Gluconobacter cerinus Strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum Strain BC18Y; Exemptions From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Danisco US Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y when used in accordance with this exemption.

DATES:

This regulation is effective July 16, 2024. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 16, 2024 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-2023-0008, 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 20004. 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 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:

Madison H. Le, 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

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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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-2023-0008 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 September 16, 2024. EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Revised Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing”, dated June 22, 2023, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf. Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAC-ALJ_upload.nsf.

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-2023-0008, 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 March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17780) (FRL-10579-02), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance exemption petition (PP 1F8927) by Danisco US Inc., 925 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticides Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities (although not expressly stated in the petition, EPA interpreted the petition as requesting an exemption covering all food commodities). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Danisco US Inc. which is available in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. EPA received no comments in response to the notice of filing.

EPA revised the tolerance exemption expression to specifically include the establishment of exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticides Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities. The reason for this change is explained in Unit III.C.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the 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 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 toxicological and exposure data on Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the document entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y, New Active Ingredients, in BC18-C (Manufacturing-use Product) and BC18-WG (End-use Product) Proposed for Registration with Associated Petitions Requesting Tolerance Exemptions” (Human Health Risk Assessment of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES .

Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y were not found to be toxic, pathogenic, or infective in the present acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity studies. Additionally, all presented studies demonstrated a pattern of clearance of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y from the organs of test animals. Based on lack of adverse effects seen in the available toxicity/pathogenicity data, EPA does not expect any dietary exposure, drinking water exposure, non-occupational and residential exposures resulting from the use of these microbial pesticides to pose any quantifiable risk. Additionally, Hanseniaspora uvarum and Gluconobacter cerinus naturally occur on fruits, vegetables, and a variety of plant-based foods. Therefore, while products containing that Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y are intended for application to agricultural commodities, and exposure may occur through consumption of foods, exposure is not expected to be above the levels at which humans are naturally exposed.

Based upon its evaluation in the Human Health Risk Assessment of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y, which concludes that there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y, 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 Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y. Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of tolerances are established for residues of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Analytical methods are not required for Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B or Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y because EPA is establishing exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. Revisions to the Requested Tolerance Exemption

EPA revised the tolerance exemption expression to specifically include the establishment of the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticides Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities. Although not expressly stated in the petition, EPA interpreted the petition as requesting an exemption covering all food commodities.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of tolerances are established for residues of Gluconobacter cerinus strain BC18B and Hanseniaspora uvarum strain BC18Y in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action establishes a tolerance exemption 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 not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 (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 (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 (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 180

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

Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180—TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FOOD

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

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

2. Add § 180.1407 to subpart D to read as follows: