38550 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[PF–947; FRL–6589–5]

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 certain

pesticide chemicals in or on various

food commodities.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket

control number PF–947, must be

received on or before July 21, 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–947 in the subject

line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Driss Benmhend, Biopesticides

and Pollution Prevention Division

(7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel

Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 308–9525; e-mail address:

benmhend.drissa@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:

CategoriesNAICS

codes

Examples of 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–

947. 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–947 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

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–947. 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.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Notices 38551

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: May 31, 2000.

Janet L. Andersen,

Director, Biopesticides Pollution and

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

Summary of Petition

The petitioner summary of the

pesticide petition is printed below as

required by section 408(d)(3) of the

FFDCA. 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.

EPA has received a pesticide petition

0F6144 from BioTechnologies for

Horticulture, Inc., 100 Independence

Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106–

2399, 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

biochemical pesticide 1-

methylcyclopropene (1–MCP).

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of

the FFDCA, as amended,

BioTechnologies for Horticulture, Inc.

(BTH) has submitted the following

summary of information, data, and

arguments in support of their pesticide

petition. This summary was prepared by

BioTechnologies for Horticulture, Inc.

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.

BioTechnologies for Horticulture, Inc.

0F6144

A. Product Name and Proposed Use

Practices

1–MCP has a non-toxic mode of

action. 1–MCP acts as an inhibitor of the

natural plant hormone ethylene by

blocking the attachment of ethylene to

the ethylene receptor in flowers and

post-harvested fruits and vegetables

thereby counteracting many of the

deleterious effects of ethylene. 1–MCP

works by blocking the effects from both

internal and external sources of

ethylene. 1–MCP does not function by

directly harming target organisms.

1–MCP is very effective at

counteracting many of the undesirable

effects of ethylene on harvested fruits

and vegetables, like accelerating

ripening and softening of climacteric

fruit, accelerated de-greening and

softening of non-climacteric fruit,

accelerated senescence and loss of green

color in fresh cut vegetables, russet

spotting of lettuce, abscission of leaves,

and physiological disorders in fruits.

1–MCP treatments of post-harvested

fruit and vegetables will occur indoors

in enclosed areas, and are expected to

occur mostly in commercial food storage

facilities, a number of which are

controlled atmosphere facilities which

utilize relatively low levels of oxygen

and relatively high levels of carbon

dioxide.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

1. Identity of the pesticide and

corresponding residues. EthylBloc

technology is a powdered end-use

product containing 0.14% 1–MCP active

ingredient. 1–MCP is released as a gas

when EthylBloc product is added to

water. EPA has classified 1–MCP as a

plant growth regulator structurally

related to naturally occurring plantcontaining materials, and eligible for a

reduced data set requirement. 1–MCP is

regulated by the EPA’s Biopesticides

and Pollution Prevention Division

(BPPD), and EthylBloc is currently

registered to BTH for indoor use on

flowers, potted plants, and bedding

(EPA Reg. No. 71297–1).

2. Magnitude of residue at the time of

harvest the method used to determine

the residue. Estimates of residues of 1–

MCP found in foodstuffs following

treatment with EthylBloc are projected

to be extremely low, below reasonable

quantifiable concentrations. Low

concentrations of 1–MCP passively

diffuse in and out of plant tissues and,

like naturally occurring ethylene, bind

to ethylene receptors. A reasonable

worst case estimate of 1–MCP present in

plant tissue at any one time can be

calculated by assuming that all ethylene

receptors in the plant are occupied by

1–MCP. The concentration of ethylene

binding sites in plant vegetative tissue

range from 1.9 x 10-9 to 6.8 x 10-9 moles/

kilograms (mol/kg) fresh weight for the

leaf portion of plants, and 3.2 x 10-11 to

7.0 x 10-11 mol/kg fresh weight for the

edible portion of plants (e.g., apple pulp

and tomato fruit). An estimate of 1–MCP

residues (molecular weight 54 g/mole)

in the leaf and edible portions of plants

can be determined as follows:

Leaf:

6.8 x 10-9 moles/kg x 54 g/mole x 1.0

(100% sites) = 0.00000037 g/kg (0.37

parts per billion (ppb))

Edible portion:

7.0 x 10-11 moles/kg x 54 g/mole x 1.0

(100% sites) = 0.000000004 g/kg (0.004

ppb)

Assuming that 1–MCP occupies all

ethylene binding sites in a plant, the

quantitative estimates indicate that only

0.37 ppb 1–MCP residues could be

retained in the plant tissue, and

considerably less than this (0.004 ppb)

could be retained in the edible portion

of the fruit. In addition, these

calculations may have overestimated the

actual residue concentrations that

consumers would be potentially

exposed to, since there would be a finite

time between post-harvest treatment of

fruits and vegetables and the arrival of

the food commodities at the consumer’s

table. This additional time period would

38552 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Notices

allow 1–MCP to diffuse off ethylene

receptors and out of the plant tissue.

Given that the estimates of 1–MCP

residues would conservatively range

between 0.004 and 0.4 ppb, standard

residue methods, which normally have

a limit of detection of about 10 ppb, will

not have the sensitivity to measure 1–

MCP residues. The detection limit for

the analysis of 1–MCP in the end-use

EthylBloc formulation is 10 ppb (MRID

444647–02). The predicted residues of

1–MCP in food are low and well below

reasonable analytical detection limits.

Further evidence of very low

predicted 1–MCP residue levels is

obtained from preliminary studies that

measured airborne 1–MCP

concentrations in food chambers having

sizes of approximately one cubic meter

or greater. The collective results of these

studies indicate that 1–MCP remains

present in the air at or near nominal

levels over the 6 to 24 hr exposure

periods, and imply that 1–MCP does not

non-specifically bind to the food in the

storage rooms. This supports the above

arguments that very low residues of 1–

MCP would be expected on food treated

with 1–MCP. Even if one assumed a

10% deposition rate of the airborne 1–

MCP on the stored food, which is the

variability of the measured results, only

0.9 ppb 1–MCP would be calculated to

be on/in the apples. Finally, in the

extreme worst case, if one assumed that

all (100%) of the 1–MCP in the chamber

was on the food, which is not possible

given the above measurements of 1–

MCP in the storage room air, then only

9 ppb 1–MCP would be calculated to be

in/on the apples.

Overall, there is no reasonable

expectation of detectable residues of 1–

MCP on food commodities following

post-harvest treatment with EthylBloc.

3. Analytical method. A statement of

why an analytical method for detecting

and measuring the levels of the

pesticide residue are not needed. An

analytical method for residues of 1–

MCP is not applicable, as this document

proposes an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity. Since 1–MCP is a

gas at room temperature, most acute

toxicity studies were conducted with

EthylBloc end-use product. EthylBloc

exhibits low acute toxicity. The rat oral

LD50 is greater than 5,000 milligrams/

kilograms (mg/kg) product, and the

rabbit dermal LD50 is greater than 2,000

mg/kg product. In addition, EthylBloc

is not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs,

shows no dermal irritation in rabbits,

and shows mild-to-moderate ocular

irritation in rabbits. No mortalities or

any toxic effects were observed in a rat

acute inhalation toxicity study

conducted with 165 parts per million

(ppm) 1–MCP in the air.

2. Genotoxicity. Short-term assays for

genotoxicity consisting of a bacterial

reverse mutation assay (Ames test), a

mouse lymphoma forward mutation

assay, and a mouse in vivo

micronucleus assay have been

conducted using EthylBloc end-use

product as the test material. These

studies showed a lack of genotoxicity

for EthylBloc/1–MCP.

3. Other tests. No additional

mammalian toxicity testing has been

conducted. BTH has requested waivers

from the requirements to submit further

mammalian toxicity studies on the basis

of the favorable toxicological profile for

EthylBloc, its non-toxic mode of action

(i.e., ethylene receptor binding), its low

use rates (30–1,000 ppb v/v 1–MCP in

air), its predicted low residue levels

(0.004–0.4 ppb), and the predicted

insignificant levels of exposure based on

the confined nature of the proposed use

(i.e., indoor use in enclosed chambers

some of which will contain very low

oxygen levels which absolutely

necessitates no entry). No data were

found in the literature that would

indicate EthylBloc or 1–MCP has any

adverse effects on mammals or wildlife.

No incidents of hypersensitivity or any

other adverse effects have been observed

in individuals handling the material

over the past several years.

D. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Any dietary

exposure resulting from application of

1–MCP would be through food

consumption.

i. Food. Residues in treated fruits and

vegetables are predicted to be low (i.e.,

0.004–0.4 ppb). Residues would be

expected to continue to decline while

treated food items remain in storage,

and after food is removed from storage

and before consumption. Cooking and/

or processing would be expected to

further lower the residues on treated

food.

ii. Drinking water. Since 1–MCP

would only be used indoors in enclosed

storage areas, there is little if any

potential for drinking water exposure.

2. Non-dietary exposure. EthylBloc

is to be used only indoors in enclosed

commercial treatment areas. EthylBloc

is currently registered for use on flowers

also for use indoors and in enclosed

areas. Non-dietary exposure to 1–MCP

via lawn care, topical treatments, etc., is

not expected to occur. Thus, the

potential for non-occupational exposure

to the general population is virtually

non-existent.

E. Cumulative Exposure

EPA is required to consider the

potential for cumulative effects of 1–

MCP and other substances that have a

common mechanism of toxicity.

Consideration of a common mode of

toxicity is not appropriate given that

there is no indication of mammalian

toxicity for 1–MCP and no information

that indicates toxic effects, if any, would

be cumulative with any other

compounds. Since 1–MCP exhibits a

non-toxic mode of action in postharvested fruits and vegetables, it is

appropriate to consider only the

potential risks of 1–MCP in this

exposure assessment.

F. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Since there are no

anticipated residues in drinking water

or from other non-occupational sources,

and no reliable information exists on

cumulative effects due to a common

mechanism of toxicity, the aggregate

exposure to 1–MCP is adequately

represented by the dietary route. The

lack of toxicity of 1–MCP (administered

as EthylBloc end-use product) has

been demonstrated by the results of

acute toxicity testing in mammals in

which EthylBloc end-use product

caused no adverse effects when dosed

orally or dermally, and when 1–MCP

was administered via inhalation.

Anticipated residues in consumed

treated fruits and vegetables are

predicted to be low, below reasonable

levels of analytical detection. Moreover,

1–MCP exhibits close similarity to the

naturally occurring plant hormone

ethylene, and to other plant-based,

naturally occurring cyclopropene and

cyclopropane derivatives. Thus, dietary

exposure to 1–MCP should pose

negligible risks to human health.

2. Infants and children. Based on the

lack of toxicity and low exposure, there

is a reasonable certainty that no harm to

infants, children, or adults will result

from aggregate exposure to 1–MCP

residues. Exempting 1–MCP from the

requirement of tolerances should pose

no significant risk to humans or the

environment.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine

Systems

BTH has no information to suggest

that 1–MCP will adversely affect the

immune or endocrine systems.

H. Existing Tolerances

There are no other established U.S.

tolerances or exemptions from

tolerances for 1–MCP.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Notices 38553

I. International Tolerances

No maximum residue levels have

been established for phosphorous 1–

MCP by Codex Alimentarius

Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–15166 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

June 14, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 21, 2000. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW, DC 20554 or via the Internet

to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0465.

Title: Section 74.985, Signal Booster

Stations.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 6,300.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5

minutes (.084 hours) to 5 hours.

Frequency of Response:

Recordkeeping requirement, third party

disclosure requirement, and on occasion

reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 919 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $2,252,500.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.985

requires signal booster stations to: (1)

Submit engineering data or showings in

specified forms to the FCC’s duplicating

contractor for public service records

duplication; (2) to serve a copy of

application (FCC Form 331) and

accompanying engineering materials on

affected co-channel or adjacent channel

parties; and (3) to retain a copy of the

application at the transmitter site. The

data are sued to ensure that MDS and

ITFS applicants and licensees have

considered properly the potential for

harmful interference from their

facilities.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0027.

Title: Application for construction

Permit for Commercial Broadcast

Station.

Form No.: FCC Form 301.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3,370.

Estimated Time Per Response: 37—

121 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party

disclosure requirement, and on occasion

reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 7,427 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $35,485,300.

Needs and Uses: On January 20, 2000,

the Commission adopted a Report and

Order in MM Docket Nos. 98–204 and

96–16, which modified the

Commission’s broadcast and cable EEO

rules and policies consistent with the

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in the

Luther Church matter. The new EEO

rules ensure equal employment

opportunity in the broadcast industry

through vigorous outreach and

prevention and prevention of

discrimination. With the adoption of

this Report and Order, the Commission

reinstates the requirement that

broadcast applicants file the FCC Form

396–A at the time they file an

application for a new construction

permit. The Commission revised the

FCC Form 301 to add a question to

advise respondents that they are

required to submit the FCC Form 396–

A at the time they apply for a new

construction permit. The data is used by

the Commission to determine whether

an applicant meets basic statutory

requirements to become a Commission

licensee and to ensure that the public

interest would be served by grant of the

application.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15577 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Notice of Agency Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that

at 12:01 p.m. on Friday, June 16, 2000,

the Board of Directors of the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation met in

closed session to consider matters

relating to the Corporation’s resolution

activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board

determined on motion of Vice

ChairmanAndrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded

by Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director,

Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred

in by Ms. Leann G. Britton, acting in the

place and stead of Director John D.

Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the

Currency), and Chairman Donna

Tanoue, that Corporation business

required its consideration of the matters

on less than seven days’ notice to the

public; that no earlier notice of the

meeting was practicable; that the public

interest did not require consideration of

the matters in a meeting open to the

public observation; and that the matters

could be considered in a closed meeting

by authority of subsections (c)(6), (c)(8),

(c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii),

and (c)(9)(B)).

The meeting was held in the Board

Room of the FDIC Building located at

550–17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Dated: June 16, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Valerie J. Best,

Assistant Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–15765 Filed 6–19–00; 12:59 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M