BLB2 and AMR3 Proteins in Potato; Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance, 15613-15616 [2023-05246]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
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, the State Plan is not
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 15, 2023.
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. 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 62
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste
treatment and disposal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
Dated: March 6, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 62—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF STATE PLAN
FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND
POLLUTANTS
1. The authority citation for part 62
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart U—Maine
2. Amend Section 62.4845 by revising
paragraph (b)(4) and adding paragraphs
(b)(7) and (8) and (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 62.4845
*
*
*
*
*
(b)
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Control of metals, acid gases,
organic compounds and nitrogen oxide
emissions from existing large municipal
waste combustors with the capacity to
combust greater than 250 tons per day
of municipal solid waste, submitted on
April 15, 1998.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) A revision to the plan controlling
metals, acid gases, organic compounds
and nitrogen oxide emissions from large
municipal waste combustors with the
capacity to combust greater than 250
tons per day of municipal solid waste,
submitted on December 24, 2019
(incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
(8) Control of metals, acid gases,
organic compounds and nitrogen oxide
emissions from existing small municipal
waste combustors with the capacity to
combust less than or equal to 250 tons
per day of municipal solid waste,
submitted on December 24, 2019
(incorporated by reference, see
paragraph (d)(1) of this section).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Incorporation by reference. The
material listed in this paragraph (d) is
incorporated by reference in this section
with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. All approved
material is available for inspection at
the EPA and at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
Contact EPA at: EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5
Post Office Square-Suite 100, Boston,
MA, 617–918–1111. For information on
the availability of this material at
NARA, visit: www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15613
fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material
may be obtained from: State of Maine,
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection. 17 State House Station, 28
Tyson Drive, Augusta, Maine 04333,
207–287–7688, www.maine.gov/dep/:
(1) 06–096 Code of Maine
Regulations: Department of
Environmental Protection, Chapter 121,
‘‘Emission Limitations and Emission
Testing of Resource Recovery
Facilities,’’ excluding Section 6 ‘‘Large
Municipal Waste Combustor Units
Subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb,’’
amended September 14, 2019.
(2) [Reserved]
■ 3. Section 62.4975 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 62.4975
Identification of sources.
(a) Penobscot Energy Recovery
Company, Orrington, Maine
(b) [Reserved]
(c) ecomaine, Portland, Maine
■ 4. Add an undesignated center
heading and § 62.5000 to subpart U to
read as follows:
Metals, Acid Gases, Organic
Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions From Existing Municipal
Waste Combustors With the Capacity
To Combust Less Than or Equal to 250
Tons per Day of Municipal Solid Waste
§ 62.5000
Identification of sources.
(a) Mid-Maine Waste Action
Corporation, Auburn, Maine
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2023–05020 Filed 3–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 174
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0234; FRL–10776–01–
OCSPP]
BLB2 and AMR3 Proteins in Potato;
Temporary Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes a
temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in
potato, when used as a plantincorporated protectant (PIP) in
accordance with the terms of
Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No.
8971–EUP–3. J.R. Simplot Company
submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
15614
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(FFDCA), requesting the temporary
tolerance exemption. This regulation
eliminates the need under FFDCA to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of BLB2 and AMR3
proteins. The temporary tolerance
exemption expires on March 31, 2024.
This regulation is effective
March 14, 2023. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 15, 2023, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
DATES:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0234, 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 and the OPP
Docket is (202) 566–1744. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511M),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460–0001; main telephone number:
(202) 566–1400; email address:
BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 174
through the Government Publishing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/
subchapter-E/part-174?toc=1.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a(g), 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–2020–0234 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 May 15, 2023. 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–
2020–0234, 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/where-sendcomments-epa-dockets.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Background
In the Federal Register of June 24,
2020 (85 FR 37806) (FRL–10010–82),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide tolerance petition (PP 0G8830)
by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W Irving
Street, Boise, ID 83706. The petitioner
requested that 40 CFR part 174 be
amended by establishing a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the plantincorporated protectants BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins in potato. That
document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner J.R.
Simplot Company, which is available in
the docket via https://
www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the
Notice of Filing.
III. Final Rule
A. EPA’s Safety Determination
Section 408(r) of FFDCA authorizes
EPA to establish a temporary exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues covered by an experimental use
permit issued under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. That section states that the
provisions of section 408(c)(2) of
FFDCA apply to exemptions issued
under FFDCA section 408(r). 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 exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ Section
408(c)(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. Pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance, EPA must take into account
the factors set forth in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give
special consideration to exposure of
infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance or tolerance exemption 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 . . . .’’ Additionally, FFDCA
section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
consider ‘‘available information
concerning the cumulative effects of [a
particular pesticide’s] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.’’
EPA evaluated the available toxicity
and exposure data on BLB2 and AMR3
proteins and considered its validity,
completeness, and reliability, as well as
the relationship of this information to
human risk. In summary, the available
data does not indicate any adverse
effects due to toxicity or allergenicity of
the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins. A full
summary of the data upon which EPA
relied and its risk assessments based on
that data can be found within the
document entitled ‘‘Review of the
Application for an Experimental Use
Permit for Gen 3 Potatoes expressing
transgenic R-proteins BLB2, AMR3 and
VNT1, PVY Coat Protein Hairpin RNA
and inert ingredient StmALS and
associated FFDCA Petitions for the
Temporary Exemption from a Tolerance
for AMR3 and BLB2, as well as FFDCA
Petition for the Exemption from a
Tolerance for StmALS’’ (Human Health
Risk Assessment). This document, as
well as other relevant information, is
available in the docket for this action as
described under ADDRESSES.
Available data have demonstrated
that, with regard to humans, BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins are not anticipated to be
toxic or allergenic via any reasonably
foreseeable route of exposure. The
plant-incorporated protectant (PIP)
active ingredients are resistance (‘‘R’’)
proteins that confer protection against
potato pathogens by directly or
indirectly recognizing pathogensecreted effector proteins. This
recognition leads to the activation of the
hypersensitive response, which is a
form of programmed cell death
characterized by cytoplasmic shrinkage,
chromatin condensation, mitochondrial
swelling, vacuolization and chloroplast
disruption. This hypersensitive
response pathway involves immune
signaling triggered by R proteins that is
specific to plants; activated R-proteins
cannot trigger cell death in mammals.
Thus, BLB2 and AMR3 proteins do not
have a toxic mechanism of action, but
instead activate signaling cascades
within the plant which invoke the plant
cell death pathway to prevent growth
and spread of the pathogen.
There is likely to be dietary exposure
to BLB2 and AMR3 through
consumption of potato-derived foods
containing the proteins. However, the
Agency has concluded that any
potential dietary risk from the use of
BLB2 and AMR3 proteins to human
health is considered negligible for the
following reasons. (1) As described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
above, the mode-of-action of BLB2 and
AMR3 is specific to plants and does not
affect mammalian cells. (2) Both the
BLB2 and AMR3 proteins are expressed
at extremely low levels in potato, which
indicates very low human exposure to
the proteins through the consumption of
BLB2- and AMR3-expressing potatoes.
(3) Bioinformatics analyses of BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins revealed no homology
with known toxins or allergens. (4) The
source organisms for the active
ingredients, Solanum bulbocastanum
(BLB2) and Solanum americanum
(AMR3), are not known as allergens. (5)
Both proteins have a history of safe use.
BLB2 originates from S. bulbocastanum
(ornamental nightshade), a close potato
relative that has 82% sequency
similarity with the tomato gene Mi–1,
which has a history of safe use since
tomatoes have been consumed by
humans for hundreds of years.
Furthermore, the BLB2 protein is
present in two Solanum tuberosum
potato varieties (Toluca and Bionica)
that have been conventionally bred and
cultivated for food use in Europe. AMR3
originates from S. americanum
(American black nightshade) which is
cultivated for medicinal and food use,
and as part of breeding programs for
improved nutrition. Although some
members of the Solanum genus have
toxicity, these effects are caused by
glycoalkaloids, which can cause toxicity
even in the common potato, Solanum
tuberosum. Neither BLB2 nor AMR3 are
glycoalkaloids; instead, they belong to a
large family of R-proteins found
throughout the plant kingdom. There
are hundreds to thousands of R-proteins
in S. tuberosum and other crops which
have a long history of safe consumption.
Oral exposure from ingestion of
drinking water is unlikely because BLB2
and AMR3 proteins are present at very
low levels within the plant cells. If
AMR3 and BLB2 do enter the water
column, they are expected to degrade
rapidly in the presence of soil microbes,
or upon normal communal watertreatment procedures. In addition, there
is unlikely to be residential or nonoccupational exposure given that the
active ingredients are plantincorporated protectants in potato.
Therefore, the only possible route of
non-occupational exposure, other than
dietary, is via handling of the plants and
plant products. However, BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins are present in the
transformed potato tissues at levels
below the level of detection, resulting in
minimal to negligible exposure.
Furthermore, there are no risks
associated with these exposure routes
because bioinformatics analysis and the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15615
history of safe use have shown that the
proteins are not toxic or allergenic.
Although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C)
provides for an additional tenfold
margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects, EPA has
determined that there are no such
effects due to the lack of toxicity and
allergenicity for these PIP active
ingredients. As a result, an additional
margin of safety for the protection of
infants and children is unnecessary.
Based upon its evaluation, EPA
concludes that there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to
residues of the BLB2 and AMR3
proteins in potatoes. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information. The Agency has
arrived at this conclusion based on the
mode-of-action, history of safe use, and
lack of toxicity and allergenicity for the
BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in potato.
B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
EPA has determined that an analytical
method is not required for enforcement
purposes since the Agency is
establishing a temporary exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.
Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted a
reverse transcription-quantitative
polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)
method for detection of BLB2 and
AMR3 in transformed leaves and tubers.
C. Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation in the
Human Health Risk Assessment, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to
residues of BLB2 and ARM3 proteins in
potatoes. Therefore, an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance is
established for residues of BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins in potato when used in
accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices.
IV. 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 EPA.
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
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15616
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
not subject to Executive Order 13211,
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997); or Executive Order
13771, entitled ‘‘Reducing Regulations
and Controlling Regulatory Costs’’ (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 tolerance exemption in this action,
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. As a result,
this action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such,
EPA 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, EPA 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
EPA’s 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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Mar 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
V. 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 174
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 6, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR
chapter I as follows:
PART 174—PROCEDURES AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTINCORPORATED PROTECTANTS
1. The authority citation for part 174
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y; 21 U.S.C.
321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Add § 174.545 to subpart W to read
as follows:
■
§ 174.545 BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in
potato; temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.
Residues of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins
in potato are temporarily exempt from
the requirement of a tolerance when
used as a plant-incorporated protectant
in potato in accordance with the terms
of Experimental Use Permit No. 8917–
EUP–3. This temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance expires
on March 31, 2024.
[FR Doc. 2023–05246 Filed 3–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0519; FRL–10544–01–
OCSPP]
Bacteriophage Active Against
Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae;
Bacteriophage Active Against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina;
Bacteriophage Active Against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis;
and Bacteriophage Active Against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni;
Exemptions From the Requirement of
Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Bacteriophage
active against Pseudomonas syringae
pv. syringae, Bacteriophage active
against Xanthomonas arboricola pv.
corylina, Bacteriophage active against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis,
and Bacteriophage active against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni, in or
on all food commodities when used in
accordance with label directions and
good agricultural practices. OmniLytics,
Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of Bacteriophage active
against Pseudomonas syringae pv.
syringae, Bacteriophage active against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina,
Bacteriophage active against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis,
and Bacteriophage active against
Xanthomonas arboricola pv. pruni
under FFDCA when used in accordance
with this exemption.
DATES: This regulation is effective
March 14, 2023. Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or
before May 15, 2023, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2021–0519, 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
ADDRESSES:
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14MRR1.SGM
14MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15613-15616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05246]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 174
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0234; FRL-10776-01-OCSPP]
BLB2 and AMR3 Proteins in Potato; Temporary Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins
in potato, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) in
accordance with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) No. 8971-
EUP-3. J.R. Simplot Company submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
[[Page 15614]]
(FFDCA), requesting the temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation
eliminates the need under FFDCA to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins. The temporary tolerance
exemption expires on March 31, 2024.
DATES: This regulation is effective March 14, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 15, 2023, 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-2020-0234, 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 and the OPP Docket is (202) 566-1744. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1400; email address:
[email protected].
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 174 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-174?toc=1.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2020-0234 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
May 15, 2023. 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-2020-0234, 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/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Background
In the Federal Register of June 24, 2020 (85 FR 37806) (FRL-10010-
82), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 0G8830) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W Irving Street,
Boise, ID 83706. The petitioner requested that 40 CFR part 174 be
amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the plant-incorporated protectants BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins in potato. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is
available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the Notice of Filing.
III. Final Rule
A. EPA's Safety Determination
Section 408(r) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues covered by
an experimental use permit issued under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. That section states that the provisions
of section 408(c)(2) of FFDCA apply to exemptions issued under FFDCA
section 408(r). 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 exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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. Pursuant to FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the
factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance
exemption 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 . . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA
[[Page 15615]]
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that
have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on BLB2 and
AMR3 proteins and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human
risk. In summary, the available data does not indicate any adverse
effects due to toxicity or allergenicity of the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins.
A full summary of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk
assessments based on that data can be found within the document
entitled ``Review of the Application for an Experimental Use Permit for
Gen 3 Potatoes expressing transgenic R-proteins BLB2, AMR3 and VNT1,
PVY Coat Protein Hairpin RNA and inert ingredient StmALS and associated
FFDCA Petitions for the Temporary Exemption from a Tolerance for AMR3
and BLB2, as well as FFDCA Petition for the Exemption from a Tolerance
for StmALS'' (Human Health Risk Assessment). This document, as well as
other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action
as described under ADDRESSES.
Available data have demonstrated that, with regard to humans, BLB2
and AMR3 proteins are not anticipated to be toxic or allergenic via any
reasonably foreseeable route of exposure. The plant-incorporated
protectant (PIP) active ingredients are resistance (``R'') proteins
that confer protection against potato pathogens by directly or
indirectly recognizing pathogen-secreted effector proteins. This
recognition leads to the activation of the hypersensitive response,
which is a form of programmed cell death characterized by cytoplasmic
shrinkage, chromatin condensation, mitochondrial swelling,
vacuolization and chloroplast disruption. This hypersensitive response
pathway involves immune signaling triggered by R proteins that is
specific to plants; activated R-proteins cannot trigger cell death in
mammals. Thus, BLB2 and AMR3 proteins do not have a toxic mechanism of
action, but instead activate signaling cascades within the plant which
invoke the plant cell death pathway to prevent growth and spread of the
pathogen.
There is likely to be dietary exposure to BLB2 and AMR3 through
consumption of potato-derived foods containing the proteins. However,
the Agency has concluded that any potential dietary risk from the use
of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins to human health is considered negligible for
the following reasons. (1) As described above, the mode-of-action of
BLB2 and AMR3 is specific to plants and does not affect mammalian
cells. (2) Both the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins are expressed at extremely
low levels in potato, which indicates very low human exposure to the
proteins through the consumption of BLB2- and AMR3-expressing potatoes.
(3) Bioinformatics analyses of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins revealed no
homology with known toxins or allergens. (4) The source organisms for
the active ingredients, Solanum bulbocastanum (BLB2) and Solanum
americanum (AMR3), are not known as allergens. (5) Both proteins have a
history of safe use. BLB2 originates from S. bulbocastanum (ornamental
nightshade), a close potato relative that has 82% sequency similarity
with the tomato gene Mi-1, which has a history of safe use since
tomatoes have been consumed by humans for hundreds of years.
Furthermore, the BLB2 protein is present in two Solanum tuberosum
potato varieties (Toluca and Bionica) that have been conventionally
bred and cultivated for food use in Europe. AMR3 originates from S.
americanum (American black nightshade) which is cultivated for
medicinal and food use, and as part of breeding programs for improved
nutrition. Although some members of the Solanum genus have toxicity,
these effects are caused by glycoalkaloids, which can cause toxicity
even in the common potato, Solanum tuberosum. Neither BLB2 nor AMR3 are
glycoalkaloids; instead, they belong to a large family of R-proteins
found throughout the plant kingdom. There are hundreds to thousands of
R-proteins in S. tuberosum and other crops which have a long history of
safe consumption.
Oral exposure from ingestion of drinking water is unlikely because
BLB2 and AMR3 proteins are present at very low levels within the plant
cells. If AMR3 and BLB2 do enter the water column, they are expected to
degrade rapidly in the presence of soil microbes, or upon normal
communal water-treatment procedures. In addition, there is unlikely to
be residential or non-occupational exposure given that the active
ingredients are plant-incorporated protectants in potato. Therefore,
the only possible route of non-occupational exposure, other than
dietary, is via handling of the plants and plant products. However,
BLB2 and AMR3 proteins are present in the transformed potato tissues at
levels below the level of detection, resulting in minimal to negligible
exposure. Furthermore, there are no risks associated with these
exposure routes because bioinformatics analysis and the history of safe
use have shown that the proteins are not toxic or allergenic.
Although FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides for an additional
tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of
threshold effects, EPA has determined that there are no such effects
due to the lack of toxicity and allergenicity for these PIP active
ingredients. As a result, an additional margin of safety for the
protection of infants and children is unnecessary.
Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the BLB2
and AMR3 proteins in potatoes. This includes all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the
mode-of-action, history of safe use, and lack of toxicity and
allergenicity for the BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in potato.
B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology
EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation. Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted a reverse
transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) method
for detection of BLB2 and AMR3 in transformed leaves and tubers.
C. Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation in the Human Health Risk Assessment, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to residues of BLB2 and ARM3 proteins in potatoes. Therefore,
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in potato when used in accordance
with label directions and good agricultural practices.
IV. 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 EPA. 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
[[Page 15616]]
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). 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 tolerance
exemption in this action, 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. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA 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, EPA 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 EPA's 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).
V. 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 174
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 6, 2023.
Charles Smith,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 174--PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT-INCORPORATED
PROTECTANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
0
2. Add Sec. 174.545 to subpart W to read as follows:
Sec. 174.545 BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in potato; temporary exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance.
Residues of BLB2 and AMR3 proteins in potato are temporarily exempt
from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant-incorporated
protectant in potato in accordance with the terms of Experimental Use
Permit No. 8917-EUP-3. This temporary exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance expires on March 31, 2024.
[FR Doc. 2023-05246 Filed 3-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P