[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 1997)] [Notices] [Pages 15686-15690] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 97-8396] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [PF-725; FRL-5594-8] Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various agricultural commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number PF-725, must be received on or before May 2, 1997. ADDRESSES: By mail submit written comments to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Divison (7505C), Office of Pesticides Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions under ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.'' No confidential business information should be submitted through e-mail. Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment 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. All written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Linda Hollis, Product Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, (7501W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 5th floor, CS1, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. 22202, (703) 308-8733; e-mail: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of certain pesticide chemicals in or on various raw agricultural commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports grantinig of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. The official record for this notice, as well as the public version, has been established for this notice of filing under docket control number PF-725 (including comments and data submitted electronically as described below). 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 [[Page 15687]] a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official record is located at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document. Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at: [email protected] Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comment and data will also be accepted on disks in Wordperfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket control number (PF-725) and appropriate petition number. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Food additives, Feed additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 24, 1997. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Summaries of Petitions Below summaries of the pesticide petitions are printed. The summaries of the petitions were prepared by the petitioners. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed. 1. AgriPhi Inc. OPP-300357 EPA issued a notice OPP-300357, (FRL-4906-6), which was published in the Federal Register of September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46247-46248), announcing the establishment of a temporary tolerance exemption for residues of the microbial pesticide bacteriophages isolated from Xanthomonas campestris subsp. vesicatoria in or on the raw agricultural commodities, tomatoes and peppers. EPA has received a pesticide petition from AgriPhi Inc., which proposes, pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as recently amended by the Food Quality Protection Act, 21 U.S.C. section 346a, to amend 40 CFR part 180 to reestablish a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant pesticide Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in or on the raw agricultural commodities, tomatoes and peppers. A. Proposed Use Practices Recommended application method and rate(s), frequency of application, and timing of application. AgriPhi Inc., proposes to conduct testing of 120 gallons of bacteriophages isolated from Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in Brandenton Florida and Ruskin Florida. Total acreage for both sites will occupy 25 acres. Tests will be designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the active ingredient for use in controlling bacterial diseases of tomatoes and peppers conducted all year long (as needed) for two years. Growing plants of tomato and pepper and/or the soil around the growing plants will be treated with bacteriophages as a drench, spray or through chemigation at a concentration of approximately 10 --8 pfu per ml. Plants will be given multiple treatments at preplant and postmergence. Upon termination of the tests the bactericide and container will be boiled for 10 minutes and disposed of in accordance with local state and federal regulations. B. Product Identity/Chemistry The product is a colorless to light brown liquid with no to slight odor. The liquid is non-corrosive and stable in aqueous solutions (pH 5 to 9) but denature by organic solvents. The liquid has a density of 1.06 g/cc and is stored stably for >1 year @ 4 degrees C but can be degraded in four days if maintained at room temperature. 1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. AgriPhi Inc., believes that no pesticide residues are expected. 2. Magnititude of residue anticipated at the time of harvest and method used to dermine the residue. AgriPhi Inc., believes that little concern exists for any residues of phages as they are ubiquitous in nature, found in soil, water, raw produce, oysters and cheese. Data from the published scientific literature indicates that bacteriophages are harmless to mammals, fish and wildlife. Additionally, bacteriophages are completely biodegradable and so pose not threat to the environment. 3. A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. AgriPhi Inc., states that phage residue at any level will pose no threat to human health or the environment, therefore an analytical method for detecting and measuring residue levels is not needed. C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile AgriPhi Inc., requested data waivers for Acute Toxicity/ Pathogenicity, Genotoxicity, Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity, Subchronic Toxicity and Chronic Toxicity Studies. These data waivers are supported by data from the published scientific literature which indicates that bacteriophages are specific for their bacterial host and present no unique toxicity hazards to humans, fish and wildlife or to the environment. In addition to the phages effectiveness against there has been no evidence to suggest non-selective infection. Phages have been documented as being active against bacteria of many human diseases. Daily exposure of phages are evident in the human consumption of raw produce, cheeses and water without any adverse health effects. AgriPhi Inc., believes that inasmuch as each phage is specific for its target bacterial plant pathogen, they are nontoxic for growers who would be applying page mixtures to seed, soil or crops. D. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. a. Food. AgriPhi Inc., states that humans are exposed daily to phages in the consumption of raw produce and cheeses without any adverse effects or detriment to the human intestinal microflora. b. Drinking water. AgriPhi Inc., states that phages are naturally occurring in waters and that there have been no reports of adverse effects to humans exposed to municipal waters. 2. Non-dietary exposure (lawn care, topical insect repellents, etc.). AgriPhi Inc., states that the use for this pesticide is agricultural, therefore, non-dietary exposure pesticide will be minimal to non-existent. E. Cumulative Exposure Exposure through other pesticides and substances with the common mode of toxicity as this pesticide. AgriPhi, Inc., states that bacteriophages are nontoxic to humans, fish and wildlife, therefore, cumulative effects with other pesticides and substances will be minimal to non-existent. F. Safety Determination 1. U.S. population. AgriPhi Inc., states that phages are naturally occurring entities found in soil, water and some foods. AgriPhi Inc., believes that because phages present no unique toxicity hazard to humans, safety factors are not appropriate. Phages have been [[Page 15688]] active in the treatment of bacterial human diseases and have been consumed by humans without any detectable or detrimental adverse human health effects. Therefore, AgriPhi Inc., believes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population in general from consumption of a bacteriophage. 2. Infants and children. AgriPhi Inc., states that data from the published scientific literature reports that bacteriophages have been used as a prophylactic treatment for children without any harmful effects. Bacteriophages found in foods are not likely to occur in different amounts in foods consumed by children and infants. Therefore, AgriPhi Inc., concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate esposure to residues of bacteriophages. G. Existing Tolerances A temporary tolerance was granted for this pesticide in August 1994 and expired in August 1996. H. International Tolerance No known international tolerances have been granted for this pesticide. Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data from the published literature and the conservative exposure assessment, AgriPhi Inc., concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of the pesticide Bacteriophages of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures. 2. Asgrow Seed Company PP 6E4670 EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) 6E4670 from Asgrow Seed Company. The petition proposes, pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant-pesticide Coat Protein of Cucumber Mosaic Virus and the genetic materail necessary for its production in or on all raw agricultural commodities. A. Proposed Use Practices Recommended application method and rate(s), frequency of application, and timing of application. Asgrow states that the plant viral coat protein is produced within tissues of the engineered plant and is not to be applied externally. Appropriate cultural practices for growing seed with genetically engineered virus resistance will be determined by individual growers, as such practices are for all other plant varieties. Accordingly, no special instructions for use will be necessary. B. Product Identity/Chemistry 1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. Asgrow has determined that the sequence of the engineered viral coat protein expressed in transformed plants is identical to a viral coat protein found in nature. 2. Magnitude of residue anticipated at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. Asgrow states that the viral coat protein is expressed in plant tissues, and therefore, is not a residue in the same manner as a pesticide applied externally to growing crop plants. Asgrow does not expect any measurable residue of the engineered viral coat protein to remain on or in transformed raw agricultural commodities (RACs). 3. A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunoabsorbent Assay) test can be used to determine expression levels of viral coat proteins in transformed plants, fruits and leaves. However, because the Agency proposes to exempt all plant virus coat proteins from the requirement of a tolerance, Asgrow believes that an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of viral coat proteins in or on all RACs is not required for enforcement purposes. C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile Viral Coat Proteins are substances that viruses produce during a plant infection to encapsulate and protect their genetic material. When the genetic material encoding the coat proeitn for a plant virus is introduced into a plant's genome, the plant is able to resist subsequent infections by that same virus as will as strains closely related to the donor virus. Virus-infected plants currently are and ahve always been a part of both the human and domestic animal food supply, and Asgrow agrees with EPA's finding that plant viruses are not known to be harmful to humans (59 FR 60519-60535, November 23, 1994). All available data from the scientific literature indicates that plant viruses are not toxic to humans or other vertebrates. Additionally, plant viruses are unable to replicate in mammals or other veterbrates, eliminating the possibility of human infection. This has been shown by injections of purified whole virus into laboratory animals to develop antibodies for ELISA tests. More importantly, however, this tolerance exemption will apply to that portion of the viral genome coding for the whole coat protein and any subcomponent of the coat protein expressed in the plant. This component alone is incapable of forming infectious particles. Because whole intact plant viruses are not known to cause deleterious human health effects, Asgrow believes that it is reasonable to assume that a subunit of these viruses likewise will not cause adverse human health effects. D. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. a. Food. Asgrow believes that the use of viral coat protein-mediated resistance will not result in any new dietary exposure to plant viruses. Entire infectious particles of Cucumber Mosaic Virus, including the coat protein component, are found in the fruit, leaves and stems of most plants. Virus-infected food plants are and have always been a part of the human and domestic animal food supply. Such food plants and food derived from them have been concumed with no detectable or observed adverse effects to human health, including children and infants. Given this information, Asgrow believes that exposure via the human diet provides a direct and better method of establishing the lack of toxicity versus animal models of toxicity. b. Drinking water. No measurable residues of coat proteins from engineered plant viruses are expected to be in the drinking water. Plant viruses are a natural component of the environment and are present in soil and water. Consequently, Asgrow believes that coat proteins produced as plant-pesticides would represent a negligible addition to those existing in drinking water. 2. Non-dietary exposure. Asgrow believes that non-dietary exposure to engineered coat proteins will be minimal to non-existent because the coat protein is expressed only within the plant tissues. E. Cumulative Exposure Exposure through other pesticides and substances with the common mode of toxicity as this pesticide. Asgrow believes that due to the lack of toxicity/pathogenicity associated with plant viruses or plant viral coat proteins, cumulative effects with other pesticides and substances will be non-existent. [[Page 15689]] F. Safety Determination 1. U.S. population. There is no known toxicity associated with coat proteins from plant viruses. Consequently, a safety assessment is not needed for these proteins. Given the long history of mammalian consumption of the entire plant virus particle in foods, without any adverse human health effects, Asgrow reasonable believes that consumption of a noninfectious component of the CMV plant virus is safe. There are no known data that indicate aggregate exposure to plant viral coat proteins under normal conditions will result in harm to any person. 2. Infants and children. Viral coat proteins are ubiquitious in foods, including those foods consumed by infants and children. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that plant viral coat proteins are likely to occur in different amounts in foods, consumed by children and infants. Further, there is no scientific evidence that viral coat proteins used as plant-pesticides would have a different effect on children that on adults. Viral coat proteins are not toxic and, therefore, Asgrow believes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to coat proteins from plant viruses. G. Existing Tolerances No tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been previously granted for CMV coat protein. H. International Tolerance No international tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been previously granted for CMV coat protein. Asgrow Seed Company concludes that plant viruses, including CMV coat proteins, are not harmful to humans, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to Coat Protein of Cucumber Mosaic Virus and the genetic material necessary for its production, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures. Accordingly, Asgrow believes that the CMV coat protein qualifies for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities. 3. Cornell University PP 7F4813 EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP) 7F4813 from Cornell University. The petition proposes, pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant-pesticide Coat Protein of Papaya Ringspot Virus and the genetic material necessary for its production in or on all raw agricultural commodities. A. Proposed Use Practices Recommended application method and rate(s), frequency of application, and timing of application. Cornell University states that because the inserted genes are under the control of a constitutive promoter, the coat proteins will be continuously produced by the plant and not applied externally. In information accompanying the seeds that are sold or provided to commercial growers, the resistance of the resulting plants to Papaya ringspot Virus will be described. However, no special instructions for use will be necessary. Appropriate cultural practices will be determined by individual growers, as they are for all other plant varieties. B. Product Identity/Chemistry 1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. Cornell University states that the pesticide is a chimeric virus coat protein that is produced by the transgenic papaya. The coat protein that is produced consist of 16 amino acids from the cucumber mosaic virus coat protein and the coat protein of papaya ringspot virus which consist of 289 amino acids. The molecular weight of the chimeric coat protein is 34,511. 2. Magnitude of residue anticipated at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. Cornell University states that the viral coat protein is expressed in plant tissues, and therefore, is not a residue in the same manner as a pesticide applied externally to growing crop plants. Cornell University does not expect any measurable residue of the engineered viral coat protein to remain on or in transformed raw agricultural commodities (RACs). 3. A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. The ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunoabsorbent Assay) test can be used to determine expression levels of viral coat proteins in transformed plants, fruits and leaves. However, because the Agency proposes to exempt all plant virus coat proteins from the requirement of a tolerance, Cornell University believes that an analytical method for detecting and measuring the levels of viral coat proteins in or on all RACs is not required for enforcement purposes. C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile Viral Coat Proteins are substances that viruses produce during a plant infection to encapsulate and protect their genetic material. When the genetic material encoding the coat protein for a plant virus is introduced into a plant's genome, the plant is able to resist subsequent infections by that same virus as will as strains closely related to the donor virus. Virus-infected plants currently are and have always been a part of both the human and domestic animal food supply, and Cornell University agrees with EPA's finding that plant viruses are not known to be harmful to humans (59 FR 60519-60535, November 23, 1994). All available data from the scientific literature indicates that plant viruses are not toxic to humans or other vertebrates. Additionally, plant viruses are unable to replicate in mammals or other veterbrates, eliminating the possibility of human infection. This has been shown by injections of purified whole virus into laboratory animals to develop antibodies for ELISA tests. More importantly, however, this tolerance exemption will apply to that portion of the viral genome coding for the whole coat protein and any subcomponent of the coat protein expressed in the plant. This component alone is incapable of forming infectious particles. Because whole intact plant viruses are not known to cause deleterious human health effects, Cornell University believes that it is reasonable to assume that a subunit of these viruses likewise will not cause adverse human health effects. D. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. a. Food. Cornell University believes that the use of viral coat protein-mediated resistance will not result in any new dietary exposure to plant viruses. Entire infectious particles of Papaya Ringspot Virus, including the coat protein component, are found in the fruit, leaves and stems of most plants. Virus-infected food plants are and have always been a part of the human and domestic animal food supply. Such food plants and food derived from them have been consumed with no detectable or observed adverse effects to human health, including children and infants. Given this information, Cornell Unversity believes that exposure via the human diet provides a direct and better method of establishing the lack of toxicity versus animal models of toxicity. b. Drinking water. No measurable residues of coat proteins from engineered plant viruses are expected to [[Page 15690]] be in the drinking water. Plant viruses are a natural component of the environment and are present in soil and water. Consequently, Cornell University believes that coat proteins produced as plant-pesticides would represent a negligible addition to those existing in drinking water. 2. Non-dietary exposure. Cornell University believes that non- dietary exposure to engineered coat proteins will be minimal to non- existent because the coat protein is expressed only within the plant tissues. E. Cumulative Exposure Exposure through other pesticides and substances with the common mode of toxicity as this pesticide. Cornell University believes that due to the lack of toxicity/pathogenicity associated with plant viruses or plant viral coat proteins, cumulative effects with other pesticides and substances will be non-existent. F. Safety Determination 1. U.S. population. There is no known toxicity associated with coat proteins from plant viruses. Consequently, a safety assessment is not needed for these proteins. Given the long history of mammalian consumption of the entire plant virus particle in foods, without any adverse human health effects, Cornell University reasonably believes that consumption of a noninfectious component of the PRV plant virus is safe. There are no known data that indicate aggregate exposure to plant viral coat proteins under normal conditions will result in harm to any person. 2. Infants and children. Viral coat proteins are ubiquitious in foods, including those foods consumed by infants and children. Moreover, there is not reason to believe that plant viral coat proteins are likely to occur in different amounts in foods, consumed by children and infants. Further, there is no scientific evidence that viral coat proteins used as plant-pesticides would have a different effect on children that on adults. Viral coat proteins are not toxic and, therefore, Cornell University believes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to coat proteins from plant viruses. G. Existing Tolerances No tolerance or exemption from tolerance has been previously granted for PRV coat protein. H. International Tolerance International tolerance levels for Papaya Ringspot Virus Coat Protein have not been determined. However, papaya fruit from trees infected with papaya ringspot virus are consumed by numerous people throughout the world. Cornell University concludes that plant viruses, including PRV coat proteins, are not harmful to humans, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to Coat Protein of Papaya Ringspot Virus and the genetic material necessary for its production, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures. Accordingly, Cornell University believes that the PRV coat protein qualifies for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities. [FR Doc. 97-8396 Filed 4-1-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F