[Federal Register: September 29, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 188)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55870-55875]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29se03-23]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-2003-0256; FRL-7328-8]
Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus; Exemption from the Requirement
of a Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus
(IMMGV) in or on all food commodities when applied/used in accordance
with approved label rates and good agricultural practices. AgriVir, LLC
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of IMMGV.
DATES: This regulation is effective September 29, 2003. Objections and
requests for hearings, identified by docket identification number OPP-
2003-0256, must be received on or before November 28, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted
electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit IX. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonard Cole, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5412; e-mail address: cole.leonard@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
[sbull] Crop production (NAICS code 111)
[sbull] Animal production (NAICS code 112)
[sbull] Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
[sbull] Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0256. The
official public docket consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials
that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and
Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/http://.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml --00/Title --40/40cfr180 --00.html,
a beta site currently under development.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket ID number.
II. Background and Statutory Findings
In the Federal Register of July 30, 2003 (68 FR 447804) (FRL-7319-
7), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), as amended by FQPA (Public Law 104-170), announcing the filing
of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 3F6736) by AgriVir, LLC, 1901 L
Street, NW., Suite 250, Washington, DC 20036. This notice included a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner AgriVir, LLC. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1218 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of IMMGV.
III. Risk Assessment
New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the 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
[[Page 55871]]
``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the 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 of the FFDCA (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. . . . '' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the
FFDCA requires that 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 performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
IV. Toxicological Profile
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA
has also considered available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
including infants and children.
Based on the toxicology data cited and the limited exposure to
humans and domestic animals, there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to IMMGV to the U.S.
population including infants and children to residues of IMMGV when
used as viral pest control agent to control the Indian Meal Moth on all
food commodities. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and
all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency
has arrived at this conclusion based on the long history of research,
use and safety of testing baculoviruses which is documented in the
public scientific literature (Refs. 1-5). IMMGV is a naturally
occurring organism to which some environmental and dietary exposure is
likely to be common for most individuals. The conclusion of safety is
further supported by the lack of toxic or pathogenic effects on test
animals at high doses (data submitted by the registrant, MRID numbers
453070-01, 450662-07, and 450662-08). Baculoviruses have been described
in the scientific literature for approximately 40 years. In addition to
their natural occurrence, these viruses have a long history of safe use
as bioinsecticides. Baculoviruses have been studied extensively in both
laboratory and field experiments, which have shown that the virus host
range is limited to arthropods. IMMGV has been shown to be very
restricted in its insect host range. No toxicological or pathogenic
effects produced by the baculovirus itself, have been observed in
mammals, birds, fish or plants. The lack of mammalian toxicity at high
levels of exposure to IMMGV demonstrates the safety of the product at
levels well above maximum possible exposure levels anticipated in the
crops. There has been a significant amount of research performed on
baculoviruses and numerous scientific references are available which
describe the biology of these viruses, their host range, and their mode
of action. Toxicity studies submitted in support of this tolerance
exemption include the following:
1. Acute oral toxicity/pathogenicity (453070-01). Thirteen male
(254-321 grams (g)) and 13 female (160-208g) albino rats were divided
into three groups and treated with 0.1 milliliter (mL) of the test
substance. Treatment was administered by oral gavage with at least 1 x
10\8\ viral particles per animal. No deaths occurred in any of the test
animals. Other than diarrhea during the first few hours following
dosing, there were no other apparent clinical symptoms. Based upon the
data there were no significant adverse effects reported upon doses of
at least 1 x 10\8\ viral capsules. The toxicity category was deemed
Toxicity Category IV.
2. In vitro mammalian cell viral infectivity in mammalian cells
(450662-08). Human WI-38 and WS1 cell cultures and African green monkey
CV-1 cell cultures were exposed to 1 x 10\6\ units of the test
substance. The cell cultures were observed daily for 21 days following
inoculation for virus induced cytopathic effects. The test preparation
was shown to be highly infectious and cytopathic to the target Plodia
interpunctella larva. No differences were seen between the virus
treated nor the solvent treated control cell cultures with respect to
any cytopathic endpoint at any time post-inoculation. Based on the
data, there was no evidence that the virus could infect any of the
three mammalian cell lines.
3. In vitro mammalian cell viral induced cytotoxicity (450662-07).
Human WI-38 and WS1 cell cultures and African green monkey CV-1 cell
cultures were exposed to 1 x 10\6\ units of IMMGV technical (IMMGV) for
1 hour. The cell cultures were then washed, refed with virus-free
medium, incubated for 8 days, fixed, stained and the number of colonies
counted. The test preparation was shown to be highly infectious and
cytopathic to the target Plodia interpunctella larva although analysis
determined that the actual number of viral capsules used was only 42%
of the target value. No differences were seen between the virus treated
and the solvent treated control cell cultures with respect to cloning
efficiency in any of the three cell lines. Based on the data, there was
no evidence that the test substance was cytotoxic to any of the three
mammalian cell lines.
4. Acute eye irritation (450662-09). The test substance was
instilled in the eyes of four males and two female adult New Zealand
albino rabbits at approximately 0.04 g/eye ([tilde]7.14 x 10\9\ viral
capsules). Animals were acclimated for 11 days and before treatment
their eyes were checked for normalcy using ophthalmic fluorescein and
an ultraviolet (UV) lamp. The right eye of each animal was treated and
the other eye served as a control. No deaths occurred. Clinical signs
noted included conjunctivitis, corneal opacity and iritis, all of which
cleared within 4 days of treatment. The toxicity from this study was
deemed Toxicity Category IV.
5. Data waivers. Data waivers were requested for the following
studies:
i. Acute dermal toxicity. This study was waived based upon the lack
of toxicity in animals dosed orally (453070-01) and more importantly
cells inoculated with viral pest control agent (450662-07 and 450662-
08). Cell culture infectivity and cytoxicity assays demonstrated that
there were no toxic effects to mammalian cell lines (human lung, human
endothelial and primate renal cell lines) when innoculated with doses
of IMMGV. Cell culture assays provide valuable information on the
ability of the viral pest control agent to infect, replicate in,
transform or cause toxicity in mammalian cell lines. Thus, this assay
is the most likely indicator of evaluating the toxicity of a viral pest
control agent. Unlike the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of
exposure, these barriers (exposure conditions) do not exist in cell
culture assays as the host cell is completely exposed, thus,
[[Page 55872]]
providing a higher exposure scenario (for exposure of body tissues,
organs and systems). Cell culture studies which demonstrate no toxicity
to mammalian cell lines upon inoculation with the viral pest control
agent can therefore be used as an indicator in determining the
probability of toxicity to the viral pest control agent via other
routes of exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation). Therefore, this
evaluation criteria along with the data submitted (referenced above)
and the long history of safe use of baculoviruses provided the Agency
with a scientific rationale to waive the requirement for an acute
dermal toxicity study. In addition, the IMMGV is a characteristically
large molecular entity and is therefore unable to penetrate intact
skin. However, in the unlikely event that viral penetration does occur
through contact with broken skin, the studies submitted by the
registrant have demonstrated a lack of toxicity/pathogenicity and
infectivity associated with IMMGV.
ii. Acute inhalation toxicity. This study was waived based upon the
lack of toxicity in animals dosed orally (453070-01) and, more
importantly cells inoculated with the viral pest control agent (450662-
07 and 450662-08). Cell culture infectivity and cytoxicity assays
demonstrated that there were no toxic effects to mammalian cell lines
(human lung, human endothelial and primate renal cell lines) when
infected with doses of IMMGV. Cell culture assays provide valuable
information on the ability of the viral pest control agent to infect,
replicate in, transform or cause toxicity in mammalian cell lines.
Thus, this assay is the most likely indicator of evaluating the
toxicity of a viral pest control agent. Unlike the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure, these barriers (exposure conditions) do
not exist in cell culture assays as the host cell is completely exposed
thus providing a higher exposure scenario (for exposure of body
tissues, organs and systems). Cell culture studies which demonstrate no
toxicity to mammalian cell lines upon infection with the viral pest
control agent can therefore be used as an indicator in determining the
probability of toxicity to the viral pest control agent via other
routes of exposure (oral, dermal and inhalation). Therefore, this
evaluation criteria along with the data submitted (referenced above)
and the long history of safe use of baculoviruses provided the Agency
with a scientific rationale to waive the requirement for an acute
inhalation toxicity study. In addition, the product labeling includes
precautionary language for the pesticide handler to use a dust mask as
a further measure of safety.
iii. Primary dermal irritation. This study was waived based upon
the lack of toxicity in animals dosed orally (453070-01) and, more
importantly cells inoculated with viral pest control agent (450662-07
and 450662-08). Cell culture infectivity and cytoxicity assays
demonstrated that there were no toxic effects to mammalian cell lines
(human lung, human endothelial and primate renal cell lines) when
infected with doses of IMMGV. Cell culture assays provide valuable
information on the ability of the viral pest control agent to infect,
replicate in, transform or cause toxicity in mammalian cell lines.
Thus, this assay is the most likely indicator of evaluating the
toxicity of a viral pest control agent. Unlike the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure, these barriers (exposure conditions) do
not exist in cell culture assays as the host cell is completely exposed
thus providing a higher exposure potential (for exposure of body
tissues, organs and systems). Cell culture studies which demonstrate no
toxicity to mammalian cell lines upon infection with the viral pest
control agent can therefore be used as an indicator in determining the
probability of toxicity to the viral pest control agent via other
routes of exposure (oral, dermal and inhalation). Therefore, this
evaluation criteria along with the data submitted (referenced above)
and the long history of safe use of baculoviruses provided the Agency
with a scientific rationale to waive the requirement for an acute
dermal toxicity study. In addition, the product labeling includes
precautionary language for the pesticide handler to wear gloves as a
further measure of safety.
iv. Literature citations (450662-06). Information from the open
scientific literature has been cited in support of the relative safety
and lack of mammalian toxicity associated with baculoviruses, including
the IMMGV. The IMMGV is very host-specific, it does not infect any host
other than the Indian meal moth larvae and does not cross-infect any
Lepidopteran or other insect. The range for the insect host is
worldwide. Studies listed in the literature review provide information
on the life cycle and mode of action of IMMGV such that it acts by
pathogenicity, not a toxic mechanism. It presents no hazard potential
to mammals and non-target species.
V. Aggregate Exposures
In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
A. Dietary Exposure
1. Food. Because baculoviruses are naturally occurring organisms,
there is a great likelihood for previous exposure for most, if not all
individuals. To date, there have been no reports of any
hypersensitivity incidents or reports of any known adverse reactions
resulting from exposure to IMMGV. The amount of product used will
result in a negligible increase, if any, of virus exposure. In
addition, even if there is a significant increase in exposure to the
virus, the toxicity studies submitted by the registrant along with the
extensive reports in the scientific literature indicating the safety of
the viruses, suggest that there should not be any additional risk of
adverse effects due to exposure to IMMGV.
2. Drinking water exposure. Because of the use site and amount of
product that will be applied, potential non-occupational exposures in
drinking water is negligible. Currently, there are no reports which
show that IMMGV has been found in any drinking water. Baculoviruses
occur naturally in soil and there is a low likelihood that they would
survive passage through the soil to reach underground water (Ref. 1,
MRID 450662-06). Even if the virus is able to reach ground water, it is
highly unlikely that the viruses would survive municipal water
treatment due to its inability to survive outside its host. Therefore,
it is not likely there will be an increase of IMMGV in drinking water.
In addition, because the virus host range is limited to the Indian meal
moth, the results of the acute oral toxicity studies using a high dose
of the virus, suggest that there will not be any adverse effects upon
human consumption in the unlikely event any virus found its way into
drinking water, therefore; the Agency has no drinking water exposure
concerns.
B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure
Baculoviruses are naturally occurring viruses that have been
described in the scientific literature for approximately 40 years. In
addition to scientific research, there has been a long history of safe
use of baculoviruses to control arthropods. Because the amount of virus
which will be applied is small, it is not likely that there will be a
significant increase in potential exposure. Any increase in virus titer
is likely to be negligible at
[[Page 55873]]
most. Baculoviruses have been shown to have a host range limited to
arthropods and the host range of this virus is even more restrictive
than most baculoviruses (Ref. 1, MRID 450662-06). Therefore, even if
there was an increase in exposure, there should not be any increase in
potential human health effects.
VI. Cumulative Effects
The Agency has considered available information on the cumulative
effects of such residues and other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity. These considerations included the cumulative
effects on infants and children of such residues and other substances
with a common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no indication of
mammalian toxicity to this or other baculovirus-containing products,
the Agency is confident that there will not be cumulative effects from
the registration of this product.
VII. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children
1. U.S. population. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the U.S. population from
exposure to residues of IMMGV. This includes all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the
long history of safe use of baculoviruses as bioinsecticides, the lack
of mammalian toxicity associated with IMMGV, the limited host range of
the virus and the inability of IMMGV to infect mammalian cell lines.
2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure (MOE) (safety) for
infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for
prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base
unless EPA determines that a different MOE will be safe for infants and
children. MOEs are often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors.
In this instance, based on all the available information, the Agency
concludes that IMMGV is practically non-toxic to mammals, including
infants and children and that they will consume only minimal, if any,
residues of the microbial pesticide. Thus, there are no threshold
effects of concern and, as a result, the provision requiring an
additional margin of safety does not apply. Further, the provisions of
consumption patterns, special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do
not apply.
As a result, EPA has not used a MOE approach to assess the safety
of the IMMGV.
VIII. Other Considerations
A. Endocrine Disruptors
There are no reports or indications in the available scientific
literature that suggests that Indian meal moth granulosis virus has
caused or has the potential to cause adverse effects on the endocrine
and/or immune systems of humans or animals. The virus host range is
limited to the Indian meal moth, where it would be expected to affect
the defense systems of the target insect pest. The target insect's
response is not different from any animal's response to a disease
agent. These suppositions are confirmed by the results of the
mammailian toxicity tests cited above.
B. Analytical Method(s)
The Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance without any numerical limitation for the reasons stated
above. For the same reasons, the Agency has concluded that an
analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for the
IMMGV.
C. Codex Maximum Residue Level
There are no Codex Maximum Residue Levels established for residues
of the IMMGV.
IX. Objections and Hearing Requests
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object '' to a regulation for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section
408(d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of
the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days,
rather than 30 days.
A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0256 in the subject line on the
first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November
28, 2003.
1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as 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.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall 2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is
open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is
(703) 603-0061.
2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a
hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i) or
request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33(m). You must
mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office
of Pesticide Programs, P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please
identify the fee submission by labeling it ``Tolerance Petition Fees.''
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement ``when in the
judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and
not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional
information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov,
or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
[[Page 55874]]
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection
fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins,
Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in Unit I.B.1. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number OPP-2003-0256, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and
Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the
PIRIB described in Unit I.B.1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov. Please use an ASCII
file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.
B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
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(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).
X. References
1. Consigili, R.A., D.L., Russell and M.E. Wilson. 1986. The
biochemistry and molecular biology of the granulosis virus that infects
plodia interpunctella. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology
131:69-101.
2. Doller, G. 1985. The safety of insect virus as biological
control agents. In ``Viral Insecticides for Biolocial Control'' (Eds.
Maramorosch, K. and Sherman, H.G.), Academic Press, New York: 399.
3. Groner, A. 1986. Specificity and safety of baculoviruses. In
``The Biology of Baculoviruses Vol. I: Biological Properties and
Molecular Biology'' (Eds. Granados, R.D. and Federici, B.A.), CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida: 177-202).
4. Heimpel, A.M. 1971. Safety of insect pathogens for man and
vertebrates. In ``Microbial Control of Insects and Mites'' (Eds.
Burges, H.D. and Hussey, N.W.), Academic Press, New York: 469-489.
5. Hunter, D.K. 1970. Pathogenicity of a granulosis virus of the
Indian meal moth. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 16:339-341.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance
requirement under section 408(d) of the FFDCA 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). 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) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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 of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications''
as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.
[[Page 55875]]
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
XII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 22, 2003.
Janet L. Andersen
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
0
2. Section 180.1218 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1218 Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the microbial pesticide Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus
when used in or on all food commodities.
[FR Doc. 03-24563 Filed 9-26-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S