Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37547 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). Based 

on our analysis, we concluded this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves safety 

zones during Fourth of July Fireworks 

displays near Murrells Inlet and North 

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. This rule 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0529 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T07–0529 Safety Zone; Fourth of 

July Fireworks Displays, in vicinity of Myrtle 

Beach, Myrtle Beach, SC. 

(a) Regulated Area. The following 

regulated areas are safety zones. 

(1) Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All 

waters within a 500 yard radius around 

Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks 

will be launched, located on the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. 

(2) North Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard 

radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from 

which the fireworks will be launched, 

located on the Atlantic Ocean. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated area. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the regulated area may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at 843–740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the regulated area is granted by 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative, all persons 

and vessels receiving such authorization 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Effective period. This rule will be 

effective on July 4, 2015 and enforced 

from 9:30 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. 

Dated: June 17, 2015. 

G.L. Tomasulo, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15936 Filed 6–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0865; FRL–9929–51] 

Cuprous Oxide; Exemption From the 

Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the 

tolerance exemption for copper in/on 

meat, milk, poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish, 

and irrigated crops when it results from 

the use of cuprous oxide embedded in 

polymer emitter heads used in irrigation 

systems for root incursion prevention. 

This regulation eliminates the need to 

establish a maximum permissible level 

for residues of copper resulting from 

this use of cuprous oxide. 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

1, 2015. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

August 31, 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) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
37548 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0865, is 

available at http://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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer McLain, Antimicrobials 

Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; main 

telephone number: (703) 308–0293; 

email address: mclain.jennifer@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 http://

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 Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (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–2014–0865 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 August 31, 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– 

2014–0865, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of April 22, 

2015 (80 FR 22466) (FRL–9925–79), 

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 4F8324) 

by Cupron, Inc., 800 East Leigh St., 

Richmond, VA 23219. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR 180.1021 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

residues of copper in/on meat, milk, 

poultry, eggs, fish, shellfish, and 

irrigated crops by including the use of 

cuprous oxide (also referred to as 

copper oxide) embedded in polymer 

emitter heads used in irrigation systems 

for agricultural crops or residential food 

commodities for algicidal or root 

incursion prevention. That document 

referenced a summary of the petition 

prepared by Cupron, Inc., which is 

available in the docket, http://

www.regulations.gov. There were no 

comments received in response to the 

notice of filing. 

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 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 performs a number of analyses to 

determine the risks from aggregate 

exposure to pesticide residues. First, 

EPA determines the toxicity of 

pesticides. Second, EPA examines 

exposure to the pesticide through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. 

III. Toxicological Profile 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness and reliability and the 

relationship of this information 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. The 

nature of the toxic effects caused by 

cuprous oxide are discussed in this unit. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37549 

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 cuprous oxide, as well as the noobserved-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) 

and the lowest-observed adverse effectlevel (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies, 

are discussed in the final rule published 

in the Federal Register of August 11, 

2006 (71 FR 46106) (FRL–8085–3). 

Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is a 

necessary nutritional element for both 

animals (including humans) and plants. 

Copper is found naturally in the food 

we eat including fruits, vegetables, 

meats, and seafood. It is found in the 

water we drink, the air we breathe and 

in our bodies themselves. Some of the 

environmental copper is due to direct 

modification of the environment by 

humans such as mining and smelting of 

the natural ore. It is one of the elements 

found essential to life. The copper ion 

is present in the adult human body with 

nearly two-thirds of the body copper 

content located in the skeleton and 

muscle. The liver is the primary organ 

for the maintenance of plasma copper 

concentrations. 

The 2006 Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision for Copper compounds 

reviewed and summarized all toxicity 

studies submitted for copper and has 

determined that the toxicological 

database is sufficient to assess the 

hazard from pesticides containing 

copper. Copper generally has moderate 

to low acute toxicity based on acute 

oral, dermal, and inhalation studies in 

animals. All effects resulting from acute 

exposure to copper containing 

pesticides are due to acute body 

responses to minimize excessive 

absorption or exposure to copper. 

Current available data in animals do not 

show any evidence of upper limit 

toxicity level that warrant determining 

acute toxicity end points. 

Based on available data summarized 

in the ‘‘2006 Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision for Coppers’’, there is no 

evidence of any dietary, oral, and 

dermal or inhalation adverse effects 

warranting quantitative assessment of 

sub-chronic or chronic risk. Available 

short-term feeding studies with rats and 

mice indicate decreased food and water 

intake with increasing oral 

concentrations of copper. Irritation of 

the stomach was seen at higher copper 

concentrations. Longer-term feeding 

studies indicate decreased feed intake 

with reductions in body weight gains, 

and increased copper concentration of 

the liver. Available reproductive and 

developmental studies by the oral route 

of exposure generally indicate that the 

main concern in animals for 

reproductive and teratogenic effects of 

copper has usually been associated with 

the deficiency rather than the excess of 

copper. 

Oral ingestion of excessive amounts of 

the copper ion from pesticidal uses 

including the proposed use is unlikely. 

Copper compounds are irritating to the 

gastric mucosa. Ingestion of large 

amounts of copper results in prompt 

emesis. This protective reflex reduces 

the amount of copper ion available for 

absorption into the human body. 

Additionally, at high levels humans are 

also sensitive to the taste of copper. 

Because of this organoleptic property, 

oral ingestion would also serve to limit 

high doses. Only a small percentage of 

ingested copper is absorbed, and most of 

the absorbed copper is excreted. The 

human body appears to have efficient 

mechanisms in place to regulate total 

body copper. The copper ion occurs 

naturally in food and the metabolism of 

copper is well understood. 

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/

Levels of Concern 

No endpoints of toxicological concern 

were identified for risk assessment 

purposes for copper oxide. Cuprous 

oxide readily hydrolyzes into the copper 

cation and oxygen anion. Copper is a 

required essential nutritional element 

for both plants and animals. Indeed, 

current available data and literature 

studies indicate that there is a greater 

risk from the deficiency of copper intake 

than from excess intake. Copper also 

occurs naturally in a number of food 

items including fruits, meats, seafood, 

and vegetables. In humans, as part of the 

utilization of copper as an essential 

nutrient, there is an effective 

homeostatic mechanism that is involved 

in the dietary intake of copper and that 

protects humans from excess body 

copper. Given that copper is ubiquitous, 

is an essential nutrient, and is routinely 

consumed as part of the daily diet, 

exposure to copper as a result of the use 

of copper oxide as a pesticide chemical 

would not be of toxicological concern. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

In examining aggregate exposure, 

FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to 

consider available information 

concerning exposures from the pesticide 

residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including 

drinking water from ground water or 

surface water and exposure through 

pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or 

buildings (residential and other indoor 

uses). 

A. Dietary Exposure 

Copper is ubiquitous in nature and is 

necessary nutritional element for both 

animals (including humans) and plants. 

It is one of several elements found 

essential to life. The human body must 

have copper to stay healthy. In fact, for 

a variety of biochemical processes in the 

body to operate normally, copper must 

be part of our daily diet. Copper is 

needed for certain critical enzymes to 

function in the body. Actually, too little 

copper in the body can actually lead to 

disease. 

1. Food. The main source of copper 

for infants, children, and adults, 

regardless of age, is the diet. Copper is 

typically present in mineral rich foods 

like vegetables (potato, legumes (beans 

and peas), nuts (peanuts and pecans), 

grains (wheat and rye), fruits (peaches 

and raisins), and chocolate in levels that 

range from 0.3 to 3.9 parts per million 

(ppm). A single day’s diet may contain 

10 milligram (mg) or more of copper. It 

is not likely that the approval of this 

petition would significantly increase 

exposure over that of existing levels of 

copper. In any event, given the lack of 

toxicity of copper, EPA does not expect 

any increased exposure resulting from 

approval of this petition to be unsafe. 

2. Drinking water exposure. Copper is 

a natural element found in the earth’s 

crust. As a result, most of the world’s 

surface water and ground water that is 

used for drinking purposes contains 

copper. The actual amount varies from 

region to region, depending on how 

much is present in the earth, but in 

almost all cases the amount of copper in 

water is extremely low. Naturally 

occurring copper in drinking water is 

safe for human consumption, even in 

rare instances where it is at levels high 

enough to impart a metallic taste to the 

water. Residues of copper in drinking 

water are regulated under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. A Maximum 

Contaminant Level Goal of 1.3 ppm has 

been set by the Agency for copper. 

According to the National Research 

Council’s Committee on Copper in 

Drinking Water, this level is ‘‘set at a 

concentration at which no known or 

expected adverse health effects occur 

and for which there is an adequate 

margin of safety.’’ The Agency believes 

that this level of protection would not 

cause any potential health problems, i.e. 

stomach and intestinal distress, liver, 

and kidney damage and anemia. It is not 

likely that the approval of this petition 

would significantly increase exposure 

over that of the existing levels of copper. 

In any event, given the lack of toxicity 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
37550 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of copper, EPA does not expect any 

increased exposure resulting from 

approval of this petition to be unsafe. 

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure 

Copper compounds have many uses 

on crops (food as well as non-food) and 

ornamentals as a fungicide. 

1. Dermal exposure. Given the 

prevalence of copper in the 

environment, no significant dermal 

exposure increase above current levels 

would be expected from this nonoccupational use of cuprous oxide. In 

any event, given the lack of toxicity of 

copper, EPA does not expect any 

increased exposure resulting from 

approval of this petition to be unsafe. 

2. Inhalation exposure. Air 

concentrations of copper are relatively 

low. A study based on several thousand 

samples assembled by EPA’s 

Environmental Monitoring Systems 

Laboratory showed copper levels 

ranging from 0.003 to 7.32 micrograms 

per cubic meter. Other studies indicated 

that air levels of copper are much lower. 

The Agency does not expect the air 

concentrations of copper to be 

significantly affected by this use of 

cuprous oxide. In any event, given the 

lack of toxicity of copper, EPA does not 

expect any increased exposure resulting 

from approval of this petition to be 

unsafe. 

V. 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 cuprous oxide to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and cuprous 

oxide does not appear to produce a toxic 

metabolite produced by other 

substances. For the purposes of this 

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has 

assumed that cuprous oxide 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 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

cumulative. 

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. 

Population, Infants and Children 

Cuprous oxide is considered 

Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by 

the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA). EPA has also exempted various 

copper compounds from the 

requirement of a tolerance when used as 

herbicide and algicide (40 CFR 

180.1021), including cuprous oxide 

when contained in antifouling coatings 

on submerged concrete or other 

(irrigation) structures (40 CFR 

180.1021(a)(4)). Copper compounds 

including cuprous oxide are also 

exempt from the requirements of a 

tolerance when applied to growing 

crops when used as a plant fungicide in 

accordance with good agricultural 

practices (40 CFR 180.1021(b)). 

1. U.S. population. Copper is a 

component of the human diet and an 

essential element. In addition, no acute 

or chronic dietary endpoints were 

selected because no endpoints of 

toxicological concern have been 

identified for risk assessment purposes. 

Use of cuprous oxide is not expected to 

increase the amount of copper in the 

diet as a result of its use on growing 

crops and post-harvest use. 

2. Infants and children. Copper is also 

component of the diet of infants and 

children as is also an essential element 

of their diet. Since no endpoints have 

been identified, EPA has not conducted 

a quantitative risk assessment for 

cuprous oxide. The Agency has also 

determined that the special Food 

Quality Protection Act safety factor 

(FQPA SF) to protect infants and 

children was not needed since there are 

no toxicity endpoints or uncertainty 

surrounding exposure. 

Based on the information in this 

preamble, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm from 

aggregate exposure to residues. 

Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting 

residues of cuprous oxide from the 

requirement of a tolerance will be safe. 

VII. 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. Revisions to Petitioned-For 

Tolerances 

The Agency is establishing an 

exemption for cuprous oxide that differs 

slightly from the exemption that was 

requested. First, the Agency has 

removed the phrase ‘‘for agricultural 

crops or residential food commodities’’ 

because the current structure of section 

180.1021(a) makes that language 

duplicative and potentially confusing. 

With today’s exemption, residues of 

copper on any irrigated crop that result 

from uses of cuprous oxide in polymer 

emitter heads for irrigation are exempt 

from the requirement of a tolerance; it 

is not necessary to further clarify where 

the irrigation heads are intended to be 

used. Also, the term algaecidal was 

deleted from the proposed tolerance 

exemption expression because the 

product is not intended to act as an 

algaecide. 

VIII. Conclusion 

Based on the information contained in 

the document, EPA concludes that there 

is no reasonable certainty of harm from 

aggregate exposure to residues of 

cuprous oxide. Accordingly, EPA finds 

that the exemption for residues of 

copper in or on meat, milk, poultry, egg, 

fish, shellfish, and irrigated crops from 

use of cuprous oxide embedded in 

polymer emitter heads used in irrigation 

systems for root incursion prevention 

will be safe. Therefore, an exemption is 

established for residues of copper oxide 

embedded in polymer emitter heads 

used in irrigation systems for root 

incursion prevention. 

IX. 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 

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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37551 

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). 

X. 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, Cuprous oxide. 

Dated: June 18, 2015. 

Jennifer L. McClain, 

Acting Director, Antimicrobials 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. Add paragraph (a)(5) to § 180.1021 

to read as follows: 

§ 180.1021 Copper; exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Copper oxide embedded in 

polymer emitter heads used in irrigation 

systems for root incursion prevention. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–16224 Filed 6–30–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 13–49; FCC 15–61] 

Permit Unlicensed National 

Information Infrastructure (U–NII) 

Devices in the 5 GHz Band 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for waiver. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission has waived requirements of 

certain rules that the National 

Information Infrastructure (U–NII) 

devices must comply with. This action 

is in response to a request by a group 

of interested parties to extend this 

compliance deadline as part of a larger 

review of the transition provision 

adopted for the U–NII–3 band. In order 

to facilitate the new technical 

requirements, without unduly impairing 

the availability or cost of U–NII devices 

or imposing undue burdens on 

manufacturers or the public the 

Commission adopted transition 

provisions which are outlined in the 

Commission’s rules. Doing so will give 

the Commission adequate time to 

consider the entire record, including the 

Joint Petitioners, as part of the 

reconsideration proceeding. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective July 1, 2015. Applicability 

date: Applicable June 1, 2015, the 

requirements in § 15.37(h) are waived 

until December 2, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aole 

Wilkins, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–2406, email: 

Aole.Wilkins@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, ET 

Docket No. 13–49; FCC 15–61, adopted 

June 1, 2015, and released June 1, 2015. 

The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. 

Summary of Order 

1. By this Order, the Commission 

waives until December 2, 2015 the 

requirement in § 15.37(h) of the 

Commission’s rules that certain 

National Information Infrastructure (U– 

NII) devices must comply with its 

§ 15.407 rules to be certified on and 

after June 2, 2015. This action is taken 

in response to a request by a group of 

interested parties (Joint Petitioners) to 

extend this compliance deadline as part 

of a larger review of the transition 

provisions the Commission recently 

adopted for the U–NII–3 band.This 

action is being taken without prejudice 

relative to the merits of the Joint 

Petitioners’ filings in the docket. 

2. On April 1, 2014, the Commission 

released a First Report and Order in the 

above-captioned proceeding. This First 

R&O increased the utility of the 5 GHz 

band where U–NII devices operate, and 

modified certain U–NII rules and testing 

procedures to ensure that U–NII devices 

do not cause harmful interference to 

authorized users of the band. The First 

R&O, inter alia, extended the upper 

edge of the 5.725–5.825 GHz U–NII–3 

band to 5.85 GHz and consolidated the 

provisions applicable to digitally 

modulated devices from § 15.247 of the 

rules with the U–NII–3 rules in § 15.407 

so that all the digitally modulated 

devices operating in the U–NII–3 band 

will operate under the same set of rules 

and be subject to the new device 

security requirement. Notably, the 

consolidated rules adopted require the 

more stringent out-of-band emissions 

limit formerly applicable only to U–NII– 

3 devices in order to protect Terminal 

Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) 

facilities from inference. 

3. To facilitate the transition to the 

new technical requirements, without 

unduly impairing the availability or cost 

of U–NII devices or imposing undue 

burdens on manufacturers, or the 

public, the Commission adopted 

transition provisions which are outlined 

in § 15.37(h). These transition 

provisions require that the marketing, 

sale and importation into the United 

States of digitally modulated and hybrid 

devices designed to operate in the U– 

NII–3 band and certified under the old 

§ 15.247 rules must cease by June 2, 

2016. As an intermediate measure, they 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES