Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for Certain Pesticide Chemicals in or on Food

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
 [Federal Register: July 7, 2000 (Volume 1, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 41984-41988]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy00-63]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[PF-940; FRL-6556-8]


Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance
for Certain Pesticide Chemicals in or on Food

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a
certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number PF-940, must be
received on or before August 7, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as
provided in Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket
control number PF-940 in the subject line on the first page of your
response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  By mail: Linda Hollis, Biopesticides
and Pollution Prevention Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
308-8733; e-mail address: hollis.linda@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Examples of
           Categories                 NAICS codes         potentially
                                                       affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                          111                 Crop production
                                  112                 Animal production
                                  311                 Food manufacturing
                                  32532               Pesticide
                                                       manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the table could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have
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 Additional Information, Including Copies of this
Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document, and certain other related documents that might be available
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/.
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the
``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for
this action under docket control number PF-940. The official record
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other
information related to this action, including any information claimed
as confidential business information (CBI). This official record
includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as
well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The
public version of the official record does not include any information
claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which
includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted
during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or
electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket control number PF-940 in the subject line on the
first page of your response.
    1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division
(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460.
    2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources
and Services

[[Page 41985]]

Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone
number is (703) 305-5805.
    3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by
e-mail to: ``opp-docket@epa.gov,'' or you can submit a computer disk as
described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you
consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect 6.1/
8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be
identified by docket control number PF-940. Electronic comments may
also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency?

    Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to
be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to
this document as CBI 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. In addition to one complete
version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the
official record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If
you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this
notice.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first
page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the
establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain
pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.
EPA has determined that this petition contains 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 granting of the petition. Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petition

    Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended,
AgriVir, LLC has submitted the following summary of information, data,
and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was
prepared by AgriVir, LLC and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of
the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the
terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous
material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that
the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the
petitioner.

AgriVir, LLC

OF6113

    EPA has received a pesticide petition 0F6113 from AgriVir, LLC,
1625 K Street, NW., Washington DC 20006, proposing pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for the microbial pesticide in or on Indian
Meal Moth Granulosis Virus commodity.

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

    The product which contains the microbial pest control agent which
is the subject of the present petition for a tolerance exemption is
``FruitGuard-V'' or ``NutGuard-V'' (these are alternate names for the
same product). This product is a biological insecticide intended to
control Indian meal moth, a serious pest of various stored commodities.
The product will be used as a protectant for stored, dry commodities
such as dried fruits, and nuts, and for crack treatment of facilities
where such commodities are handled.
    The Indian meal moth (IMM), is a serious cosmopolitan pest of dried
commodities. Infestation can occur at any time from harvest to eventual
consumption of the commodity. IMM is estimated to be responsible for
approximately 90% of the damage done to dried fruits and nuts in
storage. In facilities where these types of commodities are handled,
fragments and other debris from the commodities get into cracks,
crevices, and other places and IMM propagates on this material. This
establishes a general infestation and reservoir for the Indian meal
moth in such facilities.
    Control of IMM by FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V is by means of a
naturally occurring microbial pest control agent (MPCA) which is
contained in the product. This MPCA is a granulosis virus (GV) which
infects the larvae of the IMM. This virus is, thus, designated as
Indian Meal Moth Granulosis Virus (IMMGV). The IMMGV contained in
NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V is a naturally occurring isolate of the IMMGV
and has not been genetically modified.
    In FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V, the amount of IMMGV (the MPCA ion in
the product) is very small in terms of weight percent. The bulk of the
product is, in fact, milled wheat bran (96%⁺) and brewers
yeast (ca. 3%) to which have been added some vitamins (0.1%) and
antioxidants (0.4%). All of these carrier ingredients are either OPP
List 4A inerts\1\, are tolerance exempted under 40 CFR 180.1001, and/or
are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) or otherwise approved for
direct food use under 21

[[Page 41986]]

CFR part 184 section 184.1 subpart B pp.446-543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Per U.S. EPA/OPP: ``List 4A inert ingredients are considered
to be minimal risk inert ingredients. List 4A is generally reserved
for those substances that are common foods or substances that are
ubiquitous in nature and are not expected to present a hazard to
human health or the environment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The product is produced as a milled powder and has the physical
appearance of a coarse, off-white to tan powder. Due to the physical
characteristics of the powder and of the milled wheat bran which
constitutes the bulk of the product, this product does have a potential
for producing mild, temporary eye irritation. This has been tested in
an eye irritation study which has been submitted by AgriVir in support
of this application. The product's labeling, therefore, carries a
warning in regard to eye irritation potential.
    1. The product can be applied dry or in water suspension. For the
latter, it is suspended in water at a concentration of from 2 oz to 4
oz per 10 gallons of water. This provides for a sprayable suspension.
    2. The proposed application rate for dried fruits and for nuts is
from 30 grams (1 oz) to 140 grams (5 oz) product/ton of commodity to be
protected.
    3. The proposed application rate for crack, crevice, and surface
spot treatments is from 60 grams (2 oz) to 300 grams (10 oz) product/
100 square feet.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

    1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. This is a
microbial pesticide in which the MPCA is IMMGV. This is a naturally
occurring insect virus which produced a pathogenic condition termed
``granulosis'' in larvae of the IMM. Since IMMGV cannot be propagated
other than in insect larvae, the pesticide product itself consists of
IMMGV viral particles contained in body parts from infected larvae, all
of which is mixed in with the wheat bran diet mixture upon which the
infected larvae were grown. The residues which would result are:
    i. The infected larval parts containing virus.
    ii. The wheat bran larval diet mixture.
    2. Magnitude of residue at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. The rate of application for this pesticide
product is from 1 oz to 5 oz product per ton of treated commodity. The
product contains  0.01% MPCA by weight (expressed
for this purpose as viral particles). The MPCA is not metabolized in or
on the commodity after application. Therefore, at the maximum
application rate, maximum MPCA residues will be 
0.00013% or ( 1.3 parts per billion (ppb)). At
the lower rate of application residues will be less than 0.26 ppb.
    3. Analytical method. A statement of why an analytical method for
detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not
needed. No analytical method is required because:
    i. This application is for a tolerance exemption.
    ii. Any method which could be developed to detect IMMGV at the very
low maximum levels noted above would be a molecular biology method
requiring specialized equipment and procedures not readily available in
enforcement laboratories.
    It is noted that microbial pet control agents which do not trigger
Tier II toxicology concerns do not trigger specific residue chemistry
requirements. A brief summary of the identity of the microbial pest
control agent IMMGV follows:
    AgriVir, LLC has applied to EPA for registration of its microbial
pest control product ``FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V'' (these are alternate
names for the same product). This is a biological insecticide intended
to control IMM, a serious pest of various stored commodities. The IMM,
is a serious cosmopolitan pest of dried commodities. Infestation can
occur at any time from harvest to eventual consumption of the
commodity. IMM is estimated to be responsible for approximately 90% of
the damage done to dried fruits and nuts in storage. In facilities
where these types of commodities are handled, fragments and other
debris from the commodities gets into cracks, crevices, and other
places and IMM propagates on this material. This established a general
infestation and reservoir for the IMM in such facilities.
    Control of IMM by FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V is by means of a
naturally occurring microbial pest control agent (or MPCA) which is
contained in the product.
    The MPCA used in NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V is a Granulosis Virus
which infects the larvae of the IMM. This virus is designated IMMGV in
the balance of this summary. The MPCA contained in NutGuard-V/
FruitGuard-V is a naturally occurring isolate of the IMMGV. It has not
been genetically modified.
    IMMGV has no hosts other than larvae of the IMM and acts by making
the IMM larvae sick, rather than by a toxic mechanism (i.e., IMMGV does
not produce any specific toxin which kills the larvae). IMM larvae
succumb to granulosis disease due to serious damage to one of their
major organs for storage of nutrients.
    The above-cited products are equivalent to a technical grade of
IMMGV. They are prepared without isolation of IMMGV and, as such, the
MPCA which is the subject of the present petition consists, therefore,
of IMMGV occlusion bodies (``viral particles'') and Indian meal moth
larval parts mixed into a production larval diet containing wheat bran,
brewer's yeast, vitamins, methyl paraben, and sorbic acid.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

    The mode of action for IMMGV in its host, the larval stage of P.
interpunctella, is pathogenic in nature. IMMGV produces granulosis
disease in the larvae of P. interpunctella. ``Granulosis'' disease is
so named because cells in infected tissue sections, when observed under
light microscopy, are full of minute, refractile bodies termed
``granules.'' The initial signs of granulosis disease occur several
days after larval ingestion of the viral occlusion bodies and consist
of sluggishness and loss of appetite. These initial signs are followed
by a change in the appearance of the larvae. They are normally light
brown and semilucent, but when infected become opaque and white. This
change is the result of the massive accumulation of viral occlusion
bodies in the fat body of the infected larva. The fat body is the site
of intermediary metabolism in these larvae and it is in the fat body
that fat, protein, and glycogen are primarily stored. The pathogenicity
of IMMGV to the larva results from the mode of viral release from cells
of the fat body. This release occurs by rupture of the cells of the fat
body, thereby leading to degeneration and necrosis of the fat body and,
ultimately, death of the infected larva. The mode of action is distinct
from a toxicity based mode of action. That is, unlike some microbial
pest control agents which produce endo-toxins or exo-toxins which act
to kill the target pest, IMMGV produces no toxins as part of its mode
of action.
    IMMGV is a member of the class of insect viruses known as
baculoviruses. There are two known types of baculoviruses: polyhedrosis
viruses and granulosis viruses. There is currently no baculovirus known
to infect or replicate in any vertebrate host. Among invertebrates,
IMMGV itself has no known host other than larvae of P. interpunctella
and has been shown not to cross-infect lepidopteran or other insects
other than P. interpunctella.
    A number of studies on the toxicity of baculoviruses, inclusive of
granulosis viruses, to animals have shown that these agents produced no
effects on overall health, gross or micro pathology, hematology,
clinical chemistry, and antibody stimulation occur in test animals when
exposure is by the oral, dermal, inhalation, and injection routes

[[Page 41987]]

of exposure and either single exposure or repeated exposure. These
studies have been published in the open literature and were submitted
as part of AgriVir, LLC's petition.
    Cell culture studies (submitted by AgriVir as part of its
submission) have shown that IMMGV which is actively infective and
pathogenic to IMM larva, does not produce cytotoxicity in nor does it
replicate in or produce pathogenicity in human embryonic lung cells,
human embryonic skin cells, and monkey kidney cells. These cell lines
are relevant to the safety assessment of IMMGV with regard to hazard
potential to humans and domestic animals because the first two (lung
and skin) represent tissues which would be the first points of contact
with/attack by IMMGV and the renal line is a representative of an organ
which can receive parenteral exposure and which can easily harbor
infections.
    Due to the physical properties of the final product and of the bran
carrier, the technical MPCA does have a mild, rapidly reversible eye
irritation potential. An eye irritation study has been conducted to
further characterize this potential. It is summarized below.
    Primary eye irritation. Due to the physical properties of the final
product and of the bran carrier, the technical MPCA is expected to have
a mild to moderate, reversible eye irritation potential. This has been
confirmed in a rabbit eye irritation study sponsored by AgriVir, LLC.
Six healthy New Zealand white rabbits (4 males and 2 females) each
received 0.1 mL of the IMMGV product placed into the conjunctival sac
of their right eye. The upper and lower lids were held together for
approximately 1 second. In each test animal, the left eye served as an
untreated control. Ocular irritation was evaluated by the Draize et al.
A 1 hour post-instillation six to six treated eyes showed conjunctival
irritation and one to six showed irritation of the iris. No treated
eyes showed corneal effects at 1 hour post-instillation. The mean
irritation score for treated eyes was 11.5 out of 110 maximum possible.
At 24 hrs, the incidence of treated eyes which exhibited conjunctival
irritation was five to six with one to six showing irritation of the
iris. Also, at 24 hrs three to six treated eyes showed some signs of
corneal opacity. This was grade 1 (scattered or diffuse, details of
iris clearly visible) with respect to intensity and grade 1 with
respect to area (or = to 1/4 of the cornea involved) in each case. The
corneal score in each eye which exhibited corneal opacity was 5 out of
a maximum possible 80 for corneal effects alone. The mean irritation
score at 24 hrs was 8.3 out of a maximum possible 110. At 48 hrs post-
instillation, the incidence of treated eyes which exhibited
conjunctival irritation was one to six with one to six also showing
irritation of the iris. Also, at 48 hrs three to six treated eyes still
showed some signs of corneal opacity (same animals as at 24 hrs). This
was still grade 1 with respect to intensity and grade 1 with respect to
area in each case. The corneal score in each eye which exhibited
corneal opacity was 5 out of a maximum possible 80 for corneal effects
alone. The mean irritation score at 48 hrs was 4.3 out of a maximum
possible 110. By 72 hours post-instillation, no treated eyes exhibited
conjunctival or irineal irritation, but two to six treated eyes still
showed a minimal corneal effect (two of the animals which had exhibited
the same effects at 24 hrs and 48 hrs, still scored 1 for intensity and
1 for area; therefore, 5 out of a possible 80 for each animal). The
mean irritation score at 72 hrs was 1.7 out of a maximum possible 110.
By day 4 (96 hrs) post-instillation, all treated eyes were free of
conjuctival irritation, irineal irritation, and corneal effects. The
mean irritation score at day 4 was 0 out of a maximum possible 110. The
highest mean irritation score reported (11.5 at 1 hour post-
instillation) would be classified as ``mildly'' irritating per the
Draize evaluation method. This score itself would normally be
classified as ``minimally'' irritating, but the absence of complete
resolution by 72 hrs requires a one-level increase in the descriptor.
The fact that the corneal effects seen were minimal in both intensity
and area, were seen in only half of the treated eyes, and resolved
fairly rapidly (by 96 hours) suggests that these were probably due to
simple mechanical abrasion by the solid test article after instillation
into the treated eyes.

D. Aggregate Exposure

    1. Dietary exposure.-- i. Food. The levels of residues in treated
commodities will be very low. The application rates for IMMGV are from
1/5 ounces of formulated (i.e., technical) MPCA per ton of commodity to
be treated. Maximum theoretical residue concentrations will not,
therefore, exceed 1.3 ppb for the MPCA. The types of commodities which
are potentially to be treated with IMMGV represent less than 1% of the
average total daily diet. With a 2 kilograms (kg) total daily diet the
maximum theoretical average dietary exposure to the MPCA is 0.026
(g)/day. Since IMMGV is a naturally occurring insect virus,
there is some, not readily quantifiable, baseline exposure in the daily
diet.
    ii. Drinking water. The proposed use patterns for IMMGV are for
indoor food and non-food uses. Therefore, there is no potential for
drinking water exposure associated with the approval of this petition.
    2. Non-dietary exposure. IMMGV only has pest control utility in the
treatment of commodities for control of IMM. Therefore, the only
potential for non-dietary exposure is to applicators and to mixer/
loaders who will use product containing IMMGV. These non-dietary
exposures are not covered within the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
and they are expected to be low. Information already in EPA's data
bases which had been cited by AgriVir, LLC indicates that workers
involved with baculovirus production and use do not experience adverse
effects as a result of these exposures.

E. Cumulative Exposure

    Due to its mechanism of action and extremely limited host
specificity, it can be reliably stated that IMMGV does not share a
common mechanism of action with any other conventional, biochemical, or
microbial pesticide.

F. Safety Determination

    1. U.S. population. Since the available information reliably
supports that IMMGV will not produce adverse effects in humans of any
age as a result of exposure by ingestion, dermal contact, or
inhalation, AgriVir, LLC concludes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm to the general adult population, including sensitive
individuals, will result from dietary exposure to residues which could
occur as a result of approval of this petition.
    2. Infants and children. Since the available information reliably
supports that IMMGV will not produce adverse effects in humans of any
age as a result of exposure by ingestion, dermal contact, or
inhalation, AgriVir, LLC concludes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm to infants and children will result from dietary exposure
to residues which could occur as a result of approval of this petition.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

    There is no reliable information to indicate that IMMGV has a
potential to produce adverse effects on the immune or endocrine
systems. In fact, the available studies establish that IMMGV is
essentially biologically inactive in any organism other than its
natural host, the larva of the Indian meal moth. Due to the natural
occurrence and endemic

[[Page 41988]]

infestation of dry commodities by the IMM, IMM larval parts and the
IMMGV are historically a part of the human diet (although one of which
most persons are unaware). Animal safety studies on a closely related
granulosis virus (which have been submitted by AgriVir, LLC as part of
the support for its registration application and the present tolerance
exemption petition) showed, that after inhalation exposure of guinea
pigs to an atomized mist containing 2 x 10¹¹ granulosis
virus (GV) particles (``granula'')/L of air, no antibodies to the
granula were observed to form and no changes in blood proteins were
found. Also, there were no signs of toxicity or other adverse effects
noted during the 21-day post-exposure observation period. On pathology,
no irritation of lungs or airways was found. This study further
supports lack of an IMMGV hazard potential with regard to the immune
system. In a different study with the same closely related GV, multiple
dose feeding of a total of 5 x 10¹¹ granula/mouse, divided
into 34 equal doses given every third day over 99 days produced:
    1. No signs of toxicity or other adverse effects.
    2. No effect on hematology parameters when checked at 45 days and
at 99 days.
    3. No remarkable pathology findings on terminal sacrifice.
    4. No evidence for increased chromosome aberrations were found.
This study further supports the lack of an IMMGV hazard potential with
regard to the endocrine system.

H. Existing Tolerances

    There are no existing tolerances for IMMGV (the MPCA). The present
petition is for the establishment of an exemption from a tolerance.
    All of the intentionally added inerts in NutGuard-V/FruitGuard-V
are either OPP List 4A inerts, are tolerances exempted under 40 CFR
180.1001, and/or are GRAS or are otherwise approved for direct food use
under 21 CFR part 184 section 184.1 subpart B pp. 446-543. Therefore,
all of the inert ingredients in FruitGuard-V/NutGuard-V are already
tolerance exempted and/or are cleared for indirect food contact as a
result of their incidental entry into commodities.

I. International Tolerances

    There are no Codex maximum residue levels established for residues
of IMMGV. IMMGV containing products are presently not registered for
pest control outside of the United States.
[FR Doc. 00-17072 Filed 7-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for Certain Pesticide Chemicals in or on Food

Local Navigation
