[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3761]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 18, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[PP 1F3974/R2040; FRL-4757-8]
RIN 2070-AC18

 

Pesticide Tolerances for 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4-Propyl-1,3-
Dioxolan-2-yl]Methyl]-1H-1,2,4-Triazole and its Metabolites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes tolerances for the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2yl-]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole 
and its metabolites, determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and 
expressed as parent compound, in or on the raw agricultural commodities 
grass forage, hay (straw), and seed screenings and kidney and liver of 
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep. This rule to establish the 
maximum permissible levels for residues of propiconazole in or on the 
commodities listed above was requested in petitions submitted by the 
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective January 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written objections, identified by the document control 
number, [PP 1F3974/R2040], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (A-110), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Sidney C. Jackson, Acting 
Product Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division (7505C), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office 
location and telephone number: Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis 
Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-6900.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the 
Federal Register of February 22, 1989 (54 FR 7597), which announced 
that the Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, had 
submitted a pesticide petition (PP 9F3706) to EPA requesting that the 
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), propose to amend 40 CFR 180.434 by 
establishing tolerances for the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites, 
determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent 
compound, in or on the commodities grass hay at 5.0 parts per million 
(ppm) and grass forage at 0.5 ppm. EPA issued a notice, published in 
the Federal Register of April 19, 1989 (54 FR 15802), which announced 
that the petition was subsequently amended by Ciba-Geigy Corp. by 
retaining the previously proposed tolerances for grass hay and grass 
forage while proposing to increase the established tolerance level for 
kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep to 2.0 ppm. 
EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of March 15, 
1989 (54 FR 10715), which announced that Ciba-Geigy amended the 
petition by proposing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide for the 
commodity grass seed screenings at 10 ppm.
    In the Federal Register of June 21, 1989 (54 FR 26044), EPA 
established tolerances, on an interim basis, in 40 CFR 180.434 for 
residues of this chemical in or on the raw agricultural commodities 
grass forage, hay and seed screenings and liver and kidney of cattle, 
goats, hogs, horses, and sheep. An expiration date of June 21, 1991, 
was imposed for the tolerances. The interim tolerances were established 
based upon the condition that data be submitted to the Agency to fully 
support permanent tolerances for these commodities. Available data were 
insufficient to completely characterize the metabolism of the compound 
in ruminants, and residue data were inadequate due to insufficient 
geographic distribution and grass species representation.
    Data were submitted in response to the conditions of the interim 
tolerances within the required time imposed. However, review of these 
data indicated that the data did not reflect use of the chemical 
according to label use direction, and the data were considered to be 
inadequate. The reasons for the inadequacies in the submitted data were 
not under the control of the company but a result of excessively heavy 
rainfall during the grass growing season. Label directions pertaining 
to both the application interval and the prescribed preharvest interval 
could not be followed.
    Subsequently, EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal 
Register of July 1, 1991 (56 FR 29900), which announced that the 
tolerances described above were extended from June 21, 1991, to June 
21, 1993.
    A notice of filing to establish tolerance levels in or on grass 
seed screenings at 70 ppm, grass straw at 40 ppm, and grass forage at 
2.0 ppm was published in the Federal Register of May 15, 1991 (56 FR 
22428). The Agency did not receive any objections in response to this 
notice. On January 14, 1993, Ciba-Geigy proposed revisions to the 
earlier published tolerances to include 60 ppm for grass seed 
screenings, 40 ppm for grass straw, and 0.5 ppm for grass forage. These 
revised tolerance levels are based on the most recent residue data 
submitted and are intended to avoid any possible over-tolerance 
residues in the affected commodities.
    The data submitted in the petition and other relevant materials 
have been evaluated. The data considered include the following.
    1. Plant and animal metabolism studies.
    2. Residue data for crop and livestock commodities.
    3. Two enforcement methodologies and multiresidue method testing 
data.
    4. A rat oral lethal dose (LD50) of 1,517 milligrams/kilogram 
(mg/kg) of body weight.
    5. A 90-day rat feeding study with a no-observable-effect level 
(NOEL) of 12 mg/kg/day.
    6. A 90-day dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.
    7. A rabbit developmental toxicity study with a maternal NOEL of 
100 mg/kg/day and a developmental toxicity NOEL of greater than 400 mg/
kg/day (highest dose tested (HDT)).
    8. A rat teratology study with a maternal toxicity NOEL of 30 mg/
kg/day and a developmental toxicity NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day.
    9. A two-generation rat reproduction study with a reproductive NOEL 
of 125 mg/kg/day (HDT) and a developmental toxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg/
day.
    10. A 1-year dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.
    11. A 2-year rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with a NOEL 
of 5 mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic potential under the conditions of 
the study up to and including approximately 125 mg/kg, the highest dose 
tested.
    12. A 2-year mouse chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with a 
NOEL of 15 mg/kg/day and with a statistically significant increase in 
combined adenomas and carcinomas of the liver in male mice at 
approximately 375 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
    13. Ames test with and without activation, negative.
    14. A mouse dominant-lethal assay, negative.
    15. Chinese hamster nucleus anomaly, negative.
    16. Cell transformation assay, negative.
    Ciba-Geigy submitted information which resolved the previously 
outstanding concerns about the nature of the residue in ruminants, an 
explanation of recovery calculations, and an explanation of the crop 
field trial protocol. Data gaps exist concerning dosing in the mouse 
carcinogenicity study. These data requirements were required under 
reregistration, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
    As part of EPA's evaluation of potential human health risks, 
propiconazole has been the subject of five Peer Reviews and one 
Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting.
    Propiconazole was originally evaluated by the Peer Review Committee 
on January 15, 1987, and classified as a Group C (possible human) 
carcinogen with a recommendation made for the quantification of 
estimated potential human risk using a linearized low-dose 
extrapolation. The method resulted in the establishment of a Q* of 
7.9 X 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1.
    The Peer Review Committee's decision was presented to the FIFRA 
Scientific Advisory Panel on March 2, 1988. The Panel did not concur 
with the committee's overall assessment of the weight-of-evidence on 
the carcinogenicity of propiconazole. The Panel recommended placing the 
chemical in Group D, indicating that the Group C classification was 
based on minimal evidence. The Panel's determination that EPA's Group C 
classification was based on minimal evidence was due to the fact that 
the incidence of liver tumors in male mice only occurred when the mice 
were given an excessive chemical dose.
    In the second, third, and fourth Peer Reviews that followed, the 
Peer Review Committee considered recommendations of the SAP as well as 
rebuttals by the registrant. Its conclusion, however, that 
propiconazole should be classified as a Group C carcinogen with a 
quantification of potential human risk remained unchanged.
    As part of a fifth Peer Review, EPA considered additional 
information provided by the registrant in support of the registrant's 
argument that the high dose was excessively toxic in the mouse 
carcinogenicity study. It further argued that the data from the high 
dose (2,500 ppm) should not be included in the evaluation of 
carcinogenic potential of propiconazole. In support of these arguments, 
the registrant provided two subchronic oral toxicity studies in mice. 
Ciba-Geigy also provided a reread of the pathology slides from a mouse 
oncogenicity study which it felt indicated sufficient concurrent liver 
toxicity at 2,500 ppm to document that this dose was excessive. These 
findings were not present in the original pathology report. Owing to 
the inconsistency in Ciba-Geigy's report and the original report, the 
Agency requested that an independent (third) evaluation of the 
pathology slides be made to determine if the pathology reported could 
be confirmed. The results of this (third) pathology evaluation were 
used in the fifth Peer Review in place of data resulting from the 
earlier evaluations provided by Ciba-Geigy.
    The Peer Review Committee considered the following facts regarding 
the toxicology data on propiconazole in a weight-of-evidence 
determination of carcinogenic potential:
    1. Increased numbers of adenomas (increased trend and pairwise 
comparison) were found in the livers of male CD1 mice given 2,500 ppm 
of propiconazole in the diet.
    2. The treated animals had earlier fatalities than the controls.
    3. The numbers of carcinomas were increased (trend only) in male 
mice only at the 2,500 ppm dose level. Tumors were not significantly 
increased at the 500 ppm dose level. Adenomas observed in the treated 
animals were larger and more numerous than those in controls; however, 
the tumor type (adenoma) was the same.
    4. No excessive number of tumors was found in female mice.
    5. In a rat study conducted with acceptable doses of propiconazole, 
no excessive numbers of tumors were found.
    The Peer Review Committee determined, based on the additional 
information submitted by Ciba-Geigy from two 90-day subchronic studies 
in mice that the 2,500-ppm dose used in the 2-year chronic study 
exceeded the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on the endpoint of 
hepatic necrosis, and the 500-ppm dose used in the chronic study was 
inadequate to assess the carcinogenicity of propiconazole. Based on the 
third pathology evaluation of the chronic study, the Peer Review 
Committee disagreed with Ciba-Geigy's argument that the study showed 
excessive toxicity at the 2,500 ppm-dose. However, the Peer Review 
Committee concluded that the 90-day subchronic studies are a better 
measure of what would be an MTD.
    Based upon these findings, the Peer Review Committee agreed that 
the classification for propiconazole should remain a Group C (possible 
human) carcinogen and recommended against the previously used Q* 
(viz. 0.079) for risk assessment purposes. For the purpose of risk 
characterization the Peer Review Committee recommended that the 
reference dose (RfD) approach should be used for quantification of 
human risk. This decision was based on the disqualification of the high 
dose (2,500 ppm), making the data inappropriate for the calculation of 
Q*. Because the middle dose (500 ppm) was not considered 
sufficiently high enough for assessing the carcinogenetic potential of 
propiconazole, EPA has requested an additional mouse study at 
intermediate dose levels in male mice only. EPA does not expect that 
these data will significantly change the above cancer assessment that 
propiconazole poses a negligible cancer risk to humans.
    The reference dose (RfD) for propiconazole is 0.013 mg/kg/day, 
based on a no-observable-effect level (NOEL) of 1.25 mg/kg/day and an 
uncertainty factor of 100. The NOEL is taken from a 1-year feeding 
study in dogs which demonstrated as an effect irritation of the stomach 
in males.
    The Agency has evaluated dietary exposure to the fungicide residues 
based on the proposed tolerances and the commodities which have 
established tolerances using data on anticipated residues and percent 
crop treated data. The livestock burden was calculated using 
anticipated residues in feed items multiplied by the expected percent 
contribution to the diet. This dietary burden was then compared with 
available data from feeding studies to determine anticipated residues 
in meat and milk. Based on current registered uses of this chemical 
only 4 percent of the RfD is being utilized for the general U.S. 
population. The tolerances are expected to elicit only a minor increase 
in the percent utilization of the RfD for the general U.S. population. 
The most highly exposed subgroups, nursing and nonnursing infants < 1 
year, have Anticipated Residue Contributions (ARCs) from all published 
tolerances of 1.9 X 10-3 and 3.7 X 10-3 mg/kg bwt/day. These 
ARCs represent 15% and 28% of the Reference Dose for these subgroups, 
respectively.
    The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately 
understood, and adequate analytical methods (gas chromatography) are 
available for enforcement purposes. Because of the long lead time for 
establishing these tolerances and food additive regulations to 
publication of the enforcement methodology in the Pesticide Analytical 
Manual, Vol. II, the analytical methodology is being made available in 
the interim to anyone interested in pesticide enforcement when 
requested from: Calvin Furlow, Public Information Branch, Field 
Operations Division (7506C), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1128C, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-5232.
    The pesticide is considered useful for the purpose for which the 
tolerances are being sought. For the reasons described above, the 
Agency is establishing tolerances for residues of 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole 
and its metabolites, determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and 
expressed as parent compound, in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities: grass forage, 0.5 ppm; grass hay (straw), 40 ppm; grass 
seed screenings, 60 ppm; kidney and liver of cattle, goats, hogs, 
horses, and sheep, 2.0 ppm.
    Based on the above information the Agency concludes that the 
tolerances will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerances 
are proposed as set forth below.
    Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file 
written objections with the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above 
(40 CFR 178.20). The objections submitted must specify the provisions 
of the regulation deemed objectionable and the grounds for the 
objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the 
fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the 
objections must include a statement of the factual issue(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) 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 issue(s) in the manner sought by the 
requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 
178.32).
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator 
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or food 
additive regulations or raising tolerance levels or food additive 
regulations or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements do 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A certification statement to this effect was published in the 
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (40 FR 24950).
    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the 
requirements of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 28, 1994.

Douglas D. Campt,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

    2. In Sec. 180.434, by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:


Sec. 180.434   1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) Tolerances are established for residues of 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole 
and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and 
expressed as parent compound, in or on the following raw agricultural 
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per 
                         Commodity                             million  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apricots...................................................          1.0
Bananas....................................................          0.2
Barley, grain..............................................          0.1
Barley, straw..............................................          1.5
Cattle, fat................................................          0.1
Cattle, kidney.............................................          2.0
Cattle, liver..............................................          2.0
Cattle, meat...............................................          0.1
Cattle, mbyp (except kidney and liver).....................          0.1
Celery.....................................................          5.0
Eggs.......................................................          0.1
Goats, fat.................................................          0.1
Goats, kidney..............................................          2.0
Goats, liver...............................................          2.0
Goats, meat................................................          0.1
Goats, mbyp (except kidney and liver)......................          0.1
Grass, forage..............................................          0.5
Grass, hay (straw).........................................           40
Grass, seed screenings.....................................           60
Hogs, fat..................................................          0.1
Hogs, kidney...............................................          2.0
Hogs, liver................................................          2.0
Hogs meat..................................................          0.1
Hogs, mbyp (except kidney and liver).......................          0.1
Horses, fat................................................          0.1
Horses, kidney.............................................          2.0
Horses, liver..............................................          2.0
Horses, meat...............................................          0.1
Horses, mbyp (except kidney and liver).....................          0.1
Milk.......................................................         0.05
Nectarines.................................................          1.0
Peaches....................................................          1.0
Pecans.....................................................          0.1
Plums......................................................          1.0
Poultry, fat...............................................          0.1
Poultry, kidney............................................          0.2
Poultry, liver.............................................          0.2
Poultry, meat..............................................          0.1
Poultry, mbyp (except kidney and liver)....................          0.1
Prunes, fresh..............................................          1.0
Rice, grain................................................          0.1
Rice, straw................................................          3.0
Rye, grain.................................................          0.1
Rye, straw.................................................          1.5
Sheep, fat.................................................          0.1
Sheep, kidney..............................................          2.0
Sheep, liver...............................................          2.0
Sheep, meat................................................          0.1
Sheep, mbyp (except kidney and liver)......................          0.1
Wheat, grain...............................................          0.1
Wheat, straw...............................................          1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

*      *      *      *      *

[FR Doc. 94-3761 Filed 2-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F