documents that specify
methods that EPA recommends be used
to generate data that are submitted to
EPA to support the registration of a
pesticide under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq.), setting of a tolerance or tolerance
exemption for pesticide residues under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C.
346a), or regulatory activities for other
chemical substances under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The OCSPP
harmonized test guidelines serve as a
compendium of EPA-accepted scientific
methodologies and protocols for
conducting the studies routinely used
for generating data on pesticides and
industrial chemicals regulated under
FIFRA, FFDCA, and TSCA, and may
also be useful for voluntary testing
purposes. The OCSPP harmonized test
guidelines can be accessed online at
https://epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/
testmeth.htm.
III. Public Comments on the Proposed
Rules
All of the comments submitted to EPA
on both of the proposed rules are
included in the docket for this
rulemaking under docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0427. EPA
prepared two Response to Comment
documents that summarize the
comments received and provide EPA’s
detailed responses to all comments
received. This unit discusses, in general
terms, the public comments and EPA’s
responses to those comments.
A. Public Comments on the January
2011 Proposal
In response to the January 2011
proposed rule, six parties submitted
comments—one in favor, four against,
and one neutral. The commenter in
favor of the proposed rule expressed
concern about the threat posed to
human health from prions and the need
to use an existing regulatory scheme to
assure protection of public health. The
commenters disagreed with the
proposed rule and cited a range of
reasons: Poor statutory analysis, use of
regulatory authority to modify the intent
of Congress and to bypass the
lawmaking processes, declaring prions
to be pests even though they are not
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
13504
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
alive, and declaring a prion to be a pest
could lead to further declarations that
other non-living materials are pests.
EPA’s responses to these comments may
be found in the document titled ‘‘EPA,
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Responses to Comments Received
Concerning ‘Declaration of Prion as a
Pest Under FIFRA and Amendment of
EPA’s Regulatory Definition of Pests to
Include Prion.’ ’’ (Ref. 2). Overall, EPA
was not persuaded by the negative
comments to not issue the final rule as
proposed.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Public Comments on the November
2011 Supplemental Proposed Rule
In response to the November 2011
supplemental proposed rule (76 FR
71294), two parties submitted
comments—one in favor and one against
the proposed supplemental rule. The
first commenter advocated that EPA
regulate all possible prion carriers that
have any likelihood of being transmitted
to human beings, since the commenter
stated that she lost her mother to
sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. The
second commenter expressed
opposition to the proposed
supplemental rule, submitting the exact
same comments that he had submitted
previously for the proposed rule. EPA’s
responses to these comments may be
found in the document titled ‘‘EPA,
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Responses to Comments Received
Concerning ‘Prions: Proposed
Amendment to Clarify Product
Performance Data for Products With
Prion-Related Claims and Availability of
Draft Test Guidelines’ ’’ (Ref. 3). Overall,
EPA was not persuaded by the negative
comment to not issue the changes to
EPA’s existing regulations as proposed.
IV. The Final Rule
EPA is finalizing the proposed
changes as proposed. Specifically, EPA
has determined that under FIFRA a
prion is considered to be a pest; thus,
pursuant to the authority of FIFRA
section 25(c)(1), EPA is declaring a
prion to be a pest. For the same reasons,
EPA is amending the regulatory
definition of ‘‘pests’’ in 40 CFR 152.5 to
expressly include ‘‘prion.’’ These
actions make explicit the Agency’s
authority to regulate products
distributed or sold for the purpose of
reducing the infectivity of prions (i.e.,
prion-related products), other than
prions on or in living humans or other
living animals and those on or in
processed food or processed animal
feed, beverages, drugs (as defined in
FFDCA section 201(g)(1)) and cosmetics
(as defined in FFDCA section 201(i)).
Prion-related products are already
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
regulated under FIFRA and subject to all
requirements and provisions of the Act
based on EPA’s September 10, 2003
decision (Ref. 1) that prions share
enough characteristics of an ‘‘other
micro-organism’’ or ‘‘form of life’’ (as
those terms are used in FIFRA) to fall
within the scope of FIFRA section 2(t)
and 40 CFR 152.5(d). This rule ensures
that the regulatory definition reflects the
Agency’s authority to regulate prionrelated products. The primary impact of
declaring that a prion is a pest and
including ‘‘prion’’ in the regulatory
definition of ‘‘pest’’ is to provide
regulatory clarity that prion-related
products must be registered under
FIFRA sections 3 or 24(c), or otherwise
exempted before such products may be
distributed or sold in the United States.
EPA is also amending its pesticide
data requirement regulations to clarify
that efficacy data are required to support
the registration of all end-use products
that are intended to be used on
inanimate items and/or environmental
surfaces, and which bear label claims to
reduce the infectivity of prions.
Specifically, EPA is amending the data
requirements for product performance
testing that are currently found in 40
CFR 158.400 and 40 CFR 161.640 by
inserting an entry in the data tables to
more clearly specify that efficacy data
are required for prion-related products.
Currently, EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR 158.400(e)(1) and 40 CFR
161.640(b)(1) require efficacy data to be
submitted when the ‘‘pesticide product
bears a claim to control pest
microorganisms that pose a threat to
human health and whose presence
cannot readily be observed by the user
including, but not limited to,
microorganisms infectious to man in
any area of the inanimate environment
* * * .’’ Because a prion-related
product bears a claim to reduce the
infectivity of prions (that poses a threat
to human health), an applicant or
registrant is required by existing
regulations to submit valid data that
demonstrate that its prion-related
product is effective. As such, today’s
amendment to the data requirements
simply provides more specificity for
those who are considering whether to
register a product for use on inanimate
items and/or environmental surfaces
and make claims that the product will
reduce the infectivity of prions. In
summary, EPA is clearly specifying that
efficacy data are required for prionrelated products by inserting a new
entry in the data tables that are
currently found in 40 CFR 158.400 and
40 CFR 161.640.
EPA is also announcing the
availability of final test guidelines that
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Agency now includes in the OCSPP
harmonized test guidelines described in
this Unit II.D., as part of the 810 Series
of Product Performance Test Guidelines.
Specifically, the final guidelines address
product performance tests for products
with prion-related claims and are
identified as ‘‘Product Performance Test
Guidelines; OCSPP 810.2700: Products
with Prion-Related Claims’’ (Ref. 4). The
guidelines for products with prionrelated claims provide guidance
concerning the data and information
needed to assess the efficacy of
antimicrobial pesticides intended to be
used on inanimate items and/or
environmental surfaces, and which bear
label claims to reduce the infectivity of
prions.
On March 31 and April 1, 2009, EPA
presented its draft test guidelines to the
FIFRA SAP for peer review (Ref. 5),
along with a ‘‘white paper’’
summarizing the most relevant
scientific studies and publications
related to the issue of whether a prion
is a pest in support of the separate
proposed rule on that issue (Ref. 6). The
SAP provided comments on the draft
guidance document on June 29, 2009
(Ref. 7). EPA has considered the SAP’s
recommendations and incorporated
changes, as appropriate (Ref. 8). In
addition, the draft test guidelines
underwent interagency review in 2010.
V. FIFRA Mandated Reviews
In accordance with FIFRA section
25(a) and (d), on August 2, 2012, EPA
submitted a draft of this final rule to the
Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, the
Committee on Agriculture in the House
of Representatives, the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in
the United States Senate, the United
States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP). In accordance
with FIFRA section 21(b), EPA also
submitted a draft of this final rule to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS). The HHS and SAP waived
review of this final rule. USDA
submitted comments on September 5,
2012, to which EPA responded on
December 3, 2012 (see docket noted in
ADDRESSES above).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action amends existing
regulations to include prion as a pest
and to add more specificity regarding an
existing efficacy data requirement for
products intending to make prionrelated claims. It does not otherwise
amend or impose any other
requirements. This rule does not
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
otherwise involve any significant policy
or legal issues, but does impact existing
costs.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and was not therefore
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
EPA prepared an economic analysis of
the potential costs associated with this
action, titled ‘‘Economic Analysis of the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Concerning the Status of Prion as a Pest
under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).’’ The Economic Analysis (EA)
presents the Agency’s assessment of the
potential costs and benefits expected to
result from this rule. In terms of
benefits, the rule will ensure that EPA
can protect human health and the
environment by subjecting prion-related
products to regulation under FIFRA,
including all data and labeling
requirements. In terms of costs, using
pre-2003 costs as the baseline, the
incremental costs of this rule per
registration action range from $424,000
to $4.72 million (Ref. 9).
The EA presents the costs of various
types of registrations under this rule and
presents expected incremental costs for
three product registration types. The
three types of registration actions which
are possible under this rule are the
registration of: (1) A new active
ingredient, (2) a new use product, or (3)
amendment of an existing registration to
add a new use.
The EA estimates that three firms
might seek registrations for major new
use products in the first year. If all uses
are high exposure (e.g., indirect food
uses) for a new active ingredient, the
maximum potential total cost to
industry in the first year would be
approximately $7.05 million, and costs
per firm would be approximately $2.35
million. Given the uncertainty that
characterizes the market for prionrelated products at this time, the Agency
did not speculate further on the
expected number of registrations in
subsequent years. However,
registrations that occur after the initial
major new use product registrations
would probably be major new use
amendments. Data requirements would
entail only product-specific efficacy
data for major new use amendments at
a cost of approximately $431,000 per
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
registration action. Approximately 80%
of the firms in the pesticide
manufacturing industry are small firms
with revenues of $22 million, on
average. A cost of $7.05 million suggests
that the incremental cost per firm of
$2.35 million would equal nearly 11%
of annual revenues. However, after the
initial three registrations, a major new
use amendment at a cost of $431,000
would represent fewer than 2% of
average annual revenues.
The EA identifies three categories of
persons who could be affected by the
rule—pesticide registrants, users of
prion-related products, and researchers.
The registration-related requirements
under FIFRA, however, are imposed on
the entity that registers the prion-related
product. Users of prion-related products
and researchers are affected indirectly.
The EA summarizes potential
qualitative impacts of regulating prionrelated products that were expressed by
product users to EPA during its
outreach efforts to these users.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
significant information collection
burden that would require additional
review or approval by OMB under the
PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection activities
contained in the regulation are already
approved under information collection
instruments related to:
1. The submission of data to EPA to
establish a tolerance or an exemption
from the requirement to have a tolerance
currently approved under OMB Control
No. 2070–0024 (EPA ICR No. 0597).
2. The activities associated with the
application for a new or amended
registration of a pesticide currently
approved under OMB Control No. 2070–
0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277).
3. The activities associated with the
application for an experimental use
permit currently approved under OMB
Control No. 2070–0040 (EPA ICR No.
0276).
4. Activities associated with the
generation of data in response to a DataCall-In currently approved under OMB
Control No. 2070–0174 (EPA ICR No.
2288).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for certain EPA regulations in
40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and
in the Federal Register, as appropriate.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
generally requires an agency to prepare
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
13505
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
551–553, or any other statute unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of this
rule on small entities, small entity is
defined as:
1. A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. A small
business that manufactures pesticides
and other agricultural chemicals as
defined by NAICS code 325320 has 500
or fewer employees based on the SBA
standards.
2. A small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; or
3. A small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The amendments do not change existing
impacts. Although no small entities
have been identified that are directly
affected by these amendments, any such
impacts are likely to be minimal. In
general, EPA strives to minimize
potential adverse impacts on small
entities when developing regulations to
achieve the environmental and human
health protection goals of the statute
and the Agency.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538,
establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. This rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject
to the requirements of UMRA sections
202 or 205. This rule is also not subject
to the requirements of UMRA section
203, because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
These amendments are unlikely to affect
State, local, and tribal governments at
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
13506
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
all, and are likely to affect the private
sector only trivially.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C.
272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve any technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
This rule does not have federalism
implications because 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). State and local
governments are rarely pesticide
applicants or registrants, so these
amendments are not expected to affect
these governments. 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
substantial direct effects on Indian
Tribes, will not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian Tribal
governments, and does not involve or
impose any requirements that affect
Indian Tribes. Tribal governments are
rarely pesticide applicants or
registrants, so these amendments are not
expected to affect these governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, because it does
not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety
risks, nor is it an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ as defined
in Executive Order 12866.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations, because it
generally increases the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment and thereby not
adversely affect any population. This
rule does not entail special
considerations of environmental justice
related issues.
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a report, which includes a copy
of the rule, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VIII. References
The following is a listing of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket
(under docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2010–0427) includes these
documents and other information
considered by EPA, including
documents that are referenced within
the documents that are included in the
docket, even if the referenced document
is not physically located in the docket.
For assistance in locating these other
documents, please consult the contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2004. Considerations of Prions as a Pest
under FIFRA. Memorandum to the Record
from Susan B. Hazen, Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
April 29, 2004.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2012. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Responses to Comments Received
Concerning ‘‘Declaration of Prion as a Pest
Under FIFRA and Amendment of EPA’s
Regulatory Definition of Pests to Include
Prion.’’
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2012. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Responses to Comments Received
Concerning ‘‘Prions: Proposed Amendment
to Clarify Product Performance Data for
Products With Prion-Related Claims and
Availability of Draft Test Guidelines.’’
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2012. Product Performance Test Guidelines,
OCSPP 810.2700: ‘‘Products with PrionRelated Claims.’’ Final December 2012.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2009. Product Performance Test Guidelines,
Series 810, Draft OCSPP No. 810.XXXX,
titled ‘‘Products with Prion-Related Claims.’’
Draft dated February 23, 2009.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2009. Scientific Information Concerning the
Issue of Whether Prions Are a ‘‘Pest’’ under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Draft dated
December 17, 2008.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2009. Transmittal of Meeting Minutes of the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting
Held March 31–April 1, 2009, on ‘‘Scientific
Issues Associated with Designating a Prion as
a ‘Pest’ under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and
Related Efficacy Test Methods.’’
Memorandum from Myrta R. Christian,
Designated Federal Official, FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, to Debbie Edwards,
Ph.D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
13507
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 40 / Thursday, February 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
June 29, 2009. See https://www.epa.gov/
scipoly/sap/meetings/2009/march/033109
panelmembers.html.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2010. EPA Responses to Comments by the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Concerning
‘‘Scientific Information Concerning the Issue
of Whether Prions Are a ‘Pest’ under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).’’ February 17,
2010.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2010. Economic Analysis of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Concerning the Status
of Prion as a Pest under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).
and recordkeeping requirements, Test
guidelines.
Dated: February 21, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
for those on or in living man or other
living animals and those on or in
processed food or processed animal
feed, beverages, drugs (as defined in
FFDCA section 201(g)(1)) and cosmetics
(as defined in FFDCA section 201(i)).
PART 158—[AMENDED]
PART 152—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 158
continues to read as follows:
■
1. The authority citation for part 152
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y, 21 U.S.C.
346a.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; subpart U
is also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701.
4. In § 158.400(d), amend the table
under the category ‘‘Efficacy of
antimicrobial agents’’ by adding a new
entry at the end of the category to read
as follows:
■
2. In § 152.5, revise paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 152,
158 and 161
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Agricultural commodities, Chemical
testing, Pesticides and pests, Reporting
§ 152.5
Pests.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Any fungus, bacterium, virus,
prion, or other microorganism, except
§ 158.400 Product performance data
requirements table.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE—PRODUCT PERFORMANCE DATA REQUIREMENTS
Use pattern
Terrestrial
Guideline
number
Nonfood
crop
Food
crop
Greenhouse
Aquatic
Data requirement
Nonfood
crop
Food
crop
Nonfood
Food
Test substance to
support
Forestry
Residential
outdoor
Indoor
MP
Test
note
No.
EP
Efficacy of antimicrobial agents
*
810.2700 .....
*
Products with prionrelated claims.
NR .......
*
*
*
*
*
NR .......
*
*
*
NR .......
NR .......
*
NR .......
*
NR .......
*
*
NR .......
NR .......
*
R .........
NR .......
*
EP .......
*
entry at the end of the category to read
as follows:
6. In § 161.640, revise the section
heading and in paragraph (a) amend the
table by adding under the category
‘‘Efficacy of antimicrobial agents’’ a new
§ 161.640 Product performance data
requirements table.
■
5. The authority citation for part 161
continues to read as follows:
■
(a) * * *
General use patterns
Terrestrial
(b)
Notes
Food
Test substance
Greenhouse
Aquatic
Nonfood
crop
Food
crop
Nonfood
crop
Food
crop
Nonfood
Forestry
Domestic outdoor
Indoor
Data to
support
MP
Data to
support
EP
EP * ......
*
810.2700.
Efficacy of antimicrobial agents
*
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Products with
prion-related
claims.
* ............
*
..............
*
*
*
*
..............
*
..............
*
*
..............
*
..............
*
..............
*
*
..............
R ..........
*
*
..............
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–04613 Filed 2–27–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
1
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y, 21 U.S.C.
346a.
*
PART 161—[AMENDED]
Kind of data
required
*
19:07 Feb 27, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28FER1.SGM
28FER1
*
Guideline reference
No.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13501-13507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04613]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 152, 158 and 161
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0427; FRL-9372-7]
RIN 2070-AJ26
Declaration of Prion as a Pest Under FIFRA; Related Amendments;
and Availability of Final Test Guidelines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this final rule EPA declares a prion (i.e., proteinaceous
infectious particle) to be a ``pest'' under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and amends the regulations to
expressly include prion within the regulatory definition of pest. This
final rule also amends existing pesticide product performance data
requirements to clarify that efficacy data are required for pesticide
products with prion-related claims. In addition, EPA is announcing the
availability of final test guidelines on generating the product
performance data for prion-related pesticide products.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 29, 2013.
[[Page 13502]]
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0427, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Docket in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in the EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions
and additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. In addition to being available in the docket, a
copy of the final test guidelines titled ``Product Performance Test
Guidelines, OCSPP 810.2700: Products with Prion-Related Claims'' is
available online at https://epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melba Morrow, Antimicrobials Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-2716; fax number: (703) 308-6467; email address:
morrow.melba@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you apply for or
own pesticide registrations. 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 might apply to them. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to:
Producers of pesticide products (NAICS code 32532).
Producers of antimicrobial pesticides (NAICS code 32561).
Veterinary testing laboratories (NAICS code 541940).
Medical pathology laboratories (NAICS code 621511).
Taxidermists, independent (NAICS code 711510).
Surgeons (NAICS code 621111).
Dental surgeons (NAICS code 621210).
B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2 through 34
of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136-136y). In particular, the final rule is issued
pursuant to FIFRA section 25(a) (7 U.S.C. 136w(a)).
C. What action is the agency taking?
EPA declares a prion (i.e., proteinaceous infectious particle) to
be a ``pest'' under FIFRA, and amends its regulations to expressly
include prion within the regulatory definition of pest. Since 2003, EPA
has considered a prion to be a pest under FIFRA, so a product intended
to reduce the infectivity of any prion on inanimate surfaces (i.e., a
``prion-related product'') is considered to be a pesticide and
regulated as such. Any company seeking to distribute or sell a
pesticide product regulated under FIFRA must, subject to some possible
exceptions, obtain a section 3 registration, section 24(c)
registration, or a section 18 emergency exemption before it can be
distributed or sold in the United States. This rule codifies the
Agency's current interpretation of FIFRA with respect to prions. The
amendment of the definition of ``pest'' in EPA's regulations, together
with the formal declaration under FIFRA section 25(c)(1) that a prion
is a pest, eliminates any confusion about the status of prion-related
products under FIFRA. Regulating prion-related products under FIFRA is
appropriate for protecting human health and the environment against
unreasonable adverse effects and ensuring that such products are
effective.
EPA is also amending its product performance data requirements to
clarify that efficacy data are required for all products with prion-
related claims. The existing product performance data requirements
already require efficacy data to be submitted when the ``pesticide
product bears a claim to control pest microorganisms that pose a threat
to human health and whose presence cannot readily be observed by the
user including, but not limited to, microorganisms infectious to man in
any area of the inanimate environment * * * .'' Since this general
product performance data requirement applies to products with prion-
related claims, EPA is amending the regulation to specifically identify
the efficacy data that are required for products with prion-related
claims. In addition, EPA is announcing the availability of final test
guidelines concerning the generation of product performance data for
prion-related products.
D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
This final rule will: (a) Codify the Agency's current
interpretation of FIFRA by adding ``prion'' to the list of pests in 40
CFR 152.5, and (b) amend the pesticide data requirement regulations to
clarify that efficacy data are required to support the registration of
all end-use products which bear label claims to reduce the infectivity
of prions. The qualitative benefits of this final rule relate to the
protection of human health and the environment by subjecting prion-
related products to regulation under FIFRA, including all data and
labeling requirements. The incremental costs of this rule are estimated
to range from $424,000 to $4.72 million per pesticide registration
action. See also Unit VI.A.
II. Background
A. What is a prion?
Prions (proteinaceous infectious particles) may occur in the
central nervous system tissues of animals as an abnormal (misfolded),
infectious form of prion protein.
Prion protein in its normal form, or conformation, can be
designated PrP\c\ (cellular isoform) while abnormal conformations of
prion proteins are generally called prions. Different types of prions
are commonly designated by the type of diseases they produce, such as
PrP\Sc\ (prions associated with scrapie) and PrP\BSE\ (prions
associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy--mad cow disease).
In the disease process, prions (such as PrP\sc\) recruit normal
prion proteins (PrP\c\) and convert them into prions (e.g., another
copy of PrP\Sc\). This recruitment and conversion process results in
the progressive accumulation of disease-producing prions. When this
process takes place in the brain, it causes disease that slowly
progresses from neuronal dysfunction and degeneration to death. These
neurodegenerative prion diseases are known collectively as
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE). TSEs include scrapie
disease in sheep, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle,
chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk, kuru and variant
Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans, and similar diseases in
other animals. EPA and other agencies are concerned that animal-related
prions may spread to other animals (e.g., scrapie among sheep, CWD
among cervids) or to humans (e.g., BSE), and that human-related prions
may be passed to other humans (e.g., kuru or vCJD). These diseases are
always fatal in humans and animals alike, and there are no known
treatments or cures.
[[Page 13503]]
B. Regulatory History of Products With Prion-Related Claims
On September 10, 2003, EPA determined that a prion should be
considered to be a ``pest'' under the FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) and
that products intended to inactivate prions (i.e., ``prion-related
products'') should be regulated under FIFRA (Ref. 1).
In the Federal Register issue of January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4602)
(FRL-8850-4), to eliminate any confusion about the status of prion-
related products under FIFRA, EPA issued a proposed rule that, when
finalized, would declare a prion a ``pest'' under FIFRA pursuant to the
authority of FIFRA section 25(c)(1), and amend EPA's regulations to
expressly include prion within the regulatory definition of pest. EPA
currently considers a prion to be a pest under FIFRA; in addition, a
product intended to reduce the infectivity of any prion on inanimate
surfaces (i.e., a ``prion-related product'') is considered to be a
pesticide and regulated as such. Subject to some exceptions, any
pesticide product must be registered or exempted under FIFRA sections
3, 24(c), or 18 before the product may be distributed or sold in the
United States.
In the Federal Register issue of November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71294)
(FRL-8886-1), as a supplement to the proposed rule to declare a prion
(i.e., proteinaceous infectious particle) a ``pest'' under FIFRA, and
to amend its regulations to expressly include prion with the regulatory
definition of pest (January 26, 2011; 76 FR 4602), EPA proposed to
amend its product performance data requirements in 40 CFR parts 158 and
161 to clarify that efficacy data are required for all products with
prion-related claims. The existing product performance data
requirements already require efficacy data to be submitted when the
``pesticide product bears a claim to control pest microorganisms that
pose a threat to human health and whose presence cannot readily be
observed by the user including, but not limited to, microorganisms
infectious to man in any area of the inanimate environment * * * .''
Since this general product performance data requirement applies to
products with prion-related claims, EPA proposed to amend the
regulation to specifically identify the efficacy data required for
products with prion-related claims. In addition, EPA announced the
availability for public review and comment of draft test guidelines
concerning the generation of product performance data for prion-related
products.
C. Data Requirements for Pesticides
First promulgated in 1984, EPA's pesticide data requirements
outline the kinds of data and related information typically needed to
register a pesticide. Since there is much variety in pesticide
chemistry, exposure and hazard, the requirements are designed to be
flexible. Test notes to the data requirements tables and other
information in the regulation explain the conditions under which data
are typically needed. Essentially, the data requirements identify the
questions that the applicant will need to answer regarding a pesticide
product before the Agency can consider it for registration.
At this time, the data requirements for conventional, biochemical,
and microbial pesticides are codified in 40 CFR part 158, and data
requirements for antimicrobial pesticides are codified in 40 CFR part
161. In addition, part 158 contains general provisions concerning data
for the pesticides covered by the regulation (subpart A), instructions
on how to use the data tables in the regulation (subpart B), and a
series of data tables that identify data requirements tailored to
specific kinds of pesticides, i.e., conventional pesticides (subparts
D-O), biochemical pesticides (subpart U), microbial pesticides (subpart
V), and several reserved subparts as placeholders for future tailoring
of the data requirements that is underway to facilitate the utility of
the data tables for pesticide registrants, such as reserved subpart W
for antimicrobials.
On October 26, 2007, EPA revised the structure of part 158 and the
data requirements for conventional pesticides (72 FR 60934), and
biochemical pesticides and microbial pesticides (72 FR 60988). In
conjunction with those revisions, EPA also transferred intact the
original 1984 pesticide data requirements that had been in part 158
into a new part 161, titled ``Data Requirements for Antimicrobial
Pesticides'' (72 FR 60251, October 24, 2007). In essence, part 161 is
intended to be transitional by preserving the existing data
requirements applicable to antimicrobial pesticides until a new final
regulation that tailors the data requirements for antimicrobial
pesticides is promulgated. On October 8, 2008 (73 FR 59382), EPA
proposed to establish data requirements specific to antimicrobial
pesticide chemicals in 40 CFR part 158, subpart W and to remove 40 CFR
part 161. To date, these proposed changes have not been promulgated.
D. Test Guidelines Used To Develop Data for Submission to EPA
EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)
has issued a series of harmonized test guidelines for use in the
testing of pesticides and toxic substances, and the development of test
data for submission to the Agency. The OCSPP test guidelines are
documents that specify methods that EPA recommends be used to generate
data that are submitted to EPA to support the registration of a
pesticide under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), setting of a tolerance or
tolerance exemption for pesticide residues under section 408 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a), or
regulatory activities for other chemical substances under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The OCSPP
harmonized test guidelines serve as a compendium of EPA-accepted
scientific methodologies and protocols for conducting the studies
routinely used for generating data on pesticides and industrial
chemicals regulated under FIFRA, FFDCA, and TSCA, and may also be
useful for voluntary testing purposes. The OCSPP harmonized test
guidelines can be accessed online at https://epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm.
III. Public Comments on the Proposed Rules
All of the comments submitted to EPA on both of the proposed rules
are included in the docket for this rulemaking under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0427. EPA prepared two Response to Comment documents
that summarize the comments received and provide EPA's detailed
responses to all comments received. This unit discusses, in general
terms, the public comments and EPA's responses to those comments.
A. Public Comments on the January 2011 Proposal
In response to the January 2011 proposed rule, six parties
submitted comments--one in favor, four against, and one neutral. The
commenter in favor of the proposed rule expressed concern about the
threat posed to human health from prions and the need to use an
existing regulatory scheme to assure protection of public health. The
commenters disagreed with the proposed rule and cited a range of
reasons: Poor statutory analysis, use of regulatory authority to modify
the intent of Congress and to bypass the lawmaking processes, declaring
prions to be pests even though they are not
[[Page 13504]]
alive, and declaring a prion to be a pest could lead to further
declarations that other non-living materials are pests. EPA's responses
to these comments may be found in the document titled ``EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Responses to Comments Received Concerning
`Declaration of Prion as a Pest Under FIFRA and Amendment of EPA's
Regulatory Definition of Pests to Include Prion.' '' (Ref. 2). Overall,
EPA was not persuaded by the negative comments to not issue the final
rule as proposed.
B. Public Comments on the November 2011 Supplemental Proposed Rule
In response to the November 2011 supplemental proposed rule (76 FR
71294), two parties submitted comments--one in favor and one against
the proposed supplemental rule. The first commenter advocated that EPA
regulate all possible prion carriers that have any likelihood of being
transmitted to human beings, since the commenter stated that she lost
her mother to sporadic Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease. The second commenter
expressed opposition to the proposed supplemental rule, submitting the
exact same comments that he had submitted previously for the proposed
rule. EPA's responses to these comments may be found in the document
titled ``EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Responses to Comments
Received Concerning `Prions: Proposed Amendment to Clarify Product
Performance Data for Products With Prion-Related Claims and
Availability of Draft Test Guidelines' '' (Ref. 3). Overall, EPA was
not persuaded by the negative comment to not issue the changes to EPA's
existing regulations as proposed.
IV. The Final Rule
EPA is finalizing the proposed changes as proposed. Specifically,
EPA has determined that under FIFRA a prion is considered to be a pest;
thus, pursuant to the authority of FIFRA section 25(c)(1), EPA is
declaring a prion to be a pest. For the same reasons, EPA is amending
the regulatory definition of ``pests'' in 40 CFR 152.5 to expressly
include ``prion.'' These actions make explicit the Agency's authority
to regulate products distributed or sold for the purpose of reducing
the infectivity of prions (i.e., prion-related products), other than
prions on or in living humans or other living animals and those on or
in processed food or processed animal feed, beverages, drugs (as
defined in FFDCA section 201(g)(1)) and cosmetics (as defined in FFDCA
section 201(i)). Prion-related products are already regulated under
FIFRA and subject to all requirements and provisions of the Act based
on EPA's September 10, 2003 decision (Ref. 1) that prions share enough
characteristics of an ``other micro-organism'' or ``form of life'' (as
those terms are used in FIFRA) to fall within the scope of FIFRA
section 2(t) and 40 CFR 152.5(d). This rule ensures that the regulatory
definition reflects the Agency's authority to regulate prion-related
products. The primary impact of declaring that a prion is a pest and
including ``prion'' in the regulatory definition of ``pest'' is to
provide regulatory clarity that prion-related products must be
registered under FIFRA sections 3 or 24(c), or otherwise exempted
before such products may be distributed or sold in the United States.
EPA is also amending its pesticide data requirement regulations to
clarify that efficacy data are required to support the registration of
all end-use products that are intended to be used on inanimate items
and/or environmental surfaces, and which bear label claims to reduce
the infectivity of prions. Specifically, EPA is amending the data
requirements for product performance testing that are currently found
in 40 CFR 158.400 and 40 CFR 161.640 by inserting an entry in the data
tables to more clearly specify that efficacy data are required for
prion-related products.
Currently, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 158.400(e)(1) and 40 CFR
161.640(b)(1) require efficacy data to be submitted when the
``pesticide product bears a claim to control pest microorganisms that
pose a threat to human health and whose presence cannot readily be
observed by the user including, but not limited to, microorganisms
infectious to man in any area of the inanimate environment * * * .''
Because a prion-related product bears a claim to reduce the infectivity
of prions (that poses a threat to human health), an applicant or
registrant is required by existing regulations to submit valid data
that demonstrate that its prion-related product is effective. As such,
today's amendment to the data requirements simply provides more
specificity for those who are considering whether to register a product
for use on inanimate items and/or environmental surfaces and make
claims that the product will reduce the infectivity of prions. In
summary, EPA is clearly specifying that efficacy data are required for
prion-related products by inserting a new entry in the data tables that
are currently found in 40 CFR 158.400 and 40 CFR 161.640.
EPA is also announcing the availability of final test guidelines
that the Agency now includes in the OCSPP harmonized test guidelines
described in this Unit II.D., as part of the 810 Series of Product
Performance Test Guidelines. Specifically, the final guidelines address
product performance tests for products with prion-related claims and
are identified as ``Product Performance Test Guidelines; OCSPP
810.2700: Products with Prion-Related Claims'' (Ref. 4). The guidelines
for products with prion-related claims provide guidance concerning the
data and information needed to assess the efficacy of antimicrobial
pesticides intended to be used on inanimate items and/or environmental
surfaces, and which bear label claims to reduce the infectivity of
prions.
On March 31 and April 1, 2009, EPA presented its draft test
guidelines to the FIFRA SAP for peer review (Ref. 5), along with a
``white paper'' summarizing the most relevant scientific studies and
publications related to the issue of whether a prion is a pest in
support of the separate proposed rule on that issue (Ref. 6). The SAP
provided comments on the draft guidance document on June 29, 2009 (Ref.
7). EPA has considered the SAP's recommendations and incorporated
changes, as appropriate (Ref. 8). In addition, the draft test
guidelines underwent interagency review in 2010.
V. FIFRA Mandated Reviews
In accordance with FIFRA section 25(a) and (d), on August 2, 2012,
EPA submitted a draft of this final rule to the Secretary of the
Senate, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Agriculture in the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in the United States Senate, the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). In accordance with FIFRA section
21(b), EPA also submitted a draft of this final rule to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS and SAP waived review of
this final rule. USDA submitted comments on September 5, 2012, to which
EPA responded on December 3, 2012 (see docket noted in ADDRESSES
above).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action amends existing regulations to include prion as a pest
and to add more specificity regarding an existing efficacy data
requirement for products intending to make prion-related claims. It
does not otherwise amend or impose any other requirements. This rule
does not
[[Page 13505]]
otherwise involve any significant policy or legal issues, but does
impact existing costs.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was
not therefore submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011).
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs associated
with this action, titled ``Economic Analysis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Concerning the Status of Prion as a Pest under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).'' The Economic
Analysis (EA) presents the Agency's assessment of the potential costs
and benefits expected to result from this rule. In terms of benefits,
the rule will ensure that EPA can protect human health and the
environment by subjecting prion-related products to regulation under
FIFRA, including all data and labeling requirements. In terms of costs,
using pre-2003 costs as the baseline, the incremental costs of this
rule per registration action range from $424,000 to $4.72 million (Ref.
9).
The EA presents the costs of various types of registrations under
this rule and presents expected incremental costs for three product
registration types. The three types of registration actions which are
possible under this rule are the registration of: (1) A new active
ingredient, (2) a new use product, or (3) amendment of an existing
registration to add a new use.
The EA estimates that three firms might seek registrations for
major new use products in the first year. If all uses are high exposure
(e.g., indirect food uses) for a new active ingredient, the maximum
potential total cost to industry in the first year would be
approximately $7.05 million, and costs per firm would be approximately
$2.35 million. Given the uncertainty that characterizes the market for
prion-related products at this time, the Agency did not speculate
further on the expected number of registrations in subsequent years.
However, registrations that occur after the initial major new use
product registrations would probably be major new use amendments. Data
requirements would entail only product-specific efficacy data for major
new use amendments at a cost of approximately $431,000 per registration
action. Approximately 80% of the firms in the pesticide manufacturing
industry are small firms with revenues of $22 million, on average. A
cost of $7.05 million suggests that the incremental cost per firm of
$2.35 million would equal nearly 11% of annual revenues. However, after
the initial three registrations, a major new use amendment at a cost of
$431,000 would represent fewer than 2% of average annual revenues.
The EA identifies three categories of persons who could be affected
by the rule--pesticide registrants, users of prion-related products,
and researchers. The registration-related requirements under FIFRA,
however, are imposed on the entity that registers the prion-related
product. Users of prion-related products and researchers are affected
indirectly. The EA summarizes potential qualitative impacts of
regulating prion-related products that were expressed by product users
to EPA during its outreach efforts to these users.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new significant information
collection burden that would require additional review or approval by
OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection
activities contained in the regulation are already approved under
information collection instruments related to:
1. The submission of data to EPA to establish a tolerance or an
exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance currently approved
under OMB Control No. 2070-0024 (EPA ICR No. 0597).
2. The activities associated with the application for a new or
amended registration of a pesticide currently approved under OMB
Control No. 2070-0060 (EPA ICR No. 0277).
3. The activities associated with the application for an
experimental use permit currently approved under OMB Control No. 2070-
0040 (EPA ICR No. 0276).
4. Activities associated with the generation of data in response to
a Data-Call-In currently approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0174 (EPA
ICR No. 2288).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for certain
EPA regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and in the
Federal Register, as appropriate.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or any other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
1. A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. A small business
that manufactures pesticides and other agricultural chemicals as
defined by NAICS code 325320 has 500 or fewer employees based on the
SBA standards.
2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or
3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
amendments do not change existing impacts. Although no small entities
have been identified that are directly affected by these amendments,
any such impacts are likely to be minimal. In general, EPA strives to
minimize potential adverse impacts on small entities when developing
regulations to achieve the environmental and human health protection
goals of the statute and the Agency.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This rule is
also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203, because it
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. These amendments are unlikely to
affect State, local, and tribal governments at
[[Page 13506]]
all, and are likely to affect the private sector only trivially.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This rule does not have federalism implications because 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
State and local governments are rarely pesticide applicants or
registrants, so these amendments are not expected to affect these
governments. 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 substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, will not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal
governments, and does not involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes. Tribal governments are rarely pesticide
applicants or registrants, so these amendments are not expected to
affect these governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
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 actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks, nor is it an ``economically significant regulatory
action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866.
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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
any technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations, because it generally
increases the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment and thereby not adversely affect any population. This rule
does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related
issues.
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a report, which includes a copy of the rule, 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
VIII. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket (under docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-0427) includes these documents and other information
considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the
documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced
document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in
locating these other documents, please consult the contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Considerations of
Prions as a Pest under FIFRA. Memorandum to the Record from Susan B.
Hazen, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. April 29, 2004.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Responses to Comments Received Concerning
``Declaration of Prion as a Pest Under FIFRA and Amendment of EPA's
Regulatory Definition of Pests to Include Prion.''
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. EPA, Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Responses to Comments Received Concerning
``Prions: Proposed Amendment to Clarify Product Performance Data for
Products With Prion-Related Claims and Availability of Draft Test
Guidelines.''
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Product
Performance Test Guidelines, OCSPP 810.2700: ``Products with Prion-
Related Claims.'' Final December 2012.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Product
Performance Test Guidelines, Series 810, Draft OCSPP No. 810.XXXX,
titled ``Products with Prion-Related Claims.'' Draft dated February
23, 2009.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Scientific
Information Concerning the Issue of Whether Prions Are a ``Pest''
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Draft dated December 17, 2008.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Transmittal of
Meeting Minutes of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Held
March 31-April 1, 2009, on ``Scientific Issues Associated with
Designating a Prion as a `Pest' under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and Related Efficacy Test
Methods.'' Memorandum from Myrta R. Christian, Designated Federal
Official, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, to Debbie Edwards, Ph.D., Director, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
[[Page 13507]]
June 29, 2009. See https://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2009/march/033109panelmembers.html.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. EPA Responses to
Comments by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Concerning
``Scientific Information Concerning the Issue of Whether Prions Are
a `Pest' under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA).'' February 17, 2010.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Economic Analysis
of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning the Status of Prion
as a Pest under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 152, 158 and 161
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Agricultural commodities, Chemical testing, Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Test guidelines.
Dated: February 21, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 152--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 152 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. 152.5, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 152.5 Pests.
* * * * *
(d) Any fungus, bacterium, virus, prion, or other microorganism,
except for those on or in living man or other living animals and those
on or in processed food or processed animal feed, beverages, drugs (as
defined in FFDCA section 201(g)(1)) and cosmetics (as defined in FFDCA
section 201(i)).
PART 158--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 158 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, 21 U.S.C. 346a.
0
4. In Sec. 158.400(d), amend the table under the category ``Efficacy
of antimicrobial agents'' by adding a new entry at the end of the
category to read as follows:
Sec. 158.400 Product performance data requirements table.
* * * * *
Table--Product Performance Data Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use pattern Test substance to support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guideline Data requirement Terrestrial Aquatic Greenhouse Test note No.
number ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forestry Residential Indoor MP EP
Food crop Non-food crop Food Non-food Food crop Non-food crop outdoor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy of antimicrobial agents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
810.2700....... Products with NR................ NR................ NR................ NR................ NR................ NR................ NR................ NR................ R................. NR............... EP............... 1
prion-related
claims.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 161--[AMENDED]
0
5. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, 21 U.S.C. 346a.
0
6. In Sec. 161.640, revise the section heading and in paragraph (a)
amend the table by adding under the category ``Efficacy of
antimicrobial agents'' a new entry at the end of the category to read
as follows:
Sec. 161.640 Product performance data requirements table.
(a) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General use patterns Test substance
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of data required (b) Notes Terrestrial Aquatic Greenhouse Guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forestry Domestic outdoor Indoor Data to support Data to support reference No.
Food crop Non-food crop Food Non-food Food crop Non-food crop MP EP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficacy of antimicrobial agents
* * * * * * *
Products with prion-related *................ ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. ................. R............... ................ EP *............ 810.2700........
claims.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-04613 Filed 2-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P