Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42921

which have until January 25, 1998, the

owner or operator of an affected source,

or group of affected sources under

common control, shall monitor and

record the velocity pressure at the inlet

to the packed-bed system and the

pressure drop across the scrubber

system once each day that any affected

source is operating. * * *

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is required to be

completed under § 63.7, except for hard

chromium electroplaters and chromium

anodizing operations in California

which have until January 25, 1998, the

owner or operator of an affected source,

or group of affected sources under

common control, shall monitor and

record the pressure drop across the

fiber-bed mist eliminator, and the

control device installed upstream of the

fiber bed to prevent plugging, once each

day that any affected source is

operating. * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is required to be

completed under § 63.7, except for hard

chromium electroplaters and chromium

anodizing operations in California

which have until January 25, 1998, the

owner or operator of an affected source

shall monitor the surface tension of the

electroplating or anodizing bath. * * *

(6) * * *

(ii) On and after the date on which the

initial performance test is required to be

completed under § 63.7, except for hard

chromium electroplaters and chromium

anodizing operations in California

which have until January 25, 1998, the

owner or operator of an affected source

shall monitor the foam blanket

thickness of the electroplating or

anodizing bath. * * *

* * * * *

4. Section 63.347 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 63.347 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(4) For sources that are not required

to complete a performance test in

accordance with § 63.343(b), the

notification of compliance status shall

be submitted to the Administrator no

later than 30 days after the compliance

date specified in § 63.343(a), except the

date on which sources in California

shall monitor the surface tension of the

anodizing bath is extended to January

25, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21143 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300521; FRL–5732–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

glyphosate, per se in or on dry peas, pea

vines, hay, and silage, lentils, and

kidney (cattle, goats, horses and sheep).

This action is in response to EPA’s

granting of emergency exemptions

under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act authorizing use of the pesticide on

dry peas, lentils and chickpeas. This

regulation establishes a maximum

permissible level for residues of

glyphosate in this food commodity

pursuant to section 408(l)(6) of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance

will expire and is revoked on August 30,

1998.

DATES: This regulation is effective

August 11, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300521],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300521], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300521]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Virginia Dietrich, Registration

Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308–9359, e-mail:

dietrich.virginia@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing

a tolerance for residues of the herbicide

N-(Phosphonomethyl)glycine, in or on

dry peas, pea vines, hay, and silage,

lentils, and kidney (cattle, goats, horses

and sheep) at 5, 60, 200, 90, 5, and 4,

respectively part per million (ppm).

These tolerances will expire and are

revoked on August 30, 1998. After

August 30, 1998, EPA will publish a

document in the Federal Register to

remove the revoked tolerance from the

Code of Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq . The FQPA

amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

These activities are described below and
42922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

discussed in greater detail in the final

rule establishing the time-limited

tolerance associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13,

1996)(FRL–5572–9).

New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish a

tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide

chemical residue in or on a food) only

if EPA determines that the tolerance is

‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines

‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(b)(2)(C) 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***.’’

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA

to exempt any Federal or State agency

from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA

determines that ‘‘emergency conditions

exist which require such exemption.’’

This provision was not amended by

FQPA. EPA has established regulations

governing such emergency exemptions

in 40 CFR part 166.

Section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA

requires EPA to establish a time-limited

tolerance or exemption from the

requirement for a tolerance for pesticide

chemical residues in food that will

result from the use of a pesticide under

an emergency exemption granted by

EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such

tolerances can be established without

providing notice or period for public

comment.

Because decisions on section 18-

related tolerances must proceed before

EPA reaches closure on several policy

issues relating to interpretation and

implementation of the FQPA, EPA does

not intend for its actions on such

tolerance to set binding precedents for

the application of section 408 and the

new safety standard to other tolerances

and exemptions.

II. Emergency Exemption for

Glyphosate on (Dry Peas, Lentils, and

Garbanzo Beans) and FFDCA

Tolerances

The Agency determined that an

urgent, non-routine situation exists in

areas where dense populations of

Canada thistle develop in dry pea,

chickpea and lentil crops in Idaho,

Oregon and Washington. Crop loss of up

to 100% may occur in areas heavily

infested with Canada thistle. Both preand post-emergence herbicides are

registered for these crops, but they are

ineffective in controlling Canada thistle.

Spot treatment with glyphosate to

eliminate Canada thistle will not

improve dry pea, chick pea and lentil

crop yields this year since the

application will also destroy the

surrounding crop. However, the use of

glyphosate will eliminate the Canada

thistle pest and future crops are

expected to improve. After having

reviewed the submission, EPA concurs

that emergency conditions exist for this

state. EPA has authorized under FIFRA

section 18 the use of glyphosate on dry

peas, garbanzo beans and lentils) for

control of Canada thistle.

As part of its assessment of this

emergency exemption, EPA assessed the

potential risks presented by residues of

glyphosate in or on dry peas, garbanzo

beans and lentils. In doing so, EPA

considered the new safety standard in

FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA

decided that the necessary tolerance

under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be

consistent with the new safety standard

and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent

with the need to move quickly on the

emergency exemption in order to

address an urgent non-routine situation

and to ensure that the resulting food is

safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this

tolerance without notice and

opportunity for public comment under

section 408(e), as provided in section

408(l)(6). Although these tolerances will

expire and are revoked on August 30,

1998, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5),

residues of the pesticide not in excess

of the amounts specified in the

tolerance remaining in or on dry peas,

garbanzo beans, and lentils after that

date will not be unlawful, provided the

pesticide is applied in a manner that

was lawful under FIFRA. EPA will take

action to revoke this tolerance earlier if

any experience with, scientific data on,

or other relevant information on this

pesticide indicate that the residues are

not safe.

Because this tolerance is being

approved under emergency conditions

EPA has not made any decisions about

whether glyphosate meets EPA’s

registration requirements for use on dry

peas, garbanzo beans, and lentils or

whether a permanent tolerance for this

use would be appropriate. Under these

circumstances, EPA does not believe

that this tolerance serves as a basis for

registration of glyphosate by a State for

special local needs under FIFRA section

24(c). Nor does this tolerance serve as

the basis for any State other than Idaho,

Oregon, and Washington to use this

pesticide on this crop under section 18

of FIFRA without following all

provisions of section 18 as identified in

40 CFR part 166. For additional

information regarding the emergency

exemption for glyphosate, contact the

Agency’s Registration Division at the

address provided above.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

EPA performs a number of analyses to

determine the risks from aggregate

exposure to pesticide residues. First,

EPA determines the toxicity of

pesticides based primarily on

toxicological studies using laboratory

animals. These studies address many

adverse health effects, including (but

not limited to) reproductive effects,

developmental toxicity, toxicity to the

nervous system, and carcinogenicity.

Second, EPA examines exposure to the

pesticide through the diet (e.g., food and

drinking water) and through exposures

that occur as a result of pesticide use in

residential settings.

A. Toxicity

1. Threshold and non-threshold

effects. For many animal studies, a dose

response relationship can be

determined, which provides a dose that

causes adverse effects (threshold effects)

and doses causing no observed effects

(the ‘‘no-observed effect level’’ or

‘‘NOEL’’).

Once a study has been evaluated and

the observed effects have been

determined to be threshold effects, EPA

generally divides the NOEL from the

study with the lowest NOEL by an

uncertainty factor (usually 100 or more)

to determine the Reference Dose (RfD).

The RfD is a level at or below which

daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime

will not pose appreciable risks to

human health. An uncertainty factor

(sometimes called a ‘‘safety factor’’) of

100 is commonly used since it is

assumed that people may be up to 10

times more sensitive to pesticides than

the test animals, and that one person or

subgroup of the population (such as

infants and children) could be up to 10

times more sensitive to a pesticide than

another. In addition, EPA assesses the

potential risks to infants and children

based on the weight of the evidence of

the toxicology studies and determines

whether an additional uncertainty factor

is warranted. Thus, an aggregate daily

exposure to a pesticide residue at or

below the RfD (expressed as 100% or

less of the RfD) is generally considered

acceptable by EPA. EPA generally uses
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42923

the RfD to evaluate the chronic risks

posed by pesticide exposure. For shorter

term risks, EPA calculates a margin of

exposure (MOE) by dividing the

estimated human exposure into the

NOEL from the appropriate animal

study. Commonly, EPA finds MOEs

lower than 100 to be unacceptable. This

hundredfold MOE is based on the same

rationale as the hundredfold uncertainty

factor.

Lifetime feeding studies in two

species of laboratory animals are

conducted to screen pesticides for

cancer effects. When evidence of

increased cancer is noted in these

studies, the Agency conducts a weight

of the evidence review of all relevant

toxicological data including short-term

and mutagenicity studies and structure

activity relationship. Once a pesticide

has been classified as a potential human

carcinogen, different types of risk

assessments (e.g., linear low dose

extrapolations or MOE calculation based

on the appropriate NOEL) will be

carried out based on the nature of the

carcinogenic response and the Agency’s

knowledge of its mode of action.

2. Differences in toxic effect due to

exposure duration. The toxicological

effects of a pesticide can vary with

different exposure durations. EPA

considers the entire toxicity data base,

and based on the effects seen for

different durations and routes of

exposure, determines which risk

assessments should be done to assure

that the public is adequately protected

from any pesticide exposure scenario.

Both short and long durations of

exposure are always considered.

Typically, risk assessments include

‘‘acute’’, ‘‘short-term’’, ‘‘intermediate

term’’, and ‘‘chronic’’ risks. These

assessments are defined by the Agency

as follows.

Acute risk, by the Agency’s definition,

results from 1–day consumption of food

and water, and reflects toxicity which

could be expressed following a single

oral exposure to the pesticide residues.

High end exposure to food and water

residues are typically assumed.

Short-term risk results from exposure

to the pesticide for a period of 1-7 days,

and therefore overlaps with the acute

risk assessment. Historically, this risk

assessment was intended to address

primarily dermal and inhalation

exposure which could result, for

example, from residential pesticide

applications. However, since enaction of

FQPA, this assessment has been

expanded to include both dietary and

non-dietary sources of exposure, and

will typically consider exposure from

food, water, and residential uses when

reliable data are available. In this

assessment, risks from average food and

water exposure, and high-end

residential exposure, are aggregated.

High-end exposures from all 3 sources

are not typically added because of the

very low probability of this occurring in

most cases, and because the other

conservative assumptions built into the

assessment assure adequate protection

of public health. However, for cases in

which high-end exposure can

reasonably be expected from multiple

sources (e.g. frequent and widespread

homeowner use in a specific

geographical area), multiple high-end

risks will be aggregated and presented

as part of the comprehensive risk

assessment/characterization. Since the

toxicological endpoint considered in

this assessment reflects exposure over a

period of at least 7 days, an additional

degree of conservatism is built into the

assessment; i.e., the risk assessment

nominally covers 1-7 days exposure,

and the toxicological endpoint/NOEL is

selected to be adequate for at least 7

days of exposure. (Toxicity results at

lower levels when the dosing duration

is increased.)

Intermediate-term risk results from

exposure for 7 days to several months.

This assessment is handled in a manner

similar to the short-term risk

assessment.

Chronic risk assessment describes risk

which could result from several months

to a lifetime of exposure. For this

assessment, risks are aggregated

considering average exposure from all

sources for representative population

subgroups including infants and

children.

B. Aggregate Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure,

FFDCA section 408 requires that EPA

take into account available and reliable

information concerning exposure from

the pesticide residue in the food in

question, residues in other foods for

which there are tolerances, residues in

groundwater or surface water that is

consumed as drinking water, and other

non-occupational exposures through

pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or

buildings (residential and other indoor

uses). Dietary exposure to residues of a

pesticide in a food commodity are

estimated by multiplying the average

daily consumption of the food forms of

that commodity by the tolerance level or

the anticipated pesticide residue level.

The Theoretical Maximum Residue

Contribution (TMRC) is an estimate of

the level of residues consumed daily if

each food item contained pesticide

residues equal to the tolerance. In

evaluating food exposures, EPA takes

into account varying consumption

patterns of major identifiable subgroups

of consumers, including infants and

children. The TMRC is a ‘‘worst case’’

estimate since it is based on the

assumptions that food contains

pesticide residues at the tolerance level

and that 100% of the crop is treated by

pesticides that have established

tolerances. If the TMRC exceeds the RfD

or poses a lifetime cancer risk that is

greater than approximately one in a

million, EPA attempts to derive a more

accurate exposure estimate for the

pesticide by evaluating additional types

of information (anticipated residue data

and/or percent of crop treated data)

which show, generally, that pesticide

residues in most foods when they are

eaten are well below established

tolerances.

Percent of crop treated estimates are

derived from federal and private market

survey data. Typically, a range of

estimates are supplied and the upper

end of this range is assumed for the

exposure assessment. By using this

upper end estimate of percent of crop

treated, the Agency is reasonably certain

that exposure is not understated for any

significant subpopulation group.

Further, regional consumption

information is taken into account

through EPA’s computer-based model

for evaluating the exposure of

significant subpopulations including

several regional groups, to pesticide

residues. For this pesticide, the most

highly exposed population subgroup

(non-nursing infants less than 1 year old

) was not regionally based.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and

Determination of Safety

Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D),

EPA has reviewed the available

scientific data and other relevant

information in support of this action,

EPA has sufficient data to assess the

hazards of glyphosate and to make a

determination on aggregate exposure,

consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

glyphosate on dry peas, pea vines, hay,

and silage, lentils, and kidney (cattle,

goats, horses and sheep) at 5, 60, 200,

90, 5, and 4 ppm, respectively. EPA’s

assessment of the dietary exposures and

risks associated with establishing the

tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available

toxicity data and considered its validity,

completeness, and reliability as well as

the relationship of the results of the

studies to human risk. EPA has also

considered available information

concerning the variability of the

sensitivities of major identifiable
42924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

subgroups of consumers, including

infants and children. The nature of the

toxic effects caused by glyphosate are

discussed below.

1. Acute toxicity. No endpoint of

concern was identified by the Office of

Pesticide Programs .

2. Short - and intermediate - term

toxicity. No effects were observed in a

21–day dermal toxicity study at the

limit dose. No adverse effects were

observed in the developmental toxicity

study in rats up to 1,000 mg/kg/day and

in rabbits at up to 175 mg/kg/day.

3. Chronic toxicity. EPA has

established the RfD for glyphosate at 2

milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).

This RfD is based on the maternal

toxicity NOEL of 175 mg/kg/day from a

rabbit developmental toxicity study

using an uncertainty factor (UF) of 100.

The lowest observed effect level (LOEL)

of 350 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested)

was based on treatment-related findings

of diarrhea, nasal discharge, and death

(62.5% of does died by gestation day

21). Developmental toxicity was not

observed at any dose tested.

4. Carcinogenicity. Glyphosate has

been classified as a Group E chemical

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for

humans) by the Office of Pesticide

Programs. The classification was based

on a lack of convincing evidence of

carcinogenicity in adequate studies with

two animal species, rat and mouse.

B. Exposures and Risks

1. From food and feed uses.

Tolerances have been established (40

CFR 180.364, 185.3500, 186.3500) for

the combined residues of glyphosate

and its metabolite

aminomethylphosphonic acid in or on

certain raw agricultural commodities

ranging from 0.1 ppm in peanuts to 200

ppm in alfalfa. This regulation also

establishes a tolerance for secondary

residues in kidney (cattle, goats, horses,

and sheep). Risk assessments were

conducted by EPA to assess dietary

exposures and risks from glyphosate as

follows:

i. Acute exposure and risk. No

endpoint was identified for this

duration of exposure, therefore no

assessment was necessary. Acute dietary

risk assessments are performed for a

food-use pesticide only if a toxicological

study has indicated the possibility of an

effect of concern occurring as a result of

a 1 day or single exposure.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk. In

conducting this exposure assessment,

EPA has made very conservative

assumptions—that 100% of dry peas,

lentils, and chickpeas and all other

commodities having glyphosate

tolerances would contain glyphosate

residues and that those residues would

be at the level of the respective

tolerances—which result in an

overestimate of human dietary

exposure. Thus, in making a safety

determination for this tolerance, EPA is

taking into account this conservative

exposure assessment.

All the glyphosate tolerances

(published, pending, and including

these Section 18 tolerances) result in a

Theoretical Maximum Residue

Contribution (TMRC) that is equivalent

to the following percentages of the RfD:

Subgroups Percentage

of RFD

U.S Population ...................... 1.2

Nursing Infants ...................... 1.2

Non-Nursing Infants (<1 year

old).

3.3

Children (1-6 years old) ........ 2.6

Children (7-12 years old) ...... 1.8

Western Region .................... 1.3

The subgroups listed above are: (1)

the U.S. population (48 states); (2) those

for infants and children; and, (3) the

other subgroups for which the

percentage of the RfD occupied is

greater than that occupied by the

subgroup U.S. population (48 states).

iii. Cancer risk. Glyphosate has been

classified as a Group E chemical

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for

humans) by the Office of Pesticide

Programs Cancer Peer Review

Committee.

2. From drinking water. Based on

information in the EPA’s files,

glyphosate is not persistent and not

mobile. A Maximum Contaminant Level

has been established by the Agency’s

Office of Water (OW) for residues of

glyphosate in drinking water at 0.7 ppm.

OW has also established Health

Advisory levels for glyphosate in

drinking water at the following levels:

Child, 10 kg of body weight.

1–day ................................... 20 mg/L

10–day ................................. 20 mg/L

longer-term ........................... 1 mg/L

Adult, 70 kg of body weight.

lifetime .................................. 0.7 mg/L

i. Acute exposure and risk. No

endpoint of concern was identified by

the Agency so this risk assessment was

not required.

ii. Chronic exposure and risk. Because

the Agency lacks sufficient waterrelated exposure data to complete a

comprehensive drinking water risk

assessment for many pesticides, EPA

has commenced and nearly completed a

process to identify a reasonable yet

conservative bounding figure for the

potential contribution of water-related

exposure to the aggregate risk posed by

a pesticide. In developing the bounding

figure, EPA estimated residue levels in

water for a number of specific pesticides

using various data sources. The Agency

then applied the estimated residue

levels, in conjunction with appropriate

toxicological endpoints (RfD’s or acute

dietary NOEL’s) and assumptions about

body weight and consumption, to

calculate, for each pesticide, the

increment of aggregate risk contributed

by consumption of contaminated water.

While EPA has not yet pinpointed the

appropriate bounding figure for

exposure from contaminated water, the

ranges the Agency is continuing to

examine are all below the level that

would cause glyphosate to exceed the

RfD if the tolerance being considered in

this document were granted. The

Agency has therefore concluded that the

potential exposures associated with

glyphosate in water, even at the higher

levels the Agency is considering as a

conservative upper bound, would not

prevent the Agency from determining

that there is a reasonable certainty of no

harm if the tolerance is granted.

3. From non-dietary exposure.

Glyphosate is registered for uses on

outdoor non-food sites such as turf and

ornamentals. These uses may result in

non-occupational exposures. However,

since no toxicological endpoints for

non-dietary exposures have been

identified, the resulting risks cannot be

assessed, therefore these exposures have

not been estimated.

4. Cumulative exposure to substances

with common mechanism of toxicity.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.’’

The Agency believes that ‘‘available

information’’ in this context might

include not only toxicity, chemistry,

and exposure data, but also scientific

policies and methodologies for

understanding common mechanisms of

toxicity and conducting cumulative risk

assessments. For most pesticides,

although the Agency has some

information in its files that may turn out

to be helpful in eventually determining

whether a pesticide shares a common

mechanism of toxicity with any other

substances, EPA does not at this time

have the methodologies to resolve the

complex scientific issues concerning

common mechanism of toxicity in a
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42925

meaningful way. EPA has begun a pilot

process to study this issue further

through the examination of particular

classes of pesticides. The Agency hopes

that the results of this pilot process will

increase the Agency’s scientific

understanding of this question such that

EPA will be able to develop and apply

scientific principles for better

determining which chemicals have a

common mechanism of toxicity and

evaluating the cumulative effects of

such chemicals. The Agency anticipates,

however, that even as its understanding

of the science of common mechanisms

increases, decisions on specific classes

of chemicals will be heavily dependent

on chemical specific data, much of

which may not be presently available.

Although at present the Agency does

not know how to apply the information

in its files concerning common

mechanism issues to most risk

assessments, there are pesticides as to

which the common mechanism issues

can be resolved. These pesticides

include pesticides that are

toxicologically dissimilar to existing

chemical substances (in which case the

Agency can conclude that it is unlikely

that a pesticide shares a common

mechanism of activity with other

substances) and pesticides that produce

a common toxic metabolite (in which

case common mechanism of activity

will be assumed).

EPA does not have, at this time,

available data to determine whether

glyphosate has a common mechanism of

toxicity with other substances or how to

include this pesticide in a cumulative

risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides

for which EPA has followed a

cumulative risk approach based on a

common mechanism of toxicity,

glyphosate does not appear to produce

a toxic metabolite produced by other

substances. For the purposes of this

tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not

assumed that glyphosate has a common

mechanism of toxicity with other

substances.

C. Aggregate Risks and Determination of

Safety for U.S. Population

1. Acute risk. Since no toxicological

endpoint of concern was identified,

there is a reasonable certainty that no

harm will result from aggregate acute

exposures to glyphosate residues.

2. Chronic risk. Using the TMRC

exposure assumptions described above,

EPA has concluded that aggregate

exposure to glyphosate from food will

utilize 1.2 percent of the RfD for the

U.S. population. The major identifiable

subgroup with the highest aggregate

exposure is non-nursing infants, which

is further discussed below. EPA

generally has no concern for exposures

below 100% of the RfD because the RfD

represents the level at or below which

daily aggregate dietary exposure over a

lifetime will not pose appreciable risks

to human health. Despite the potential

for exposure to glyphosate in drinking

water and from non-dietary, nonoccupational exposure, EPA does not

expect the aggregate exposure to exceed

100% of the RfD. EPA concludes that

there is a reasonable certainty that no

harm will result from aggregate

exposure to glyphosate residues.

3. Short- and intermediate-term risk.

Short- and intermediate-term aggregate

exposure takes into account chronic

dietary food and water (considered to be

a background exposure level) plus

indoor and outdoor residential

exposure.

An Ad Hoc Toxicology Endpoint

Selection Committee concluded that

this risk assessment is not required,

based on the lack of any observable

effects in a 21–day dermal toxicity study

at the limit dose and the observation of

no adverse effects in a developmental

toxicity study in rats up to 1,000 mg/kg/

day and rabbits up to ≥ 175 mg/kg/day.

Therefore, EPA concludes that there is

a reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate short- and

inermediate-term exposure to

glyphosate residues.

D. Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S.

Population

As noted above, glyphosate has been

classified as a Group E chemical

(evidence of non-carcinogenicity for

humans).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of

Safety for Infants and Children

1. Safety factor for infants and

children—a. In general. In assessing the

potential for additional sensitivity of

infants and children to residues of

glyphosate, EPA considered data from

developmental toxicity studies in the rat

and rabbit and a two-generation

reproduction study in the rat. The

developmental toxicity studies are

designed to evaluate adverse effects on

the developing organism resulting from

pesticide exposure during prenatal

development to one or both parents.

Reproduction studies provide

information relating to effects from

exposure to the pesticide on the

reproductive capability of mating

animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA

shall apply an additional tenfold margin

of safety for infants and children in the

case of threshold effects to account for

pre-and post-natal toxicity and the

completeness of the database unless

EPA determines that a different margin

of safety will be safe for infants and

children. Margins of safety are

incorporated into EPA risk assessments

either directly through use of a MOE

analysis or through using uncertainty

(safety) factors in calculating a dose

level that poses no appreciable risk to

humans. EPA believes that reliable data

support using the standard MOE and

uncertainty factor (usually 100 for

combined inter- and intra-species

variability)) and not the additional

tenfold MOE/uncertainty factor when

EPA has a complete data base under

existing guidelines and when the

severity of the effect in infants or

children or the potency or unusual toxic

properties of a compound do not raise

concerns regarding the adequacy of the

standard MOE/safety factor.

b. Developmental toxicity studies —i.

Rat. In the rat developmental toxicity

study, the maternal (systemic) NOEL is

1,000 mg/kg/day. The maternal

(systemic) LOEL of 3,500 mg/kg/day

was based on the following treatmentrelated effects: diarrhea, decreased mean

body weight gain, breathing rattles,

inactivity, red matter around the nose

and mouth, and on forelimbs and dorsal

head, decreases in total implantations/

dam and non-viable fetuses/dam, and

death (24% of the group). The

developmental (fetal) NOEL is 1,000

mg/kg/day. The developmental (fetal)

LOEL of 3,500 mg/kg/day was based on

treatment-related developmental effects

observed only in the high-dose group of:

increased number of litters and fetuses

with unossified sternebrae, and

decreased mean fetal body weights.

ii. Rabbit. In the rabbit developmental

toxicity study, the maternal (systemic)

NOEL is 175 mg/kg/day. The maternal

(systemic) LOEL of 350 mg/kg/day was

based on treatment-related effects that

included: diarrhea, nasal discharge, and

death (62.5% of does died by gestation

day 21). The developmental (fetal)

NOEL is ≥ 175 mg/kg/day (insufficient

litters were available at 350 mg/kg/day

to assess developmental toxicity).

Developmental toxicity was not

observed at any dose tested.

c. Reproductive toxicity study—i. Rat.

A three-generation reproductive toxicity

study was conducted with SpragueDawley rats, the parental NOEL/LOEL is

≥ 30 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested).

The only effect observed was an

increased incidence of focal tubular

dilation of the kidney (both unilateral

and bilateral combined) in the high-dose

male F3b pups.

Since the focal tubular dilation of the

kidneys was not observed at the 1,500

mg/kg/day level (HDT) in the 2-

generation rat reproduction (see below),
42926 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

but was observed at the 30 mg/kg/day

level (HDT) in the 3-generation rat

reproduction study, the OPP

Developmental Peer Review Committee

concluded that the latter was a spurious

rather than glyphosate-related effect.

Therefore, the parental and reproductive

(pup) NOELs are ≥ 30 mg/kg/day.

ii. Rat. A two-generation reproductive

toxicity study was conducted with

Sprague-Dawley rats. Treatment-related

effects observed in the high dose group

included: soft stools, very frequent, in

the Fo and F1 males and females,

decreased food consumption and body

weight gain of the Fo and F1 males and

females during the growth (premating)

period, and decreased body weight gain

of the F1a, F2a and F2b male and female

pups during the second and third weeks

of lactation. Focal tubular dilation of the

kidneys, observed in the 3-generation

study, was not observed at any dose

level in this study. Based on the above

findings, the parental and

developmental (pup) NOEL’s are 500

mg/kg/day and the parental and

developmental (pup) LOEL’s are 1,500

mg/kg/day. The reproductive toxicity

NOEL is ≥ 1,500 mg/kg/day.

d. Pre- and post-natal sensitivity.

Based on the developmental toxicity

studies discussed above, for glyphosate

there does not appear to be an extra

sensitivity for pre-natal effects. The

developmental rat study only had

developmental findings above 1,000 mg/

kg/day in the presence of severe

maternal effects [death, etc.] at the

highest dose tested of 3,500 mg/kg/day.

In rabbits, developmental effects above

the NOEL of 175 mg/kg/day were unable

to be identified due to severe maternal

effects [death, etc.] at 350 mg/kg/day

[highest dose tested]. Based on the

reproductive toxicity study discussed

above, for glyphosate there does not

appear to be an extra sensitivity for

post-natal effects. The pup and adult

NOELs of 500 mg/kg/day and LOELs of

1,500 mg/kg/day do not demonstrate

any post-natal extra sensitivity for

infants and children because the dose

levels, respectively, are the same for

pups and adults and the effects are

similar as well.

e. Conclusion. Therefore, the Agency

concludes that no additional 10X safety

factor is necessary to protect infants and

children.

2. Acute risk. No endpoint was

selected by the Agency so this risk

assessment was not conducted.

3. Chronic risk. Using the

conservative exposure assumptions

described above, EPA has concluded

that aggregate exposure to glyphosate

from food will utilize no more than

3.3% of the RfD for non-nursing infants,

the most highly exposed sub-group. EPA

generally has no concern for exposures

below 100% of the RfD because the RfD

represents the level at or below which

daily aggregate dietary exposure over a

lifetime will not pose appreciable risks

to human health. Despite the potential

for exposure to glyphosate in drinking

water and from non-dietary, nonoccupational exposure, EPA does not

expect the aggregate exposure to exceed

100% of the RfD. EPA concludes that

there is a reasonable certainty that no

harm will result to infants and children

from aggregate exposure to glyphosate

residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Metabolism In Plants and Animals

The nature of the residue in plants

and animals is adequately understood.

The current tolerances established

under 40 CFR 180.364 include

glyphosate and its metabolite

aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).

The Office of Pesticide Programs

Metabolism Committee has concluded

that AMPA need not be regulated and

should be dropped from the tolerance

regulation. The residue of concern is the

parent compound, glyphosate, only.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology

(GLC and HPLC/fluorometric) are

available (PAM, Vol. II, Method I) to

enforce the tolerance expression.

C. Magnitude of Residues

Residues of glyphosate, per se, are not

expected to exceed the following levels

as a result of this Section 18 use. Timelimited tolerances should be established

at these levels: pea, dry at 5 ppm; lentil

at 5 ppm; pea, field vines at 60 ppm;

pea, field hay at 200 ppm; pea, field

silage at 90 ppm; kidney, cattle, goats,

horses, and sheep at 4 ppm.

With the exception of the proposed

increase in the kidney tolerance noted

above, secondary residues in animal

commodities are not expected to exceed

existing tolerances as a result of this

Section 18 use. The dietary burden for

livestock will not exceed that from the

use on grasses.

D. International Residue Limits

A CODEX MRL has been established

for residues of glyphosate, per se, on dry

peas at 5 ppm. Canadian tolerances have

been established for residues of

glyphosate and AMPA on peas at 5 ppm

and lentils at 4 ppm.

E. Rotational Crop Restrictions

For this proposed Section 18 use, a

30–day plant-back interval for crops on

which glyphosate is not registered is

being required.

VI. Conclusion

Therefore, the tolerance is established

for residues of glyphosate in dry peas,

pea vines, hay, and silage, lentils, and

kidney (cattle, goats, horses and sheep)

at 5, 60, 200, 90, 5, and 4, ppm,

respectively.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

The new FFDCA section 408(g)

provides essentially the same process

for persons to ‘‘object’’ to a tolerance

regulation issued by EPA under new

section 408(e) and (l)(6) as was provided

in the old section 408 and in section

409. However, the period for filing

objections is 60 days, rather than 30

days. EPA currently has procedural

regulations which govern the

submission of objections and hearing

requests. These regulations will require

some modification to reflect the new

law. However, until those modifications

can be made, EPA will continue to use

those procedural regulations with

appropriate adjustments to reflect the

new law.

Any person may, by October 11, 1997,

file written objections to any aspect of

this regulation and may also request a

hearing on those objections. Objections

and hearing requests must be filed with

the Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issues on which

a hearing is requested, the requestor’s

contentions on such issues, and a

summary of any evidence relied upon

by the requestor (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issues in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

Information submitted in connection

with an objection or hearing request
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42927

may be claimed confidential by marking

any part or all of that information as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the information that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice.

VIII. Public Docket

EPA has established a record for this

rulemaking under docket control

number [OPP–300521] (including any

comments and data submitted

electronically). A public version of this

record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as CBI, is available for

inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch,

Information Resources and Services

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments may be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer any copies of objections and

hearing requests received electronically

into printed, paper form as they are

received and will place the paper copies

in the official rulemaking record which

will also include all comments

submitted directly in writing. The

official rulemaking record is the paper

record maintained at the Virginia

address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document.

IX. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This final rule establishes tolerances

under FFDCA section 408(l)(6). 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). This final rule does

not contain any information collections

subject to OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any

enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described under

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.

104–4). Nor does it require any prior

consultation as specified by Executive

Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093, October 28, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994), or require OMB review in

accordance with Executive Order 13045,

entitled Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

In addition, since these tolerances and

exemptions that are established on the

basis of a petition under FFDCA section

408 (l)(5), such as the tolerances in this

final rule, do not require the issuance of

a proposed rule, the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

Nevertheless, the Agency has previously

assessed whether establishing

tolerances, exemptions from tolerances,

raising tolerance levels or expanding

exemptions might adversely impact

small entities and concluded, as a

generic matter, that there is no adverse

economic impact. The factual basis for

the Agency’s generic certification for

tolerance acations published on May 4,

1981 (46 FR 24950), and was provided

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

X. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

Agency has submitted 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 General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this rule in today’s Federal Register.

This 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, Animal

feeds, Food additives, Pesticides and

pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 29, 1997.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180— [AMENDED]

1. In part 180:

a. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

b. Section 180.364 is amended by

adding text to paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for

residues.

(a) General . * * *

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

Time-limited tolerances are established

for combined residues of the herbicide

glyphosate, per se in connection with

use of the pesticide under section 18

emergency exemptions granted by EPA.

The tolerances will expire and are

revoked on the dates specified in the

following table.

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/Revocation Date

Cattle, kidney ....................................................................................... 4 August 30, 1998

Goats, kidney ....................................................................................... 4 August 30, 1998

Horses, kidney ..................................................................................... 4 August 30, 1998

Lentils .................................................................................................. 5 August 30, 1998

Pea, hay .............................................................................................. 200 August 30, 1998

Pea, vines ............................................................................................ 60 August 30, 1998

Peas, dry ............................................................................................. 5 August 30, 1998

Sheep, kidney ...................................................................................... 4 August 30, 1998

Silage, hay ........................................................................................... 90 August 30, 1998
42928 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21144 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 301–8

[FTR Amendment 66]

RIN 3090–AG41

Federal Travel Regulation;

Reimbursement of Higher Actual

Subsistence Expenses in Special or

Unusual Circumstances; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide

Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final rule, which was

published in the Federal Register of

Tuesday, June 3, 1997, (62 FR 30279).

The final rule related to reimbursement

of higher actual subsistence expenses in

special or unusual circumstances.

DATES: Effective on May 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

E. Groat, 202–501–1538.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final rule that is the subject of

these corrections amended the Federal

Travel Regulation (FTR) (41 CFR

chapters 301–304) to allow an agency to

authorize or approve travel up to 300

percent of the prescribed maximum per

diem rate on an actual subsistence

expense basis under certain special or

unusual circumstances.

Need for correction

As published, the final rule contains

information, which may prove to be

misleading, and needs to be clarified.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 301–8

Government employees, Travel,

Travel allowances, Travel and

transportation expenses.

Accordingly, 41 CFR Part 301–8 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendments:

PART 301–8—REIMBURSEMENT OF

ACTUAL SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES

1. The authority citation for part 301–

8 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5707.

§ 301–8.3 [Corrected]

2. Section 301–8.3 is amended in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)(i) to remove

the phrase ‘‘150 percent’’ where it

appears and to replace it with the

phrase ‘‘300 percent’’; by revising

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read ‘‘The amount

established by the Departments of

Defense and State for travel outside

CONUS.’’; by removing paragraph (c);

by redesignating paragraph (d) as (c); by

amending newly redesignated paragraph

(c) to remove the phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a)

through (c) of this section’’ where it

appears and to replace it with the

phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a) and (b) of this

section’’.

3. Section 301–8.3(a)(2) is revised to

read as follows:

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) Travel outside CONUS. For travel

outside CONUS, the maximum daily

rate for subsistence expenses shall not

exceed the amount prescribed by:

(i) The Department of Defense, Per

Diem, Travel and Transportation

Allowance Committee, for nonforeign

areas, as set forth in Civilian Personnel

Per Diem Bulletin No. 194; and

(ii) The Department of State, for

foreign areas, as set forth in section 925,

a per diem supplement to the U.S.

Department of State Standardized

Regulations (Government Civilians,

Foreign Areas).

* * * * *

Dated: August 5, 1997.

Peggy Wood,

Acting Director, Travel and Transportation

Management Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 97–21051 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 0

[DA 97–1505]

Freedom of Information Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission is modifying a section of

the Commission’s rules that implements

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

fee schedule. This modification pertains

to the charge for recovery of the full,

allowable direct costs of searching for

and reviewing records requested under

the FOIA and the Commission’s rules,

unless such fees are restricted or

waived. The fees are being revised to

correspond to modifications in the rate

of pay approved by Congress.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Judy Boley,

Freedom of Information Act Officer,

Office of Performance Evaluation and

Records Management, Room 234,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC

20554, (202) 418–0210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC

is modifying § 0.467(a) of the

Commission’s rules. This rule pertains

to the charges for searching and

reviewing records requested under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The

FOIA requires federal agencies to

establish a schedule of fees for the

processing of requests for agency

records in accordance with fee

guidelines issued by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). In

1987, OMB issued its Uniform Freedom

of Information Act Fee Schedule and

Guidelines. However, because the FOIA

requires that each agency’s fees be based

upon its direct costs of providing FOIA

services, OMB did not provide a

unitary, government-wide schedule of

fees. The Commission based its FOIA

fee schedule on the grade level of the

employee who processes the request.

Thus, the fee schedule was computed at

a Step 5 of each grade level based on the

General Schedule effected January 1997.

The instant revisions correspond to

modifications in the rate of pay recently

approved by Congress.

Regulatory Procedures

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order No. 12866 and

has been determined not to be a

‘‘significant rule’’ since it will not have

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more.

In addition, it has been determined

that this final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0

Freedom of information.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 0 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 0—COMMISSION

ORGANIZATION

1. The authority citation for part 0

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 155, 255, unless

otherwise noted.