[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58135-58140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29020]



[[Page 58135]]

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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300441; FRL-5572-9]
RIN 2070-AB78


Propiconazole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for 
combined residues of the fungicide propiconazole in or on the raw 
agricultural commodity sorghum in connection with EPA's granting of an 
emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act authorizing use of propiconazole on 
sorghum in Texas. This regulation establishes maximum permissible 
levels for residues of propiconazole in this food pursuant to section 
408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by 
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The tolerances will expire and 
be revoked automatically without further action by EPA on October 31, 
1998.

DATES: This regulation becomes effective November 13, 1996. This 
regulation expires and is revoked automatically without further action 
by EPA on October 31, 1998. Objections and requests for hearings must 
be received by EPA on or before January 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the 
docket control number, [OPP-300441], must be submitted to: Hearing 
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing 
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: 
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), 
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and 
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk identified by the 
document control number, [OPP-300441], must also be submitted to: 
Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring a copy of 
objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
    A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing 
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail 
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and 
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and 
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file 
format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing 
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number 
[OPP-300441]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be 
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing 
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Stephen Schaible, 
Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and 
e-mail address: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8337, e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on its own initiative, pursuant to 
section 408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing tolerances for 
residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-
propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on grain 
sorghum at 0.1 part per million (ppm) and grain sorghum stover at 1.5 
ppm. These tolerances will expire and be revoked automatically without 
further action by EPA on October 31, 1998.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170) 
was signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA amends both the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et 
seq. The FQPA amendments went into effect immediately. Among other 
things, FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA pesticide tolerance-setting 
activities under a new section 408 with a new safety standard and new 
procedures.
    New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance 
(the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only 
if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) 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, but does not include 
occupational exposure. Section 408(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. . . .'' Section 408(b)(2)(D) specifies factors EPA is to 
consider in establishing a tolerance. Section 408(b)(3) requires EPA to 
determine that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring 
levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the 
tolerance be set at a level at or above the limit of detection of the 
designated method. Section 408(b)(4) requires EPA to determine whether 
a maximum residue level has been established for the pesticide chemical 
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. If so, and EPA does not propose 
to adopt that level, EPA must publish for public comment a notice 
explaining the reasons for departing from the Codex level. Section 
408(c) governs EPA's establishment of exemptions from the requirement 
for a tolerance using the same safety standard as section 408(B)(2)(A) 
and incorporating the provisions of section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D).
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State 
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency 
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This provision was not 
amended by FQPA. EPA has established regulations governing such 
emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166. Generally, these regulations 
allow a State or Federal agency to apply for an exemption to allow use 
of a pesticide for which that pesticide is not registered to alleviate 
an emergency condition. The regulations set forth information 
requirements, procedures, and standards for EPA's approval or denial of 
such exemptions.
    Prior to FQPA, when EPA granted an emergency exemption under 
section 18 in connection with use of a pesticide that could result in 
residues of the pesticide chemical in or on food, EPA did not establish 
a tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance under 
FFDCA. Rather, EPA advised the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of 
the emergency exemption and of the level of residues that EPA concluded 
would be present in or on affected foods as a result of the

[[Page 58136]]

emergency use. However, new section 408(l)(6) requires EPA to establish 
a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a 
tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from 
the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA 
under section 18 of FIFRA. Section 408(l)(6) also requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations by August 3, 1997, governing the establishment 
of tolerances and exemptions under section 408(l)(6) and requires that 
the regulations be consistent with section 408(b)(2) and (c)(2) and 
FIFRA section 18.
    Section 408(e) gives EPA general authority to establish tolerances 
and exemptions from the requirement for a tolerance through notice and 
comment rulemaking procedures upon EPA's initiative. Section 408(l)(6) 
allows EPA to establish tolerances or exemptions from the requirement 
for a tolerance, in connection with EPA's granting of FIFRA section 18 
emergency exemptions, without providing notice or a period for public 
comment. Thus, consistent with the need to act expeditiously on 
requests for emergency exemptions under FIFRA, EPA can establish such 
tolerances or exemptions under the authority of section 408(e) and 
(l)(6) without notice and comment rulemaking. The other procedures set 
out in section 408(e) and (g) are applicable to these tolerances and 
exemptions. Tolerances and exemptions issued under section 408(l)(6) 
must be consistent with the safety standards in section 408(b)(2) and 
(c)(2), respectively, that are applicable to all tolerances and 
exemptions under section 408, and with FIFRA section 18. Section 
408(l)(6) specifies that such tolerances and exemptions must have an 
expiration date but does not specify how EPA is to set such an 
expiration date.
    In light of FQPA, EPA is engaged in an intensive process, including 
consultation with registrants, States, and other interested 
stakeholders, to make decisions on the new policies and procedures that 
will be appropriate as a result of enactment of FQPA. This process will 
generally delay the review of food use applications, particularly those 
involving exposure to children. However, recognizing the importance of 
FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions and their time sensitive nature, 
EPA will continue to process section 18 applications for food uses 
which clearly are emergencies and which clearly are consistent with the 
new FFDCA section 408 safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. EPA 
will issue a notice in the Federal Register soon summarizing the 
requirements of FQPA, indicating how EPA intends to meet those 
requirements, and describing actions necessary to assure that EPA 
complies with the law. EPA intends to promulgate the procedural rule 
required under section 408(l)(6) by August 3, 1997, but EPA also 
intends to continue to grant appropriate section 18 emergency 
exemptions and issue the associated tolerances and exemptions in the 
interim pending promulgation of that rule. EPA also intends to issue 
interim guidance to States and others on how EPA will implement section 
18 of FIFRA and section 408(l)(6) in the near future.
    EPA intends to address how it will provide an expiration date for 
section 408(l)(6) tolerances and exemptions in the general procedural 
rule to be promulgated by August 3, 1997. In the interim, EPA has 
decided to proceed as follows. Section 408(l)(5) specifies that, if a 
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for a 
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food has been revoked under 
section 408, food containing the residue is not unsafe (and thus 
subject to action by FDA as ``adulterated'') if ``the residue is 
present as the result of an application or use of a pesticide at a time 
and in a manner that was lawful'' under FIFRA and ``the residue does 
not exceed a level that was authorized at the time of that application 
or use to be present on the food under a tolerance. . . .'' Taking 
section 408(l)(5) and (6) together, EPA has concluded that the best way 
to effect an ``expiration date'' during this interim period for a 
tolerance or exemption established in connection with EPA's grant of a 
FIFRA section 18 emergency exemption is to specify that the tolerance 
or exemption will expire and be revoked automatically, without further 
action by EPA, as of a specified date. That date will generally be 
approximately 1 year from the date of issuance of the emergency 
exemption. Under section 408(l)(5), food that contains residues of the 
pesticide chemical as a result of lawful use under the terms of the 
section 18 emergency exemption, and at levels that are authorized at 
the time of that application or use under the tolerance or exemption 
that was established under section 408(l)(6) in connection with the 
section 18 action, would remain lawful after the tolerance or exemption 
is automatically revoked. EPA believes that handling the section 18-
related tolerances and exemptions in this manner will allow EPA to 
respond promptly to emergency conditions during this interim period and 
will ensure that food containing pesticide residues as a result of use 
under an emergency exemption will not be considered ``adulterated.''
    In deciding to continue to act on section 18 emergency exemptions 
and to issue the associated tolerances and exemptions early in the 
process of FQPA implementation, EPA recognizes that it will be 
necessary to make decisions about the new FFDCA section 408, including 
the new safety standard. In establishing section 18-related tolerances 
and exemptions during this interim period before EPA issues the section 
408(l)(6) procedural regulation and before EPA makes its broad policy 
decisions concerning the interpretation and implementation of the new 
section 408, EPA does not intend to set precedents for the application 
of section 408 and the new safety standard to other tolerances and 
exemptions. Rather, these early section 18 tolerance and exemption 
decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis and will not bind EPA as 
it proceeds with further rulemaking and policy development. EPA intends 
to act on section 18-related tolerances and exemptions that clearly 
qualify under the new law.

II. Emergency Exemption for Propiconazole on Sorghum and FFDCA 
Tolerances

    On September 4, 1996, the Texas Department of Agriculture availed 
of itself the authority to declare the existence of a crisis situation 
within the state, thereby authorizing use under FIFRA section 18 of 
propiconazole on sorghum for control of northern leaf blight. Texas 
stated that unusually wet weather conditions this summer have resulted 
in an increase of this disease above normally occurring levels. It is 
estimated that as much as 90% of all the world's grain sorghum grown 
for seed production is grown in the requested site of this section 18 
application. Due to the high market prices for grain sorghum, acreage 
has increased this last year and reserves of certified seed for 
planting have been exhausted. If northern leaf blight significantly 
reduces yield and seed quality of the sorghum grown for seed in this 
area, there may not be enough available seed for planting in the 1997 
season. This could result in an economic disaster affecting grain 
sorghum producers everywhere.
    As part of its assessment of this crisis declaration, EPA assessed 
the potential risks presented by residues of propiconazole in or on 
sorghum. In doing so, EPA considered the new safety standard in FFDCA 
section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided to grant the section 18

[[Page 58137]]

exemptions only after concluding that the necessary tolerances under 
FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would clearly be consistent with the new safety 
standard and with FIFRA section 18. These tolerances for propiconazole 
will permit the marketing of sorghum treated in accordance with the 
provisions of the section 18 emergency exemptions. Consistent with the 
need to move quickly on the emergency exemptions and to ensure that the 
resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances 
without notice and opportunity for public comment under section 408(e) 
as provided in section 408(l)(6). Although these tolerances will expire 
and be revoked automatically without further action by EPA on October 
31, 1998, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of propiconazole not 
in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on 
sorghum after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is 
applied during the term of, and in accordance with all the conditions 
of, the emergency exemptions. EPA will take action to revoke these 
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other 
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are 
not safe.
    EPA has not made any decisions about whether propiconazole meets 
the requirements for registration under FIFRA section 3 for use on 
sorghum, or whether a permanent tolerance for propiconazole for sorghum 
would be appropriate. This action by EPA does not serve as a basis for 
registration of propiconazole by a State for special local needs under 
FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does this action serve as the basis for any 
State other than Texas to use this product on this crop under section 
18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of section 18 as 
identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the 
emergency exemptions for propiconazole, contact the Agency's 
Registration Division at the address provided above.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the 
toxicity of pesticides based primarily on toxicological studies using 
laboratory animals. These studies address many adverse health effects, 
including (but not limited to) reproductive effects, developmental 
toxicity, toxicity to the nervous system, and carcinogenicity. For many 
of these studies, a dose response relationship can be determined, which 
provides a dose that causes adverse effects (threshold effects) and 
doses causing no observed effects (the ``no-observed effect level'' or 
``NOEL'').
    Once a study has been evaluated and the observed effects have been 
determined to be threshold effects, EPA generally divides the NOEL from 
the study with the lowest NOEL by an uncertainty factor (usually 100 or 
more) to determine the Reference Dose (RfD). The RfD is a level at or 
below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose 
appreciable risks to human health. An uncertainty factor (sometimes 
called a ``safety factor'') of 100 is commonly used since it is assumed 
that people may be up to 10 times more sensitive to pesticides than the 
test animals, and that one person or subgroup of the population (such 
as infants and children) could be up to 10 times more sensitive to a 
pesticide than another. In addition, EPA assesses the potential risks 
to infants and children based on the weight of the evidence of the 
toxicology studies and determines whether an additional uncertainty 
factor is warranted. Thus, an aggregate daily exposure to a pesticide 
residue at or below the RfD (expressed as 100 percent or less of the 
RfD) is generally considered by EPA to pose a reasonable certainty of 
no harm.
    Lifetime feeding studies in two species of laboratory animals are 
conducted to screen pesticides for cancer effects. When evidence of 
increased cancer is noted in these studies, the Agency conducts a 
weight of the evidence review of all relevant toxicological data 
including short term and mutagenicity studies and structure activity 
relationship. Once a pesticide has been classified as a potential human 
carcinogen, different types of risk assessments (e.g., linear low dose 
extrapolations or margin of exposure calculation based on the 
appropriate NOEL) will be carried out based on the nature of the 
carcinogenic response and the Agency's knowledge of its mode of action.
    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 requires that 
EPA take into account available and reliable information concerning 
exposure from the pesticide residue in the food in question, residues 
in other foods for which there are tolerances, and other non-
occupational exposures, such as where residues leach into groundwater 
or surface water that is consumed as drinking water. Dietary exposure 
to residues of a pesticide in a food commodity are estimated by 
multiplying the average daily consumption of the food forms of that 
commodity by the tolerance level or the anticipated pesticide residue 
level. The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution (TMRC) is an 
estimate of the level of residues consumed daily if each food item 
contained pesticide residues equal to the tolerance. The TMRC is a 
``worst case'' estimate since it is based on the assumptions that food 
contains pesticide residues at the tolerance level and that 100 percent 
of the crop is treated by pesticides that have established tolerances. 
If the TMRC exceeds the RfD or poses a lifetime cancer risk that is 
greater than approximately one in a million, EPA attempts to derive a 
more accurate exposure estimate for the pesticide by evaluating 
additional types of information (anticipated residue data and/or 
percent of crop treated data) which show, generally, that pesticide 
residues in most foods when they are eaten are well below established 
tolerances.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of 
this action. Propiconazole is already registered by EPA for use on 
apricots, bananas, barley, celery, corn, grass, nectarines, peaches, 
peanuts, pecans, pineapple, plums, rice, rye, wheat, and wild rice (see 
40 CFR 180.434 for specific tolerances). Tolerances exist for meat, 
milk, poultry and eggs to address the potential for secondary residues 
resulting from the use of treated commodities as feed. Secondary 
residues in animal commodities from this section 18 use, resulting from 
the use of grain sorghum stover as feed, are not expected to exceed 
existing tolerances. At this time, EPA is not in possession of a 
registration application for propiconazole on sorghum. However, based 
on information submitted to the Agency, EPA has sufficient data to 
assess the hazards of propiconazole and to make a determination on 
aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a time-
limited tolerance for residues of propiconazole on grain sorghum at 0.1 
ppm and grain sorghum stover at 1.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of the 
dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing these 
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    1. Chronic toxicity. Based on the available chronic toxicity data, 
EPA has established the RfD for propiconazole at 0.013 milligrams(mg)/
kilogram(kg)/day. This RfD is based on a 1 year dog

[[Page 58138]]

feeding study with a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor 
of 100. The uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to account for inter-
species extrapolation (10) and intra-species variability (10). Mild 
irritation of the gastric mucosa was the effect observed at the lowest 
effect level (LEL) of 6.2 mg/kg/day.
    2. Acute toxicity. Agency toxicologists have recommended that the 
developmental NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day from the rat developmental toxicity 
study be used for acute dietary risk calculations. The LEL of 90 mg/kg/
day is based on the increased incidence of unossified sternebrae, 
rudimentary ribs, and shortened or absent renal papillae. The 
population of concern for this risk assessment is females 13+ years 
old.
    3. Carcinogenicity. Using its Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment published September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992), EPA has 
classified propiconazole as Group ``C'' for carcinogenicity (possible 
human carcinogen). The Cancer Peer Review Committee recommended the RfD 
approach for quantitation of human risk. Therefore, the RfD is deemed 
protective of all chronic human health effects, including cancer.

B. Aggregate Exposure

    Tolerances have been established (40 CFR 180.434) for the residues 
of propiconazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic 
acid (expressed as parent compound) in or on various raw agricultural 
commodities ranging from 0.05 ppm in milk to 60.0 ppm in grass seed 
screenings.
    1. Chronic exposure. For the purpose of assessing chronic dietary 
exposure from propiconazole, EPA assumed anticipated residue and 
percent of crop treated refinements to estimate the Anticipated Residue 
Contribution (ARC) from the proposed and existing food uses of 
propiconazole. The use of anticipated residues and/or percent of crop 
treated data for several of the existing food uses in this analysis 
results in a more refined estimate of exposure than the TMRC.
    Other potential sources of exposure of the general population to 
residues of pesticides are residues in drinking water and exposure from 
non-occupational sources. Review of terrestrial field dissipation data 
by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division indicates that 
propiconazole is persistent and leaches into groundwater (Pesticides in 
Groundwater Database (EPA 734-12-92-001, September 1992). There is no 
established Maximum Concentration Level for residues of propiconazole 
in drinking water. No drinking water health advisory levels have been 
established for propiconazole.
    The Agency does not have available data to perform a quantitative 
drinking water risk assessment for propiconazole at this time. Previous 
experience with more persistent and mobile pesticides for which there 
have been available data to perform quantitative risk assessments have 
demonstrated that drinking water exposure is typically a small 
percentage of the total exposure when compared to the total dietary 
exposure. This observation holds even for pesticides detected in wells 
and drinking water at levels nearing or exceeding established MCLs. 
Based on this experience and the OPP's best scientific judgement, EPA 
concludes that it is not likely that the potential exposure from 
residues of propiconazole in drinking water added to the current 
dietary exposure will result in an exposure which exceeds the RfD.
    Propiconazole is currently registered for residential use as a 
preservative treatment for wood and for lawn and ornamental uses. At 
this time, the Agency does not have reliable data which would allow 
quantitative incorporation of risk from these uses into a human health 
risk assessment.
    Of residential uses, EPA believes that the lawn use poses the 
greatest potential for chronic exposure. According to lawn care usage 
data, there is no reported usage by homeowners. Two sources report 
usage by lawn care operators and landscapers. Based on acres treated 
information, between 3,850 to 6,725 households are estimated to be 
potentially treated with propiconazole. This would represent between 
0.004% to 0.007% of all households nationally. This calculation does 
not include propiconazole use on golf courses.
    2. Acute exposure. In assessing acute dietary exposure for 
propiconazole, EPA assumed tolerance level residues, 100 percent crop 
treated, and individual, single-day consumption information for 
``females, 13+ years old'', the population of concern.
    EPA has not estimated non-occupational exposures other than dietary 
for propiconazole. Though the Agency acknowledges that there may be 
short-term residential or drinking water exposure scenarios, no 
acceptable reliable data to assess these potential risks are available 
at this time. Propiconazole is registered for residential uses. While 
dietary and residential scenarios could possibly occur in a single day, 
propiconazole would rarely be present on both the food eaten and the 
lawn on that single day. Even assuming this were the case, it is yet 
more unlikely that residues would be present at tolerance level on all 
food eaten that day for which propiconazole tolerances exist, as is 
assumed in the acute dietary risk analysis, and on the lawn that same 
day. Because the acute dietary exposure estimate assumes tolerance 
level residues and 100% crop treated for all crops evaluated it is a 
large over-estimate of exposure and it is considered to be protective 
of any acute exposure scenario.
    At this time, the Agency has not made a determination that 
propiconazole and other substances that may have a common mode of 
toxicity would have cumulative effects. For purposes of this tolerance 
only, the Agency is considering only the potential risks of 
propiconazole in its aggregate exposure.

C. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population

    1. Chronic risk. Based on the completeness and reliability of the 
toxicity data, EPA has concluded that dietary exposure to propiconazole 
will utilize 6% of the RfD for the U.S. population. EPA generally has 
no concern for exposures below 100 percent of the RfD. Acceptable, 
reliable data are not available to quantitatively assess risk from 
drinking water. However, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm to the U.S. population will result from 
aggregate exposure to propiconazole residues.
    2. Acute risk. For the population subgroup of concern, females 13+ 
years old, the calculated Margin Of Exposure (MOE) value is 3000. This 
MOE does not exceed the Agency's level of concern for acute dietary 
exposure.

D. Determination of Safety for Infants and Children

    In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants 
and children to residues of propiconazole, EPA considered data from 
developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a 2-year 
reproductive toxicity study in rats. The developmental toxicity studies 
are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism 
resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development. 
Reproductive toxicity studies provide information relating to effects 
from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating 
animals and data on systemic toxicity.
    Based on current toxicological data requirements, the data base for 
propiconazole relative to pre- and post-natal toxicity is complete. EPA 
notes developmental toxicity NOELs of 30 mg/kg/day in rats and 400 mg/
kg/day

[[Page 58139]]

(HDT) in rabbits. Developmental toxicity was observed in rats at 90 mg/
kg/day; these effects occurred in the presence of maternal toxicity. In 
rabbits, no developmental delays or alterations were noted; increased 
abortions were observed at the maternally toxic dose of 400 mg/kg/day. 
The developmental NOELs are more than 24- and 320-fold higher in the 
rats and rabbits, respectively, than the NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day from 
the 1-year feeding study in dogs, which is the basis of the RfD.
    In the two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat, the 
reproductive/developmental toxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day was greater 
than the parental (systemic) toxicity NOEL (<5 mg/kg/day; LDT). EPA 
notes that the NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day, for reproductive (pup) toxicity, 
was 20-fold higher than the NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day from the 1-year 
feeding study in dogs, which is the basis of the RfD. The reproductive 
(pup) LEL of 125 mg/kg/day was based on decreased offspring survival of 
second generation (F2) pups, and on decreased body weight throughout 
lactation, and an increase in the incidence of hepatic cellular 
swelling for both generations of offspring (F1 and F2 pups). Because 
these reproductive effects occurred in the presence of parental 
(systemic) toxicity, these data do not suggest an increased post-natal 
sensitivity to children and infants (that infants and children might be 
more sensitive than adults) to propiconazole exposure.
    1. Chronic risk. Based on ARC exposure estimates, EPA has concluded 
that the percentage of the RfD that will be utilized by dietary 
exposure to residues of propiconazole ranges from 8% for children 7-12 
years old, up to 20% for non-nursing infants.
    FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional 
safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects 
to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the 
data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety is 
appropriate. Based on current toxicological data requirements, the data 
base for propiconazole relative to pre- and post-natal toxicity is 
complete. As mentioned above, because reproductive effects occurred in 
the presence of parental (systemic) toxicity, these data do not suggest 
an increased post-natal sensitivity of children and infants to 
propiconazole exposure, and therefore an additional safety factor was 
not applied.
    The ARC value for the most highly exposed infant and children 
subgroup (non-nursing infants <1 year old) occupies 20 percent of the 
RfD. This calculation assumes anticipated residue and percent of crop 
treated refinements for some commodities. Acceptable, reliable data are 
not available to quantitatively assess risk to this subgroup from 
drinking water. However, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable 
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from 
aggregate exposure to propiconazole residues.
    2. Acute risk. At present, the acute dietary MOE for females 13+ 
years old is 3000. This MOE calculation was based on the developmental 
NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day from the rat study. This risk assessment assumed 
100% crop treated with tolerance level residues on all treated crops 
consumed, resulting in a significant over-estimate of dietary exposure. 
The large acute dietary MOE calculated for females 13+ years old 
provides assurance that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm for 
both females 13+ years and the pre-natal development of infants.

V. Other Considerations

    The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately 
understood for this tolerance. There are no Codex maximum residue 
levels established for residues of propiconazole on sorghum. Adequate 
enforcement methodology, GC/ECD, is available to enforce the tolerance 
expression. Analytical methodologies for the determination of 
propiconazole and its metabolites in plant and animal commodities 
(Ciba-Geigy Analytical Methods AG-454 and AG-517, respectively) have 
been successfully validated by the Agency's Analytical Chemistry 
Laboratory and have been approved for publication in PAM II for 
enforcement purposes. These methods have not as of this time appeared 
in PAM II, but a copy of the methods may be obtained from the Public 
Response and Program Resources Branch at the location listed under the 
ADDRESSES unit.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances in connection with the FIFRA section 18 
emergency exemptions are established for residues of propiconazole in 
grain sorghum at 0.1 ppm and grain sorghum stover at 1.5 ppm. These 
tolerances will expire and be automatically revoked without further 
action by EPA on October 31, 1998.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests

    The new FFDCA section 408(g) provides essentially the same process 
for persons to ``object'' to a tolerance regulation issued by EPA under 
new section 408(e) and (l)(6) as was provided in the old section 408 
and in section 409. However, the period for filing objections is 60 
days, rather than 30 days. EPA currently has procedural regulations 
which govern the submission of objections and hearing requests. These 
regulations will require some modification to reflect the new law. 
However, until those modifications can be made, EPA will continue to 
use those procedural regulations with appropriate adjustments to 
reflect the new law.
    Any person may, by January 13, 1997 file written objections to any 
aspect of this regulation (including the automatic revocation 
provision) and may also request a hearing on those objections. 
Objections and hearing requests must be filed with the Hearing Clerk, 
at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections 
and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be 
submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. 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 issues on which a hearing is requested, the 
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence 
relied upon by the requestor (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 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 in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate 
to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32). 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.

VIII. Public Docket

     A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number [OPP-300441]. A public version of this record, which does not 
include any information

[[Page 58140]]

claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is 
located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources 
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, as described above, is kept in paper form. Accordingly, in the 
event there are objections and hearing requests, EPA will transfer any 
copies of objections and hearing requests received electronically into 
printed, paper form as they are received and will place the paper 
copies in the official rulemaking record. The official rulemaking 
record is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at 
the beginning of this document.

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f), 
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that 
is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting 
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal 
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically 
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) 
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4) 
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive 
Order. Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has 
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.
    This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any 
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as 
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), 
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special 
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994).
    Because FFDCA section 408(l)(6) permits establishment of this 
regulation without a notice of proposed rulemaking, the regulatory 
flexibility analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 604(a), do not apply.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (Title II of Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847), EPA submitted 
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 General Accounting Office prior to publication of the 
rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 31, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I 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 adding a new paragraph (d) 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.

    *    *    *    *    *
    (d) Time-limited tolerances are established for residues of the 
fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in connection with use of the 
pesticide under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. The 
tolerances are specified in the following table. Each tolerance expires 
and is automatically revoked on the date specified in the table without 
further action by EPA.

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/   
            Commodity              Parts per million    revocation date 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain sorghum                     0.1                 October 31, 1998  
                                                                        
Grain sorghum stover              1.5                 October 31, 1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 96-29020 Filed 11-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F