C.I. Pigment Yellow 1; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance, 73224-73227 [2014-28936]
Download as PDF
73224
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
DC 20460–0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
[FR Doc. 2014–28955 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0122; FRL–9919–40]
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1; Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2- (4-methyl-2nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-)
when used as an inert ingredient as a
colorant in seed treatment formulations
not to exceed 10% weight(wt)/wt under
40 CFR 180.920. Exponent Inc. on
behalf of Clariant Corporation,
submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1.
DATES: This regulation is effective
December 10, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received
on or before February 9, 2015, and must
be filed in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0122, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan T. Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. 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:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code
32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2014–0122 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before February 9, 2015. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2014–0122, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be 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 https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of October 24,
2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL–9916–03),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP IN–10661) by Exponent,
Inc. (1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite
1100, Washington, DC 20036) on behalf
of Clariant Corporation (4000 Monroe
Road, Charlotte, NC 28205). The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920
be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2- (4-methyl-2nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-)
(CAS Reg. No. 2512–29–0) when used as
an inert ingredient as a colorant in
pesticide formulations applied as a seed
treatment not to exceed 10% wt/wt.
That document referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Exponent, Inc.,
the petitioner, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments were received on the notice
of filing. EPA’s response to these
comments is discussed in Unit V.C.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients
that are not active ingredients as defined
in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are
not limited to, the following types of
ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own):
Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as
polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and
diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose;
wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol
dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not
intended to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be
chemically active. Generally, EPA has
exempted inert ingredients from the
requirement of a tolerance based on the
low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and
Determination of Safety
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish an exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance (the
legal limit for a pesticide chemical
residue in or on a food) only if EPA
determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information.’’ This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure
of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .’’
EPA establishes exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance only in those
cases where it can be clearly
demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide
chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no
appreciable risks to human health. In
order to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the
toxicity of the inert in conjunction with
possible exposure to residues of the
inert ingredient through food, drinking
water, and through other exposures that
occur as a result of pesticide use in
residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not
necessary to ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be
established.
Consistent with FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in
FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has
reviewed the available scientific data
and other relevant information in
support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of
and to make a determination on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
aggregate exposure for C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 including exposure resulting
from the exemption established by this
action. EPA’s assessment of exposures
and risks associated with C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available
toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as
well as the relationship of the results of
the studies to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information
concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable
subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific
information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused
by C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observedadverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 of
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 in rat was greater
than 10,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg).
The acute dermal LD50 of C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 in rats was greater than 2,000
mg/kg. In a primary skin and eye
irritation study in rabbits, C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 was not irritating to the skin
or eyes of rabbits. C.I. Pigment Yellow
1 was not a sensitizer as determined by
mouse Local Lymph Node Assay
(LLNA)/Redfern Contract Consultants
(LLNA/RCC) cytotest cell assay.
In a repeated dose toxicity study with
a reproduction/developmental toxicity
screening test, C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
was administered orally to groups of 11
male and female Wistar rats at dose
levels of up to 1,000 mg/kg/day.
Parental systemic toxicity, functional
observation battery (FOB) parameters,
locomotor activity, reproductive
function and performance, and offspring
viability and growth were assessed in
this study. Over the entire treatment
period, weight gain was decreased by
11% and 16% in mid- and high-dose
group males, respectively, however, the
absolute body weights were not affected.
The parental systemic toxicity,
reproductive toxicity and offspring
toxicity NOAEL for C.I. Pigment Yellow
1 was 1,000 mg/kg/day (the limit dose).
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was negative
for mutagenicity in a reverse gene
mutation assay and in an in vitro
mammalian cell gene mutation assay
using Chinese hamster cells.
No studies investigating the
carcinogenic potential of C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 are available. A Deductive
Estimation of Risk from Existing
Knowledge (DEREK) evaluation of the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73225
toxicity of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
indicated structural alerts based on the
aromatic nitrogen structure and
included plausible outcome for
mutagenicity in vitro and plausible
outcomes for carcinogenicity and
hepatoxicity. However, based on the
lack of target organ toxicity at the limit
dose, lack of mutagenicity, limited
solubility and limited bioavailability,
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is not expected to
be carcinogenic.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/
Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide’s toxicological
profile is determined, EPA identifies
toxicological points of departure (POD)
and levels of concern to use in
evaluating the risk posed by human
exposure to the pesticide. For hazards
that have a threshold below which there
is no appreciable risk, the toxicological
POD is used as the basis for derivation
of reference values for risk assessment.
PODs are developed based on a careful
analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the
dose at which the NOAEL and the
LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/
safety factors are used in conjunction
with the POD to calculate a safe
exposure level—generally referred to as
a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin
of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold
risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some
degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability
of an occurrence of the adverse effect
expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles
EPA uses in risk characterization and a
complete description of the risk
assessment process, see https://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/
riskassess.htm.
The available data suggest low acute
oral toxicity. There was no evidence
systemic toxicity in the reproductive
and developmental study at the limit
dose. There were no effects on
reproductive, developmental and
offspring toxicity at the limit dose of
1,000 mg/kg/day. It was negative for
mutagenicity in two in vitro assays. In
addition, based on its limited water
solubility of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is not
expected significantly via oral and
dermal routes. Based on above
consideration, EPA concluded that it is
not necessary to conduct quantitative
dietary risk as well as risk from
exposure via dermal and inhalation.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and
feed uses. In evaluating dietary
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73226
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
exposure to C.I. Pigment Yellow 1, EPA
considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1 in food as follows:
Dietary exposure can occur from
eating foods containing residues of C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1. Because no hazard
endpoint of concern was identified for
the acute and chronic dietary
assessment (food and drinking water), a
quantitative dietary exposure risk
assessment was not conducted.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking
water. C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 residues
may be found in drinking water.
However, since an endpoint of concern
was not identified for the dietary
assessment (food and drinking water), a
quantitative dietary exposure risk
assessment was not conducted.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The
term ‘‘residential exposure’’ is used in
this document to refer to nonoccupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers),
carpets, swimming pools, and hard
surface disinfection on walls, floors,
tables). C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is used as
an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that could result in short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure.
However, based on the lack of toxicity,
a quantitative exposure assessment from
residential exposures was not
performed.
4. Cumulative effects from substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA
requires that, when considering whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider
‘‘available information’’ concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other
substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA has not found C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances,
and C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1 does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information
regarding EPA’s efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate
the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
D. Safety Factor for Infants and
Children
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA
provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety
for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the
completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines
based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the
FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable
data available to EPA support the choice
of a different factor.
Based on an assessment of C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1, EPA has concluded
that there are no toxicological endpoints
of concern for the U.S. population,
including infants and children, and has
conducted a qualitative assessment. As
part of its qualitative assessment, the
Agency did not use safety factors for
assessing risk, and no additional safety
factor is needed for assessing risk to
infants and children.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of
Safety
EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and
chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer
risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks
are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate
PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE
exists.
Based on the lack of any endpoints of
concern, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population or to
infants and children from aggregate
exposure to C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the
Agency is establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA
seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with
international standards whenever
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural
practices. EPA considers the
international maximum residue limits
(MRLs) established by the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4).
The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
United Nation Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health
Organization food standards program,
and it is recognized as an international
food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to
which the United States is a party. EPA
may establish a tolerance that is
different from a Codex MRL; however,
FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that
EPA explain the reasons for departing
from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL
for C.I. Pigment Yellow 1.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received for a
notice of filing from a private citizen
who opposed the authorization to sell
any pesticide that leaves a residue on
food. The Agency understands the
commenter’s concerns and recognizes
that some individuals believe that no
residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal
framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), EPA is authorized to
establish pesticide tolerances or
exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have
demonstrated that the pesticide meets
the safety standard imposed by the
statute.
VI. Conclusions
Therefore, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance is established
under 40 CFR 180.920 for C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 (2512–29–0) when used as an
inert ingredient colorant in seed
treatment formulations not to exceed
10% wt/wt.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action establishes an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types
of actions from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action
has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this action is
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
73227
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require
any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the exemption in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes, nor does
this action alter the relationships or
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States
or tribal governments, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this action. In addition, this action
does not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VIII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2014.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.920, add alphabetically the
inert ingredient in the table to read as
follows:
■
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
*
*
*
*
*
Inert ingredients
Limits
*
*
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (CAS Reg. No.
2512–29–0).
*
*
*
*
Not to exceed 10% (weight/weight) in pesticide formulation ..........................................
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–28936 Filed 12–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WC Docket No. 13–39; FCC 14–175]
Rural Call Completion
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document affirms the
Commission’s commitment to ensuring
that high quality telephone service must
be available to all Americans. In the
underlying Order, the Commission
established rules to combat extensive
problems with successfully completing
calls to rural areas, and created a
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:45 Dec 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
*
Uses
*
framework to improve the ability to
monitor call problems and take
appropriate enforcement action. In the
Order on Reconsideration, the
Commission denies several petitions for
reconsideration that, if granted, would
impair the Commission’s ability to
monitor, and take enforcement action
against, call completion problems. The
Commission does, however, grant one
petition for reconsideration because the
Commission finds that modifying its
original determination will significantly
lower providers’ compliance costs and
burdens without impairing the
Commission’s ability to obtain reliable
and extensive information about rural
call completion problems.
DATES: Effective January 9, 2015, except
for amendments to §§ 64.2101, 64.2103,
and 64.2105, which contain new or
modified information collection
requirements that will not be effective
until approved by the Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Colorant.
*
Management and Budget. The Federal
Communications Commission will
publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing the effective date.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claude Aiken, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division,
(202) 418–1580, or send an email to
claude.aiken@fcc.gov
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 13–
39, adopted and released November 13,
2014. The full text of this document is
available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. The document
may also be purchased from the
E:\FR\FM\10DER1.SGM
10DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73224-73227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0122; FRL-9919-40]
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2-
(4-methyl-2-nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-) when used as an inert
ingredient as a colorant in seed treatment formulations not to exceed
10% weight(wt)/wt under 40 CFR 180.920. Exponent Inc. on behalf of
Clariant Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1.
DATES: This regulation is effective December 10, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 9, 2015,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0122, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan T. Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
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:
Crop production (NAICS code 111).
Animal production (NAICS code 112).
Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0122 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 9, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0122, by one of
the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-
9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
10661) by Exponent, Inc. (1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20036) on behalf of Clariant Corporation (4000 Monroe
Road, Charlotte, NC 28205). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (butanamide, 2- (4-
methyl-2-nitrophenyl) azo -3-oxo-N-phenyl-) (CAS Reg. No. 2512-29-0)
when used as an inert ingredient as a colorant in pesticide
formulations applied as a seed treatment not to exceed 10% wt/wt. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent,
Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit V.C.
III. Inert Ingredient Definition
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
[[Page 73225]]
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
follows.
A. Toxicological Profile
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 of C.I. Pigment Yellow
1 in rat was greater than 10,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). The acute
dermal LD50 of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 in rats was greater
than 2,000 mg/kg. In a primary skin and eye irritation study in
rabbits, C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was not irritating to the skin or eyes
of rabbits. C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was not a sensitizer as determined by
mouse Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)/Redfern Contract Consultants (LLNA/
RCC) cytotest cell assay.
In a repeated dose toxicity study with a reproduction/developmental
toxicity screening test, C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was administered orally
to groups of 11 male and female Wistar rats at dose levels of up to
1,000 mg/kg/day. Parental systemic toxicity, functional observation
battery (FOB) parameters, locomotor activity, reproductive function and
performance, and offspring viability and growth were assessed in this
study. Over the entire treatment period, weight gain was decreased by
11% and 16% in mid- and high-dose group males, respectively, however,
the absolute body weights were not affected. The parental systemic
toxicity, reproductive toxicity and offspring toxicity NOAEL for C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1 was 1,000 mg/kg/day (the limit dose).
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 was negative for mutagenicity in a reverse
gene mutation assay and in an in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation
assay using Chinese hamster cells.
No studies investigating the carcinogenic potential of C.I. Pigment
Yellow 1 are available. A Deductive Estimation of Risk from Existing
Knowledge (DEREK) evaluation of the toxicity of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
indicated structural alerts based on the aromatic nitrogen structure
and included plausible outcome for mutagenicity in vitro and plausible
outcomes for carcinogenicity and hepatoxicity. However, based on the
lack of target organ toxicity at the limit dose, lack of mutagenicity,
limited solubility and limited bioavailability, C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
is not expected to be carcinogenic.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
The available data suggest low acute oral toxicity. There was no
evidence systemic toxicity in the reproductive and developmental study
at the limit dose. There were no effects on reproductive, developmental
and offspring toxicity at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. It was
negative for mutagenicity in two in vitro assays. In addition, based on
its limited water solubility of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 is not expected
significantly via oral and dermal routes. Based on above consideration,
EPA concluded that it is not necessary to conduct quantitative dietary
risk as well as risk from exposure via dermal and inhalation.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
[[Page 73226]]
exposure to C.I. Pigment Yellow 1, EPA considered exposure under the
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed
dietary exposures from C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 in food as follows:
Dietary exposure can occur from eating foods containing residues of
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1. Because no hazard endpoint of concern was
identified for the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and
drinking water), a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was
not conducted.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. C.I. Pigment Yellow 1
residues may be found in drinking water. However, since an endpoint of
concern was not identified for the dietary assessment (food and
drinking water), a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was
not conducted.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1 is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure.
However, based on the lack of toxicity, a quantitative exposure
assessment from residential exposures was not performed.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA has not found C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed
that C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site
at https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
Based on an assessment of C.I. Pigment Yellow 1, EPA has concluded
that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S.
population, including infants and children, and has conducted a
qualitative assessment. As part of its qualitative assessment, the
Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional
safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
Based on the lack of any endpoints of concern, EPA concludes that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to C.I.
Pigment Yellow 1 residues.
V. Other Considerations
A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.
B. International Residue Limits
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food
and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for C.I. Pigment Yellow 1.
C. Response to Comments
One comment was received for a notice of filing from a private
citizen who opposed the authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves
a residue on food. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and
recognizes that some individuals believe that no residue of pesticides
should be allowed. However, under the existing legal framework provided
by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA
is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions where
persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that
the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by the statute.
VI. Conclusions
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (2512-29-0)
when used as an inert ingredient colorant in seed treatment
formulations not to exceed 10% wt/wt.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect
[[Page 73227]]
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VIII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2014.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. In Sec. 180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredient in the
table to read as follows:
Sec. 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
C.I. Pigment Yellow 1 (CAS Not to exceed 10% Colorant.
Reg. No. 2512-29-0). (weight/weight) in
pesticide formulation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-28936 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P