Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION:Final rule.
SUMMARY:This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of ammonium persulfate (CAS Reg. No.7727-54-0) when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest, etc.) at a concentration not to exceed 0.05% by weight. Exponent, Inc., on behalf of Becker Underwood, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of ammonium persulfate under the approved conditions.
DATES:This regulation is effective September 16, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 15, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES:The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0237, 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:Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:RDFRNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. 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 180through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0237 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 November 15, 2016. 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-2013-0237, 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 athttp://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. Petition for ExemptionIn the Federal Register of June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33785) (FRL-9386-2), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2E8096) by Exponent, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Ave., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of Becker Underwood, Inc., 801 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of ammonium persulfate (CAS Reg. No. 7727-54-0) when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest at a concentration not to exceed 0.05% by weight in pesticide formulations. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, Inc., the Start Printed Page 63711petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
III. Inert Ingredient DefinitionInert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of SafetySection 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for ammonium persulfate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with ammonium persulfate follows.
A. Toxicological ProfileEPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by ammonium persulfate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
The acute oral and dermal rat lethal dose (LD)50 s are 495 milligram/kilogram body weight (mg/kg bw) and >2,000 mg/kg bw, respectively. The inhalation lethal concentration (LC)50 for ammonium persulfate in rats is >2,950 mg/cubic meter (m3). It is irritating to the eyes but not the skin. It is not a dermal sensitizer.
Several subchronic studies were available for review for the sodium, potassium and ammonium salts of persulfate. In a 28 day oral (diet) toxicity study in rats, toxicity was manifested as decreased relative adrenal weight at 600 parts per million (ppm) (82 mg/kg/day). The NOAEL was 300 ppm; equal to 41 mg/kg/day. In a 3 months oral (diet) toxicity study in dogs, toxicity was not observed at doses up to 333 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. In a toxicity study in rats, ammonium persulfate was administered via inhalation for 13 weeks then allowed a 6-week recovery period. Toxicity was manifested as rales, increased respiratory rate, inflammation of the trachea and bronchi/bronchioles, decreased body weight, and increased lung weight at 25 mg/m3. The NOAEL was 10.3 mg/m3.
The reproductive and developmental toxicity of ammonium persulfate has been tested in rats. Parental, offspring and reproduction toxicity was not observed at doses up to 250 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
Available mutagenicity and genotoxicity studies included the Ames test, gene mutation and chromosomal aberration assays. Ammonium persulfate produced negative results in all of these studies.
Oral and inhalation studies of the carcinogenic and promoting potential of ammonium persulfate do not exist; however, the carcinogenic and promoting potential of ammonium persulfate was tested in a non-guideline study via the dermal route of exposure. In a tumor promotion study, mice were treated dermally with ammonium persulfate biweekly for 51 weeks. In another study, mice were treated topically with a solution of 200 mg/milliliter (mL) ammonium persulfate for 51 weeks. The incidence of tumors did not increase in either study.
Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies were not available for review. However, evidence of neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity of ammonium persulfate was not observed in the submitted studies.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concernonce a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some Start Printed Page 63712degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
There was no hazard attributable to a single exposure seen in the toxicity database for ammonium persulfate. Therefore, ammonium persulfate is not expected to pose an acute risk.
The NOAEL for ammonium persulfate was established at 300 ppm; equal to 41 mg/kg/day based on the 28-day repeat dose oral toxicity study in rats based on decreased relative adrenal weight at 600 ppm (82 mg/kg/day). The chronic risk assessment for ammonium persulfate is based on this endpoint and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 0.41 mg/kg/day. The additional Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) uncertainty factor of 3X is applied for use of short-term study for a long-term risk assessment. EPA concluded that the uncertainty factor of 3X is adequate because the end point selected for the risk assessment is very conservative since no effects on absolute adrenal weight was observed; relative weight could be due to slight decrease in body weight; no other systemic toxicity was seen at this dose level and there were no systemic toxicity observed in a 90-day toxicity study in dogs which considered as long term study. Since the FQPA safety factor (SF) has been reduced to 3X, the cPAD is 0.14 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for inhalation exposure has been established as 10.3 mg/m3 (3 mg/kg/day) based on reversible rales and respiratory rate increases in rats. For dermal exposures, the NOAEL for ammonium persulfate is based on the chronic oral NOAEL with an assumption of 100% dermal adsorption.
C. Exposure Assessment1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to ammonium persulfate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from ammonium persulfate in food as follows:
An acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted because no endpoint of concern following a single exposure was identified in the available studies. A chronic dietary exposure assessment was completed and performed using the Dietary Exposure evaluation Model DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16.which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model that assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.govin docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ammonium persulfate, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
While there are no current or proposed residential uses for ammonium persulfate, it is possible that ammonium persulfate may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products for which short-term and intermediate-term residential exposures may result. In the absence of specific residential exposure scenarios, risk estimates for residential exposures to ammonium persulfate can be modeled based on occupational exposure assessments. Occupational exposure assessments for ammonium persulfate for occupational mixer/loader/applicator exposure and occupational post-application exposure for comparable use scenarios (e.g., low pressure handwand turf application) with only baseline personal protective equipment result in MOEs of 10,000 or greater (i.e.,exposures are not of concern). Given the larger treatment areas and higher concentrations used in these occupational use pesticide products than would be seen in residential uses, MOEs for residential use scenarios would exceed 1,000 or more and therefore there are no concerns for residential exposures to ammonium sulfate.
4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found ammonium persulfate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and ammonium persulfate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ammonium persulfate 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.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.Start Printed Page 63713
2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and children following exposure to ammonium persulfate. In the reproductive and developmental toxicity study of ammonium persulfate in rats, parental, offspring and reproduction toxicity was not observed at doses up to 250 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 3X. That decision is based on the following findings:
i. The toxicity database for ammonium persulfate is partially complete. The additional uncertainty FQPA factor of 3X is applied for use of short-term study for long term risk assessment.
ii. There is no indication that ammonium persulfate is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that ammonium persulfate results in increased susceptibility in rats in utero or in young in the reproductive and developmental screening study.
iv. There is no evidence of any triggers for immunotoxicity in the available database, therefore there is no need for an immunotoxicity study at this time or an additional UF factor to account for lack of an immunotoxicity study.
v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to ammonium persulfate in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by ammonium persulfate.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of SafetyEPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, ammonium persulfate is not expected to pose an acute risk.
2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to ammonium persulfate from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. A short- & intermediate-term adverse effect was identified for ammonium persulfate. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. While there are no current or proposed residential uses for ammonium persulfate, it is possible that ammonium persulfate may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products for which short- and intermediate-term residential exposures may result. Margins of exposure (MOEs) for short- and intermediate-term residential use scenarios have been calculated and exceed 10,000 or more and therefore, since the level of concern is for MOEs of 300 or less, there are no concerns for residential exposures to ammonium persulfate.
4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. based on the lack of evidence of mutagenicity and lack of evidence of tumors in the tumor promoting studies via dermal route, and lack of carcinogenicity for sulfates and ammonia (break down products), ammonium persulfate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
5. Determination of safety. based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to ammonium persulfate residues.
V. Other ConsiderationsA. Analytical Enforcement MethodologyAlthough EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of ammonium persulfate that may be used in pesticide formulations, an analytical enforcement methodology is not necessary for this exemption from the requirement of tolerance. The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for sale or distribution for use on growing crops with concentrations of ammonium persulfate exceeding 0.05% by weight of the formulation.
B. International Residue LimitsIn making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for ammonium persulfate.
VI. ConclusionsTherefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.910 for ammonium persulfate (CAS Reg. No. 7727-54-0) when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities after harvest at a concentration not to exceed 0.05% by weight.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewsThis action establishes 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 Start Printed Page 63714Children 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 underExecutive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132,entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272note).
VIII. Congressional Review ActPursuant 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).
